Ask HN: 40+ Career Advice? - <AUTHOR> So many recruiters are looking for senior developers like me to join their early stage team and to do development and assist junior devs via knowledge sharing.
But I don't want to exhaust myself helping other people. I want to do things for myself and for a client. I would prefer to get a more rewarding position:
* Not in an open office * Possibility to work from home * Android + Spring Boot * Not so many meetings * No incompetent managers who induce stress to people * Colleagues who are calm and quiet but enough sociable to perhaps grab an occasional beer and have a nice chat
Do these kinds of jobs exist? Do you suggest I go solo and take on development jobs myself? I think part of the problem is that many companies around expect the workplace to have open office and so on and many cannot provide me with a work environment I can thrive in.
I'm 40 years old without any children and would like to be able to not be stressed and work overtime and solve hard technical problems and move towards a more rewarding job where it's not so stressful but interesting creatively and my work is valued so that I can balance well with my life.
Do you understand my question? I don't want to take on roles that people want me to do but find jobs (by your insightful ideas) that suit me better. Thank  you! <comment><USER6> I'm in my mid forties and I've been working for pay in tech since '96, so this puts me in a similar demographic like yours.

I think you're being too picky and greatly limiting your job choices. I miss the days of private offices, but those days are over in any moderately cutting edge companies. You'll find offices in Cisco, Juniper and Oracle, you'll find open seating at Google, Facebook, and startups. WFH friendly companies generally expect you to become productive before they're ok with fill time WFH. As a senior engineer, you are expected to mentor junior engineers and participate in broad design and architecture, that's much harder to do from home. Unlike you, I have kids, which puts severe constraints on my time, and I find myself WFH quite a bit, but my company is ok with it, since I'm productive. Open offices suck, I agree, but find a coping mechanism - for me it's a noise canceling headset, a pile of music on my phone, and a very careful arrangement of whiteboards to pretend I have some privacy. I'm not doing anything strange at work, just the activity around me is distracting. It's sad, but for the time being, private offices are extinct.

As a senior engineer, you also spend more time in meetings - precisely because that's how you disseminate knowledge to other people in a corporate environment.

If you've been working for a while, you probably have deep expertise in some area, find companies which need that and are willing to pay for it. No strange startups with low salary and high equity, etc. I don't know about you, but over my career, I've made hundreds of professional connections. It's difficult to walk in the front door with grey hair for a fair interview, since in our field, people view us older folks as has-beens. Call in those former connections.

Anyhow, good luck! Try not to get stuck being too curmudgeonly.

<comment><USER7> Hello!

I am currently 36, working for pay as a software developer since 1999, father of three -- and I would like to reiterate oppositelock's comment: "you're being too picky"

I totally understand your frustration with all this "helping other people" buzz but... Ultimately this is the job to be done by you right now :)

About the entire open-office culture, since I am a manager I have been granted a private office - which I have immediately converted into a shared quiet space to work for whoever might need it. I actually _prefer_ to be where things get done.

I really think the problem lies in the engineering culture and maturity of the teams you had the chance to work with. Keep on looking!

Best,

<comment><USER8> You didnt go to college?

<comment><USER9> Plenty of talented software engineers didn't go to college. I've got a few close friends who fall into this category. I went to college for something entirely unrelated and self-taught with side projects years after. Not sure where you are, but I've found the industry in the US (my experience is mostly NYC/SF specifically) incredibly receptive to people who are very smart, hardworking, and humble regardless of pedigree.

Curious what your experience is that makes you skeptical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> When I was 30, people just looked at me and assumed I was a competent software engineer because I looked exactly like a very senior software engineer, and I presented myself in that way. But I was very junior, having made a recent career change. Yet they paid me like a prince, and I rose so rapidly through the ranks that I became an executive.

Now I'm 50, and my company folded and I went to the curb, and am looking for a new job. Now I don't look like that bright young engineer. I look like an old has-been who is stuck in a rut and stuck in my ways. Except I'm not. I'm highly experienced, an innovator, get along great with many kinds of people and can contribute at all levels of an org, from production support to development to architecture to the boardroom.

But the first question I get asked on interviews is "Are you technical?"

My over-40 career advice for you is to remember what they do to engineers that are over 40.

<comment><USER11> That's insanity. What is wrong with this industry????

<comment><USER12> Being ageist cost nothing and is hard to prove.

