Slashdot Mirror
Median Age At Google Is 29, Says Age Discrimination Lawsuit
dcblogs writes: The typical employee at Google is relatively young, according to a lawsuit brought by an older programmer who is alleging age discrimination. Between 2007 and 2013, Google's workforce grew from 9,500 to more than 28,000 employees, "yet as of 2013, its employees' median age was 29 years old," the lawsuit claims. That's in contrast to the median age of nearly 43 for all U.S. workers who are computer programmers, according to the lawsuit.
There is no law against outsourcing interviews to incompetent people. Exactly zero of the crappy behaviors of his interviewer sound remotely age targeted. In fact, older people are generally more patient with technologically inept folk than younger, and it seems unlikely they disqualified him for excessive patience.
As for the stats on their median age, that's the median age of the employees not the people that were hired. I hear Google tends to overwork it's employees. The older you are, the less patience you have for that crap.
If you handed out high quality stuffed unicorns to a perfectly evenly age-distributed portion of the population, you'd find after a couple years the people still in possession of said objects were disproportionately 4-9 year old girls. This is not evidence that you discriminated in any way.
Always someone else's.
Hint: not all your new hires will be cute Asian gamer chicks in wheelchairs.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Is that I can't support this lawsuit even though it would benefit "MY GROUP"
The whole Idea of group quotas is garbage. supporting them reduces you from a human being to counter for an outrage hustler. Even if your group wins you lose. You lose the concept of "INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS" you lose the right to choose the people you associate with and do business with.
If your such a hot shot coder and you have that much experience in the field why didn't you start your own business ? Google doesn't owe anyone except their shareholders and bondholders anything.
That explains your "creative" typing patterns.
Table-ized A.I.
I've learned over time that skills are only about half the factors of hiring decisions (with exceptions for high-demand specialties). Personality and "feeling" issues play the other half.
A work-place has a culture just like any village or geographical region, and if you don't fit the culture, your are likely to be turned away. Age of growing up is part of that "culture". I'm not saying it's fair, but rather that it's human nature.
Table-ized A.I.
We've got this guy coming for an interview, he's got the experience and training we asked for, in fact he's the ideal candidate, except for one thing - he's too old. He'll want a salary to match his value and he won't be a yes man. So let's interview him but make him look really inept by getting the worst person we have to do technical interviews. Then we say he want very good in the interview and it looks like we're giving all age ranges a chance.
Google is a discrimination factory, but in this case, there's a deeper problem, and its, what I'll call, the "MIT culture".
You have a bunch of people who busted their ass off to go through MIT/CMU/CalTech/Whatever, to learn all those algorithms, the computer science core, etc, and are thrown in the real world where, while VERY useful, are only a small subsets of things that matter.
Then you ask these people, who spent 4 (or 6, or more) years being drilled that the only shit that matters was what they learnt in school, and worked REALLY hard to absorb that, to interview.
What do you think will happen?
You end up with an interview process that, regardless of the actual work, the further away from school you are (ie: the older you are), the less likely you are to pass the interview, give or take people who worked as data or algorithm scientists in the recent past.
Net result: you have a very high percentage of college hire, and your lateral hires will always lean toward the younger side. Any skill that come with experience is almost never tested in interviews to counterbalance it.
What is the median age of people who are applying to Google? I suspect that many older programmers are set in their job and/or do not have the skills in the newer technology and do not apply.
I'm no Googler, nor have I interviewed, but I suspect this is more about Google's hiring methods than their hiring policies or biases. They run contests, which are essentially easter egg hunts that result in a potential interview. Who has the time and inclination to play around with hoops like that? The young, college attending, and childless nerds and hackers. They don't need to have a bias in who they hire, because they create an innate bias in who chooses to apply by putting that 'application' behind a lot of hoops and rigamarole.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
I don't want to belabor the point, but Google isn't a very good place to work. They have tons of money to spend on marketing to make their company seem like it is a good place to work. Coke has a large budget to convince you that its beverages are tasty, too. It's no different.
The best place for programmers to work is where you decide what you want to do, you can override stupid decisions made by management, and where you have a large stake in the success or failure of the company. At Google programmer happiness doesn't matter so much as ad revenue. If that one division of the company continues to do well, be prepared to do whatever stupid thing the rest of the company wants you do to.
