His overall point is that if an applicant is thirty, and has more than six jobs, then therefore he’s not worthy of hiring as a full-time employee, and he won’t give your resume a second glance.
I started working professionally in technology at age 14 as a programmer and designer. I was doing government contracting at 15 at the state level, and at the federal level at age 17, working with classified documents. When I was 19, I set up the nation’s second consumer cable modem broadband service. By the time I was 20, I was working for the web design agency responsible for Nokia’s style-book.
When I was 21, I contributed to the SMS specification at Nokia, with my team writing the RTF spec (the first ringtone file formats, and the associated conversion utilities).
I’ve been laid off from major corporations including IBM, CompUSA and Nokia during the tech bust. After that period, you took work where you got it, even if the idea for the startup was a longshot or completely stupid, or you starved.
As such, I have a very long resume. Lots of job hopping. As the economy for tech settled, my resume settled. Aside from my freelance work and side projects, I’ve held two major jobs in the last five years.
In technology, though, unless you’re working for major, publicly traded corporations (and sometimes, even when you are), you’re by definition working on the bleeding edge. If there isn’t job hopping, you’re either highly lucky, or highly complacent. There’s simply no substitute in hiring for actually researching applicants rather than glancing at a resume.
Let me repeat that: you can’t just glance at a resume if you want solid new hires. You actually have to work at hiring if you want good hires to work for you.
Susters’ post and point of view is incredibly myopic, which is disheartening, given how well thought out his positions generally are.