<comment><USER13> Of course it does cost something. If there is unjustified ageism, then the market value of older people is _lower_ than it should be. In this case, hiring a younger person will cost you more if adjusted for output.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A - private office

B - <USER2>

C - <USER3>

D - few meetings

E - good management

F - mellow, friendly (probably older) colleagues

G - no training of underlings

H - low stress

I - interesting work

Independent contracting/consulting satisfies A and B; some subset satisfies C; D it likely fails; E is orthogonal or maybe slightly negatively correlated (some portion of those who hire consultants, have to do so _because_ they're bad managers); F doubtful; G yes (just don't sign a scope-of-work that includes it); H probably not, unless you're itching to wear more hats including, especially, sales; I yes

Working at any of the big trendy companies: A no way; B maybe; C sure; D no; E orthogonal/tossup; F no; G probably unavoidable; H doubtful; I maybe

Working at a startup: A no way; B maybe; C sure; D likely; E tossup; F no; G no; H no; I maybe

Working at a boring, big, established company that surfs on a river of money: A possible but receding; B possible; C sure, for some subset; D you're out of luck; E, as always, a tossup (picking up a pattern?); F more likely; G possible but it depends; H yes; I probably not, but it depends more on you and what you find interesting.

Anybody else think of any work paradigms that satisfy more of these conditions?

<comment><USER15> Reading variables is hard.

<comment><USER16> I think it's a learned skill. Reading academic papers is impossible without it. Perhaps a happy medium would be two or three letter acronyms.

<comment><USER17> And so much of reading variables is about context.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The bigger companies I worked for in the Bay Area were more like this than the smaller.

As a late 40-something who started his own marketing & technology agency to get out of the "working for others and their bad boss habits" conundrum, the one thing I can strongly recommend is that you have to interview companies as carefully as they interview you.

I've directly hired more than 100 people in my career, and it was always notable to me how many people show up for an interview, answer questions, ask just a few, and then accept a position in a company without any qualifying process of their own. People take jobs that are offered to them, more or less.

<comment><USER19> I'm a 44 year old senior engineer, and the one thing I've noticed is that bad managers are almost universal in technology. I've had about 20 managers in my career and I can count only 2-3 that I would consider great managers, the rest ranged from mediocre to incredibly incompetent.

This, to me, is the #1 reason I gain much more satisfaction from doing consulting work on the side: I'm my own manager, and I can make decisions that are right for the customer, instead of getting told by an incompetent manager that he knows better than I do, which leads to bad outcomes for myself and the client.

I'm much more selective as well, and no longer tolerate bad leadership. This is the biggest challenge with finding the right job. I've discovered that almost 90% of your job satisfaction depends on having a good manager. You can actually enjoy a job that doesn't pay as well, and doesn't have as much meaningful work, if you have a great manager, because they can actually help you to make the work meaningful in the right context.

<comment><USER20> Why do think is the reason that most managers in technology are bad? I tend to think of management as abstraction. A mid-level manager provides an abstraction of the work for high-level management and at the same time is provided an abstraction of the work by the low-level managers or engineers. Assuming that my understanding is right, are these abstractions leaky? is the lack of technical knowledge the reason why managers are bad?

<comment><USER21> The thing with managers is that they have to understand the work being done well enough to make decisions about direction and resource allocation, while also having tons of people skills. In tech you either get a manager who doesn't have a technical background and just doesn't understand the thing they're managing, or you get someone with a technical background who stereotypically doesn't have the necessary people skills to manage well (it's a stereotype, but I find it to also be true, including about myself).

Part of it is also that as a programmer you learn to micromanage what the computer is doing, to be very precise with your instructions so the program won't fail. When managing people for the first time the instinct is to do the same: give very precise instructions even an idiot could follow. That's exactly the wrong approach to manage effectively (except for a few rare circumstances). That's why programmers tend to make bad managers who micromanage, they've been trained wrong by their prior work.

<comment><USER22> AFAIK many hospitals have a "MBA manager" and a "doctor manager" \- I don't know exactly how they relate to one another (who's the "boss boss"), but the idea is that they each bring their part of superior skills to the table.

Would the same idea work for IT? Or, another idea would be, to take a look at how _traditional_ (non-IT) engineering companies work (although the main difference between both medicine and engineering, and IT is that the former are both very _high-risk_ industries that move much slower than IT).

<comment><USER23> Ive worked at places with a Product Manager and Engineering Manager, at the end of the day after adjusting for company "culture", product etc what makes a difference is the individual

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think these jobs exist. Mine does. We're a small company that makes high value physical items with a large software component. We encourage remote working but not remote only. I know this is not a popular view on HN, but I think there is huge value with regular irl interaction. It doesn't need to be every day, but it does need to be regular. We also offer mostly single person offices (interns are currently 2 per room). We also have a culture of opensuggestions and critique regardless of official positions. I've always worked this way so maybe it is survivor bias. I fully admit I could make more money elsewhere but that is not my primary success metric. I already make more money that most in my area (though it is easy to believe I don't based on some of the material things I see around my general location).

My only concern hiring older engineers is that they are stuck in a rut. But I'm my area most senior devs work for huge defense contractors. So maybe that is more an environmental factor.

<comment><USER25> "My only concern hiring older engineers is that they are stuck in a rut."