Don't expect to have a life outside of the company, or have things like a healthy sex life. Remember that you're stuck in Silicon Valley where there are not enough available women unless you're extremely wealthy. Better have a hundred grand in the bank. Basic cost of living runs you $5,000/month, and there is always the chance of getting laid off for a few months. Seems like a bit of a scam for well educated but naive individuals to get sucked into.
Actually tech workers should get paid as much as lawyers. stop giving away the jobs to shit indian and we can get some money for all. As for older workers which I am I have banged out more code than these twits have changed socks. takes no time to learn an new bit and use it well..
if two people are equal on the resume but one has more experience who is older, and you pick the younger for "social fit" , thats open and shut lawsuit.
Kids today, want parties every Friday, free lunch and big salaries that say "director" and well frankly , you kids have not earned it. ...
Higher an older worker, we know to work, we won't spend it playing games half the day and the other half going for coffee....
Have you seen what the average lawyer makes? We do. The average lawyer doesn't even get a job out of law school these days.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Agreed. Google may or may not discriminate, but their median age is likely has a large component of self selection. I'm only 35, and I'm already at full-Murtaugh. I'm too old for that shit. I see a company with cafeterias open late, games, etc, and I see a company that wants me to spend every waking hour at work. I've been there and done that. I loved it in my early 20s, but now mid-30s me is stuck supporting the code that guy wrote. I hate that guy...
There is no evidence of age discrimination. Period. It just so happens that younger people are more likely to be competent in newer languages, fads, etc. Affirmative action is called for by whiners as an excuse to employ more people from their age/race/gender group, even when it [usually] means hiring less qualified people. Its the old "equal outcomes" plight. This is the land of equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. People vary in their competencies. The affirmative action whiners are really advocating for discriminating against the most qualified in order to get a selfish chance for themselves. Stop it.
Google is at the forefront of H1B hiring. Their executives have been part of the Cabal calling for more H1B's. The fact that they have an artificially low Median (and presumably mean) age workforce, coupled with the fact that they are actively seeking H1B's (ostensibly because they cant find American talent) speaks for itself. Google is not only engaging in age discrimination, they are actively working to undercut wages by bringing in foreign workers. Their application process itself is freakishly well engineered to weed out those persons who do not have massive amounts of free time to burn, thus limiting their applicant pool to younger people (And lower cost) people. This is not accidental.
If Google really wanted to find US talent, they could fill their ranks from within the aging US workforce that had to take early retirement because of the age discrimination, and they wouldn't even put a dent in the unemployment rate.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Actually tech workers should get paid as much as lawyers.
Tech workers, especially engineers, should get paid more than lawyers since our skills actually create value.
All you old fogies listen up. This is jot discrimination. Young people are more energetic, more eager to learn, and more likely to know the things you'd need tonhelp Google, like modern programming languages. Take your whining elsewhere.
Great example you set there. Small errors, no QA and, full of shortcuts that only someone more experienced can fix.
If I went to apply for a job at google, and didn't get the job, it probably wouldn't occur to me to sue them, especially if I felt I was so talented as to deserve a job worthy of my high skill level. I would say "They're loss" and move on to the next interview.
The last old person that my company hired (we actually hired him), threatened the company with an age discrimination lawsuit, and the company paid him a year's salary to avoid the lawsuit. It wasn't age discrimination. He was mentally unstable, he refused to obey instructions from managers, and his code was terrible.
It takes a certain kind of person to want to sue a company (without ever working for them), without considering the possibility that they may not want you for a reason other than your old age, and going through all the effort to sue this company rather than moving on and offering your amazing talents to a company that will actually appreciate you.
If I were Google, I would not be happy about being sued, but I would be relieved that he was not hired. If he were hired, no doubt Google would be sued by this person for age discrimination for not getting promotions or being fired, etc.
Who knows, maybe the person in charging of deciding to hire this person was discriminating against them based on age. But he doesn't know that, and he is probably a terrible hire because of his willingness to litigate.
I hate to suggest RTFA, but...
First, the plaintiff was contacted by a Google recruiter, so at least somebody believed that he was a good candidate. His phone interview went poorly--he was contacted by a person who had limited english skills, used a speakerphone with a poor connection (or maybe it was Google Voice) and refused to switch to the handset. He asked him to read code to him over the phone rather than using Google Docs.
I'm not sure it was discrimination, but I'd argue that the interviewer was a total jerk who had no interest in this person whatsoever. Whether that was due to age or some other reason (perhaps he had a buddy who needed a job) is unknown.
