If there's this huge pool of untapped talent out there, then there must be a huge opportunity for a new company to come in and hire them. The fact that so many startups are struggling to find good people suggests that this isn't the case.
I can only speak to #1, but dang, it's so true. I don't know what the F some companies are doing, requiring C++, Java, JavaScript and 6 other technologies (and mentioning eg ClearCase by name, WTF!). Is it that HR is deluged with irrelevant resumes, and they think that by tightening the requirements they'll get fewer? Or is it that, getting to 'wish into the void', they get a boost in vicarious self-esteem by asking for their idea of 'only the best'? (I think I've seen this once, is why this possibility occurred to me). But yeah, being conscientious I don't submit myself when I see something /required/ that I don't have. Then some recruiter will come along and say "Well, they're not so serious about that". I agree that the HR layer doesn't suit IT.
One other peeve, companies that talk like they're so special: "You'll love us, we're not like the rest, everyone sits on big red chairs here!". I don't know why that bugs me, but I'd say save it for the interview / tour. At least restrain it a bit in the job ad.
They forgot to mention the rampant age discrimination. Why would any intelligent person go into a career where you basically become unemployable at 40?
As a recent over-40, I haven't hit anything yet, and I wonder how long it'll be and how hard. Care to share your experience? It doesn't need to be an essay, just, a couple examples.
I can only say, at this late stage I wish I'd gone into some physical engineering instead, chemical or electrical, something with hard /science/. I doubt I'll get to make such a transition, or well, would find it hard to finance and might find it not worthwhile at this late stage. I suppose robotics might be an avenue to explore, that'll get big before too long.
But back to the topic, I'll take any experience you have on what to expect.
It's hard for me to come up with examples that would be relevant to you and that I can talk about, probably because it is illegal in the US (so they're careful).
When I lived in Europe I would do a lot of telephone interviews, and in general people were impressed, but invariably they would end with "We just need one more thing - we need your date of birth for our records." I'd give that and there would be no callback. Once I lied about my birth date (a friend had told me that european laws allowed that). It resulted in the first offer I got during that search.
The company I worked for (in Europe) at that time asked if they could put my age down as 39 (I was 40 at the time) on their about page.
I can't really say that my latest experience was entirely about age, but it was unpleasant. Google my name (Owen Byrne) and it will be obvious. I built a fairly prominent website. Chances are you've heard of my "co-founders." but not me.
I can only support this.
I am 43 now (european). Of course also here nobody will tell you why they did not employ you, but one thing is obvious: with 30 I wrote 2-3 applications and usually had the choice between 2-3 jobs. Nowadays I don't even get replies anymore.
One problem that I see is the relative age compared to the future collegues. With >40 you usually know a hell of a lot more than mid 20s. Unfortunately this includes the managers who are often also <30.
The best idea is indeed Tichys: gather experience, knowledge and money as long as you can and then do a startup later. This does not necessarily exclude family. At 25 we may not need so much cash but with a family in the background there should be at least one (hopefully secure) income in the background.
In the US I believe they're not allowed to ask your age in an interview (along with race, religion, IQ, sexual orientation, state of health (these last two I'm less sure of), some other things). Of course they'll know it eventually, and the number of years experience you claim on your resume would give it away, too.
So maybe "startup young" really is the wrong way to go? Would perhaps be better to earn as much money as possible as an under 40 person, and then go about startupping from 40 onwards?
I was kinda shocked back in business school to learn that the age of an entrepreneur is a significant factor in success - the older you are the more likely you are to succeed. The explanation was that you have more contacts, more experience, and more money.
That being said, there's probably no better way to increase your chances of success than failing miserably, preferably several times.
The canonical example is Ray Kroc, who took over a little company called "McDonalds" starting at age 53.
There are no hard and fast rules - just do what makes you happy. If having a family will make you happy, just do it! That's what I did, I'm 27 with 2 kids (and struggling to find time for my side projects) and it works great for me. If you want a wealthy family, then you're better off waiting, because not only do kids cost (primarily for the bigger house/apt in neighborhood with schools), they take time away from working longer to make more $$. But the right answer depends on you.
But if the goal is to have successful startups, then live cheap, start young, and try and many times as you can endure! A 40 year old who has already done 10 startups is probably a lot more likely to succeed than one who hasn't done any.
In what way do choices become limited? Financial security becomes more important, and less time is available? But are these really too impeding factors?
There probably is age discrimination against people over 40.
But, I also feel like there is age discrimination against people in their 20s. Most companies won't take a flyer on you if you don't have X years of professional experience, and its impossible to have that X number when you are in your early 20s.
And 10 years of experience people get paid twice as much as 3 yrs of experience people regardless of talent.
I wish there was a way to create a standardized hacker test.
It's a two way street. Some employees keep their heads down and don't speak up about what's broken with the system or suggest better alternatives. They give up and say "Why isn't management doing something different?" when they should be notifying management that there is a problem. If management ignores it then it's completely a management problem.