Wow, better check that bias.

<comment><USER26> It is really quite simple to assess if someone is 'in a rut', even more so when they have more experience, as it becomes more obvious. Even with mid- career developers I check for this.

So "My only concern hiring older engineers is that they are stuck in a rut." doesn't come across well, anyone reading this should be very clear that to adopt that thinking when interviewing would be very lazy on your part!

Not trying to bash you personally, and I suspect you just didn't express what you meant so well :)

<comment><USER24> Yes. Thanks. Please see my other replies for clarification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Speaking as someone who is a 40+ IC Eng at one of the FAANG companies (and previously worked for another) let me give you some advice:

\- First, at the risk of being blunt, you come across as someone who needs to get off their high horse with your list of "demands".

Take the open office. This is the norm. IME this has always been manageable with headphones. YMMV.

\- The biggest issue is not wanting to exhaust yourself helping others. Helping others is about your best value add. What's more, helping people is a pretty good way of earning the gratitude of your colleagues.

Some general thoughts on working as a 40+ IC in these companies. Again YMMV:

\- I don't tell people my age. Nor do I allow people to infer it by, say, mentioning when I graduated college or make references that would otherwise indicate my age. Now I don't look 25 but do people assume I'm old looking in my 30s or in my 40s? I have no idea. I think it's in my best interest not to find out.

\- Ageism is very real and it's subtle. I've had directors tell me "I like new grads so I can mold them" without realizing that's brazen ageism.

\- Culture fit is another common proxy for ageism. You can say that millennials will naturally gravitate to those of similar age or background. Grads from one college will tend to prefer grads from the same college. Common experience is one reason for this but another is people can overvalue the social proof of, say, being an MIT or Stanford alum as that by extension increases their own value.

Culture fit is problematic on many fronts and tends to exclude those of nonstandard backgrounds for which age is but one factor.

\- With or without justification you will have to alleviate the concern that you aren't an old dog who can't learn new tricks. Some older workers will expect deference based on age (as a proxy for seniority/experience) but it's the nature of the beast that in FAANG companies you may end up reporting to some wunderkind who is 2-3 years out of college and may be 20+ years younger than you. If you get hung up on that you're going to have a bad time.

\- Likewise older workers will have to fight the stereotype that you'll be less committed because of other responsibilities (typically meaning family). The way you're wording things here does you no favors because it can come across as entitled and inflexible.

<comment><USER28> > Take the open office. This is the norm. IME this has always been manageable > with headphones. YMMV.

As someone who has developed tinnitus from this, I disagree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Some government jobs fulfill many of your requirements. Not all, to be sure, but some.

I am a roboticist at a government research lab. It's a good gig. The nice things about it are steady work hours (I'm not actually legally allowed to charge more than 40 hours a week, and none of my bosses over the years has ever pressured me to work unpaid overtime). No open offices, anyone with seniority has an actual office with a door. Everyone else gets a fairly decent cubicle. Many (not all) government jobs let you telecommute, at least part of the time. Colleagues tend to be competent and not stress-inducing.

We admittedly do have more meetings than I'd prefer, but I'm currently working on a rather large program, 200+ engineers, and I'm sort of the scientific representative to program management so it's not surprising. There have been times when I had one meeting a week or fewer.

</comment><comment><USER30> Those types of jobs exist, but usually not with young companies. Look for older, established companies that either have high internal tech needs, or are a tech-based business.

I had 2 jobs that matched your description, each of which lasted 5 years - <USER4> was internal software development for a large energy company. The other was working for a small SaaS shop that had been around for more than 10 years.

On the flip side, the least satisfying jobs I've had were open-office startups with inexperienced managers and CEOs. I didn't last a year at the three of those I've done, and I think I've finally learned my lesson to never try again.

To be clear, there is a place in this industry for young startups led by ambitious but inexperienced leadership teams. I think positively of the people from those places and wish them well... I just agree that those of us who have been around this block for more than a couple decades don't fit well in such places.

</comment><comment><USER31> My first job out of school was with a consulting company (think SapientRazorfish, Accenture, Deloitte). What I found interesting is the vast majority of my colleagues were 'older' (35-40+), and these positions are primarily remote WFH. Consultancies love more experienced developers because they know they'll get the work done. The pay is definitely above average too.

Consulting can sometimes lead to more hours depending on stage of project (so be strict on work/life balance) and there might be a lot of travel depending on the project/client. But the clients will be brands you know and the project will be technically interesting and worth millions of dollars. I figure if I ever get tired of the startup game when older, I'll move back into that space.