"They won't learn anything knew"
But the young ones think they already know everything, even how to spell.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
They don't pick an inept person to do the interviewing in order to filter out the expensive candidate. Instead Google has a policy that totally inept people must do the interviewing. The interviewer seems to be either chosen at random or in a round robin fashion. The intentionally choose interviewers who are from different departments or fields than the person being interviewed.
It would seem the only time such an ridiculous interview strategy could work is when you're interviewing for entry level jobs. Thus the median age is still in the junior cadet range.
That explains your "creative" typing patterns.
It's actually the meth.
"I would hire a young kid over an old person any day."
Repeat this to yourself every day for the next twenty years. You're in for a shock.
Personally, I don't think he was talking to Google; at least not directly.
He got called by a recruiter, supposedly for Google, who set up a phone interview Looking for C/C++ and Java. Fine. There's an outside chance of Java, either as an Android App developer, or for some server back end crap at a company they purchased. It's unlikely, but it's possible (in 2011, they hired people to work at Google, and then groups decided to offer them, and then you got a choice of usually one of 3 groups... you didn't know what you'd be working on at interview time, and there was no such thing as "hiring for position" unless you were net.famous).
Then he didn't get sent a Google Docs link by the interviewer. You are *always* sent a Google Docs link by the interviewer, unless you are in a city/area where Google has a facility, then you are instead brought in to use the video conferencing at the Google location.
Then he got an interviewer who barely spoke English, and wouldn't take him off speakerphone. That never happens at Google.
The interviewer was 10 minutes late to the call.
Frankly, sir, IMHO, you got played.
You just got man-in-the-middled by an Indian or other foreign person who wanted a job at Google, and got you to ghost his or her phone interview for them, with the help of a "recruiter"/"interviewer" who had you on lousy speakerphone so that they could relay your answers directly via a cell phone to the person Google was actually talking to.
Yes, this happens.
No, savvy technical people generally don't fall for it, because they get an email from Google telling you the schedule, there's a Google Doc URL sent out with an @google.com address, and if you look at the email headers in the email of the schedule, you'll see that they are probably forged, assuming you got one at all.
Congratulations on being played, Mr. Robert Heath.
"Young people are more energetic, more eager to learn, and more likely to know the things you'd need tonhelp..." ... more likely to sucked into to stupid shit - hey bub I need you 18 hours a day for the next six months. "Yes sur, should I bring my own blanket?" I love dumbfucks like you. You'll do it, you'll like it and I don't have to pay you shit. While you're at office I'll be at cottage laughing my ass off. Send your friends too asshole.
I'm not so sure here. Young kids recently seem to act like know-it-alls who hate conforming the group environment; everything you do they see as being done the wrong way as it's not the same as what they did on their last job or what their professor talked about. Older workers, or those of a certain age, had to learn by necessity to learn new tools and discard old ones on a regular basis, and ever new job they took required them to learn to adapt to the new situation.
The older workers can be molded because they have plenty of experience with being molded. The younger workers still have this idealistic vision of how everything should be done. Older workers have patience earned through experience, and it's much more common for me to see the younger workers as the ones who are easily frustrated.
The kids are the ones who only write in their preferred language in my experience, which is probably the only language they know.
Hey wait now, Google still uses old fogey languages like C, C++, Java, and assembler.
You should sue him.
A company that I contracted for had a fleet of young Cobol dev's who replaced the previously retiring workforce because upgrading the system to a new arch was too much money (at the time).
Oh, and COBOL is almost rediculously easy to learn. The big money is in knowing the business processes that those developers probably spent decade(s) mastering.
Bye!
Well, older programmers actually know how to do stuff. They've seen the paradigm shifting technologies rise and fall on a regular basis. They know what the mistakes are because they've made all of them.
Younger programmers tend to work loooong hours, because they think they'll be rewarded for it. They're handy to get all the grunt work done once the design is hammered out, though you do have to monitor what's going on so that they're not going full steam ahead in the wrong direction.
As I said, I was just offering a counter-generalization.
At my company we just fire the new grads with attitudes. All the old guys running the show have a real hard time firing (and in some cases not hiring) people if they are supporting families.
We seem to practice reverse age discrimination.
I can see the logic of the rationale you provided. It's just not the reality I see everyday.
I see young people who are very hard working and excited to gain experience from their older colleagues. I see older workers with bad attitudes that freak out when they don't feel they are given the appropriate level of respect. They are the ones acting like know-it-alls, and the code they write sucks. The code the young people write sucks too, but at least they take criticism well.
Maybe you're getting all the kids we fire.
but it is not a logical conclusion.
The conclusion is perfectly logical. Google Hires H1B visa employees in one of the largest quantities of any American company. Given that the stated purpose of H1B visas is to fill jobs that Americans cannot otherwise fill, Google is implying that there are not enough qualified American workers to fill the job openings.
As a general principle the older people get, the more experienced they become (ergo the more qualified they become). If Google were willing to do what is necessary to fill positions, then it stands to reason that they would offer more money to get more experienced programmers (ergo older ones). Instead, their demographic shows that they have fewer older more experienced programmers. This means that Google is having trouble attracting enough qualified applicants. Given Googles reputation as an excellent place to work, it is difficult to imagine that they can't get enough qualified applicants, which would include all demographics, unless they are causing older qualified applicants not to apply, or they are rejecting those applications. Given that Google has stated that they do not have enough qualified applicants and that they need to hire H1B visas, they are either lying about needing the H1B visas, they are preventing otherwise qualified older applicants from even applying for jobs, or they are discriminating by causing the application process to dissuade older applicants.
All three of those possibilities are immoral, and at least one of them is illegal...
Statistics don't lie. By itself the statistics are circumstantial. Taken in concert with other facts, the statistics are damning...
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Speaking as a Director who works directly for a CEO, I don't brown nose for shit. I might be respectful, understand business requirements, and dress somewhat better than your standard developer or admin, but I'm no politician. Just the thought of me as an actual politician makes me giggle.
Getting to be a manager was a little bit of looking out for an opportunity, putting myself forward, and working up the ranks. Yeah, I don't get to sit and code all day long, but just the coordination that I have to do and the experience I have with dealing with bullshit is worth every penny they pay me. The place I worked at before didn't even have a process for taking orders from Sales and provisioning customers. No one had actually thought of how you'd actually give someone an account. Or how to tell finance that they should, you know, start charging the customers money. Guess who does that?
Oh and that new technology you just had a nerdgasm over? Someone has to figure out how to pay for that shit. Have you ever had to get money out of a CFO? It's like they hire people who believe that every dollar bill is their precious firstborn child. You have to make proposals and budgets and graphs, and THEN they ask you if you can wait two weeks for it. And THEN they delay payment on the bill until you're on your third notice and about to be cancelled. Guess who is fucked if they make a mistake and get us shut off due to that little game of "Hide the phone line payment".
You'd think that's easy shit. It isn't. I spend more time trying to figure out how to interface my unit with other units than I do supervising my staff. Fuck, they pretty much do their own thing based on some requirements I give them. Of course, that's because I spent a fuckload of time and effort trying to hire a qualified staff who don't need me to shove my hand up their ass and puppet them through doing that job.
Yes, there are some brown nosers, especially in big companies, but in small companies, a director earns their money because you're expected to manage and do the work, and figure out how things work that you took for granted as a grunt.
Google? If they're making 29 year olds into Directors, well, they're either management geniuses or they're fucked in the long run. Technical management doesn't mean that you are alpha nerd. You're supposed to be an experienced senior manager who knows how to get shit out of executives WITHOUT the reach around. If you're a kiss-ass, you're doing it wrong and the executives will eat you for lunch.
Naw, we use C. Not a lot of kids applying who have the skills necessary to think about low level code that has to be small and efficient. We'd like more junior people I think but they're hard to find and if they're competent there's a lot of competition to snatch them up.
Then you should fire yourself immediately you bitter demanding old coot
Prior to perusing the comments on this article, I'd've thought that a post of that length, with 3 measly apostrophes, wouldn't've got any complaints for its excess of them when one wasn't used properly. Would you look at that, I've managed to squeeze six into this post. If you aren't (seven) freaking out right now, I'd (eight) say the frequency isn't (nine) you're (lol) problem.
This conversation always seems to forget that everyone who is old was young and that everyone who is young will be old. It's in young peoples interests to make sure older people are respected for what they have learned as much as it is in older peoples interests to help make sure younger people can establish careers.
What we should be criticizing is the myopic view of companies that devalue the experiences of older people to exploit the energies of younger people. It robs younger people of the opportunity to access the experiences that made older people's brains more efficient for problem solving - that is what experience is. It not only robs older people of work opportunities, it also robs them of seeing ideas built on and evolved. That denial of perspective is what holds back the evolution of ideas.
If this is true within Google then it renders their motto 'Don't be evil' hypocritical. The denial of wisdom and experience is a recipe for fragility for companies who don't have access to key knowledge at key times required for them to survive. That is why you pay more for experience, the ROI on youth.
In reality ageism is discrimination against anyone subject to the progression of time.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I'm not a young one.
And you still don't know the difference between their, there, and they're? Dunning-Kruger wants to have a talk with you - in front of the mirror :-)
It seems to be a habit of yours:
Who knows, maybe the person in charging of deciding to hire this person was discriminating against them based on age.
and
if their commitment to linux support was good, it would be possible to by most of their laptops with linux.
buy, bye, by, and here's another they're, their, there boo-boo
I would say "They're loss" and move on to the next interview.
... and the one that started this: see above for the poster who first pointed it out ...
They won't learn anything knew
knew, new, gnu.
Kind of ironic that you say
Most of the old people we hire either can't actually write any code
when you can't write, period ( these examples are from your posts in this thread in just the last 2 hours). Your technical documentation must be a real hoot! :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Most of the new grads we hire at my company turn out really well. Most of the old people we hire either can't actually write any code, or they can only write code (but only in their preferred language) and can't be bothered to learn or follow prescribed design patterns or coding standards.
Have you considered applying Occam's razor here? Maybe your hiring process sucks. Maybe the compensation and conditions you're offering simply aren't good enough to attract older developers who are any good. Are these theories more or less likely than entire generations of developers who presumably once had that enthusiasm and aptitude you seem to see in new grads mysteriously becoming incompetent and unmotivated a decade or three later?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I have a cousin who, through a series of acquisitions, now finds himself an employee of Google. He's 56 years old, and because of his hire date with his original employer, he has more years of employment than Google has existed. Which gave HR some trouble, as they had to revise some of their benefits formulas to accommodate someone that "senior". He's not the oldest Googler he's come across ... but the only guy older than him that he works with is a fellow "acquisition" employee, who came along when their company was bought.
He talks about it with good humor, but that's mostly because he's spent the last 30 years making good money and preparing carefully for retirement, so he'll be OK if he finds himself pushed to the curb ... and because he knows that he has value to HR as "proof" that Google employs people well over 40 (even though he never actually went thru their hiring process). Hell, if he ever gets let go, he says he could win the age-discrimination lawsuit in his sleep, it would be that easy. (And this was from a good Republican who generally doesn't believe in anti-discrimination laws.)
They hire people that desire the culture of hanging out intelligently?
It's more they desire the culture of hanging out indefinitely. They want people to never leave work. Companies don't give a damn if that burns out employees.
Like you I no longer live to work, I work to live. My 20s and early 30s were my 80-100 hour work weeks. That aside, I was contacted by a Google recruiter and heard the same. "You would be great for this team because of your experience". I received similar treatment interviewing at Google, and figured it could have been a series of mistakes. I was given options for a "test" and provided my options. When it came time for the interview my options were not available (those guys were all sick, on vacation, or died on Bart...). My resume is very clear on my work experiences and knowledge, yet I was not asked a single question about anything on my resume. Instead I was grilled about the ICMP for about 20 minutes, on everything from header content to available flags and forging a packet. Which is really a bizarre line of questions since I don't have "developed network products/protocols" anywhere near my resume and the position was not as a developer. The "test" only lasted a few minutes at which point the interviewer started asking me questions on a different language library.
Lastly he told me that if I was hired Google expected people to work all kinds of crazy hours. To which I answered that while I am at work I work very hard, but I don't work more than I am salaried for without good justification and compensation. "You probably won't fit in".
While I could have been setup to fail due to my age, the interviewer was at least up front about Google's expectation. I'm very employable, so won't be risking that by joining any class action lawsuits
I am a tech "worker". I prefer the term "software writer", but who cares.
Tech workers are often prone to self-serving statements like the one you just made. If you wish people to value your position more, it won't become valued by dragging other professions (even the much loved "target" of lawyers) through the dirt.
If you think a lawyer's skills do not create value, then just wait until someone comes into your company and rips it off. Then it becomes easy to see the lawyers creating value by at least attempting to preserve the value that was there.
An example (I'm an older programmer)
I just gave a presentation to a team that's in trouble, but they can't see it yet. It was about the fundamentals of how to mature their group's testing practices. Fifteen minutes into it, they got bored with the slides and asked if I could show off our project (which implemented the objectives in the slides).
So I fired up 'vi' because I forgot to have a fully environment installed on my laptop, made a change, committed it, walked it though code review, merged it with the mainline, and watched it build, be automated tested at the unit, integration, component, system, and acceptance levels. The most popular response I got back from my post-presentation questionnaires on "The challenges of implementing these ideas" was that they "didn't have good tools like I had".
Those people (not all, but some) completely missed the point. The goals could be achieved with the tools they had in place; but, before they can use their older set of tools to achieve the same results, they need to 1) Not disregard the important parts (the theory) and 2) Not think that a tool is the answer.
One can use a hammer to hang a picture or build a house. I'd be inclined to worry about a person who complains that their hammer couldn't do either because they have a house building only hammer.
Give me 'make', 'm4', and 'tcl', and I still could build what I showed off today. Not because that's the right set of tools to do the job, but because if you have developed the experience, you realize that the the tools aren't the handicap.
I see a company with cafeterias open late, games, etc, and I see a company that wants me to spend every waking hour at work.
Actually, Google doesn't. The cafes are open late because people work all sorts of odd schedules. Some don't come in until noon and leave late, some show up early and take off at 3. In the Mountain View office there's a lot of both of those patterns, mainly because traffic sucks so bad that people try to schedule around it.
As for the games and stuff, that's just recognition that taking a break is good for think time. Massage services, espresso bars, etc., are all parts of that.
I've been a Google software engineer for four years and there has never been the slightest pressure on me to work long hours. Not only has no one ever asked me to, no one has hinted, implied or anything else, and on a few occasions when I chose to work late my old manager noticed and told me to go home. I'm not saying every manager is that way, in fact I don't think my current manager would ever say anything to me about my work schedule, whether I worked around the clock or hardly at all. Eventually my lack of productivity would provoke a response, though it would probably take a quarter or so.
Now, there are people who work a lot of hours at Google. Mostly young people who don't have anything better to do and are really excited about what they're building. And mostly no one tells them not to. But there are plenty of others who work normal hours, and no one says anything to them, either.
BTW, I'm 45.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Legal skills just move money around.
If non-technical guys like Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn played in "The Internship" at ages 46 and 45 respectively can get jobs at Google, what's wrong with the rest of these no-talent old farts? This smells like envy, if you ask this faithful movie-goer.
Seastead this.
No. Legal skills take money from place A and move it to place B. Lawyers don't create value. Engineers do.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It's not marketing, it's the truth. I worked there for nearly 8 years. By the way, I'm 31.
Google is (a) a very desirable employer and (b) hires people from all over the world. The combination of these things mean that many, many developers, especially younger ones that move from poorer countries, get relocated across borders. They arrive in a new country where they don't speak the language, quite often with a girlfriend or wife in tow, and frankly many of them don't quite dive into making friends and socialising as much as perhaps would be a good idea. Combination of new city, no social life + interesting work == lots of people working odd hours. Eventually they do settle down and the hours get more normal.
But programming has always been this way, hasn't it? I never heard a lawyer say, "I've been doing lawyering since I was 8 years old" but it happens in software all the time. It's a sort of work that many people just enjoy doing, and do it as a hobby as well as a job.
Sweeping generalizations about age groups are what lead to age discrimination. I know you don't mean to be actively discriminate against the young with your post, but it sets up a frame of mine in which it happens. It's exactly the same thing as is alleged in many discrimination suits by older people, where the mindset is that their generate are has-beens who are stuck in their ways and unable to adapt or fit in.
I've known good and bad programmers of all ages. Age does not correlate with quality, it's just a bias people use to explain and re-enforce their perceptions when they don't have objective data. Data is not the plural of anecdote.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well, now that ROSS has entered the workforce, things are about to get a lot worse for the majority of lawyers employed. It will thin the ranks. In fact, the further it goes up the chain, the more paranoid politicians will become. If there was ever the impetus to legislate AI from employment opportunities, ROSS could give them all the ammo they need.
Life is not for the lazy.
I'm a Java developer. I have a decade of experience doing that. Why are all these companies hiring .Net developers not even giving me a chance at an interview?
Probably because they're idiots?
Ooh sorry we wanted a carpenters with five years experience in American white oak. I see you've only got experience in American red oak and *European* oak (and a selection of other hardwoowd and some softwoods) too.
You're probably not a good fir for the company.
Companies that obsess over overly specific skillsets instead of overall quality are hamstringing themselves seriously.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Lot's of commenters with posting as "anonymous coward". Hoping for a job at Google someday?
An Indian friend was telling me that Indians are doing this en-masse to get jobs. They are also substituting for each other in video interviews.