<comment><USER32> Perhaps, but you are almost guaranteed a terrible manager and many, many meetings in this scenario.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The sentiments in this thread are surely one of the major driving factors behind techies being some of the most enthusiastic in the FIRE movement (financial independence, retire early). I often wonder why true lifelong career planning isn't part of formal secondary education programs. I've noticed a trend where especially in the software dev world, the reality seems to hit people like a ton of bricks in their mid to late thirties, seemingly with very little reflection on the likely paths earlier on, and FIRE seems like it is sometimes as much about saving face as it is about career and financial planning. Is it part of our inward nature spending much of our time trying to get in to a flow state to solve difficult problems that causes us to push away the messy and more difficult, human cantered, and politically loaded long term career development stuff in those early career years until that avoidance bites back?

</comment><comment><USER34> Consider the defense industry / government contractors. I'm not sure what kind of salary you're looking for, but the defense industry / gov contractors pay fairly well (I'd guess ~150k ish for someone with your background) and checks most of your requirements.

</comment><comment><USER35> If you can code in Java, optionally using the Play Framework, ebeans, etc. I can hire you at $100k per year as a contractor. Email me at omid at colibrin dot com —- I don't care about your age.

</comment><comment><USER36> There are a lot of small, specialized, stable companies that fit your description. The challenge will be to find these companies and get hired. Usually their turnover is pretty low and they don't grow much so there is not much hiring going on.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is so true and I will not jump ship until this kind of job shows up. I suffer from IBS which might be stress induced so a changed work lifestyle is not just a luxury request for me. I want to focus and work in a relaxed customer focused remote position.

<comment><USER37> Related to IBS, IBD, etc., I've found this subreddit [1] to be super helpful (not for me but for someone I know)

[1]: [https://www.reddit.com/r/CrohnsDisease/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrohnsDisease/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Sure, we have a team just like you mentioned. Quiet, no stupid gossips, etc. Focused on work and individual contribution. Very less to almost no meetings for developers. We always for look for creatively solving the problems, rather than preferring manual labor intensive solutions. And the team is small. But it's not Android related. We are big data development and mostly use Scala. Email me at email@example.com if you want to apply. We are Austin, texas based and domain is healthcare.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'd hesitate to "go solo" if what you'd like to do is _Android + Spring Boot_. Because it's a cold, cold world of a race to bottom out there. I have fiverrs doing apps for me for 5$/h and, contrary to what may be a common belief, they are _not_ x10 worse than me. They are almost as good, and once they become fully on par they start asking 15-20$/h - which is insanely low. Only do that on top of some baseline employment that keeps you going.

</comment><comment><USER40> Given your requirements, I would suggest a consultant/contract developer position for large/established companies building enterprise solutions. Large, because they will have challenging business problems that they cannot deliver through their normal project development process. Enterprise solutions, because the problems will be better defined and your experience will be better appreciated.

</comment><comment><USER41> Well I'm the founder of a startup, funded, and actively hiring. I'm considered old myself(late thirties), so I see the value of experience.

Going through the variables.

A - no. B - no. I tried that in my previous company, it won't work unless everybody buys in. C - no. D - yes. E - toss up. The average age of the management is in the late 30s, the average age of the whole team is in the mid-late thirties. No twenty plus young kids(rarity in startups nowadays). We've seen shit, made many mistakes, so we're hopefully on the way to becoming better managers F - hell yes. Both founders have kids. Principle is "Work hard, and go home" G - Unavoidable I - <USER5>

Please reach me(check my username)!

</comment><comment><USER42> I think you're going to be most happy running your own show.. I've seen a lot of this anyway. Open plan because the boss wants to see everyone in one spot the 3 hours he is in per year. Focus unattainable due to noise/talking. Resistance to WFH arrangements. Train young people so we can have redundancy...Old guy quits and now you have 4 people doing what 1 used to, 3 of which are looking to quit because face it, they don't want to work hard ;) Good luck my friend.

</comment><comment><USER43> Other than a different tech stack, I've got all of these. This is totally doable as a freelancer.

I can't offer any magical advice, other than that, I've made it my policy to never work with anyone who might be a jerk, and to stop working with anyone one who got past the first filter and turns out to be one.

So yes, if you actually want control over your work environment and who you work with, your options are usually either freelancing or owning you company.

Good luck, and you aren't asking for too much!

</comment><comment><USER44> I can not advise you I can only offer my own experience.

The older you get the harder it will become to get a programming job. I am pushing 60, and lucky enough to end up with a lot of experience as CTO/CEO in multiple companies and now doing technical due diligence for investors, and coaching young CTOs.

But although I'm very up to date on everything new and shiny I would not want to be searching for a programming job right now. The word 'senior' used to mean someone with grey hair, but now means people around thirty and there just are no words available for 40+. Which doesn't make things easier for recruiters by the way.

Even though middle aged people are very experienced, the IT field changes fast and it's very hard to have a family life AND keep your skills current. I only know of a few people being successful with that. On the other hand those people are extremely valuable and few companies know it.

Face it, the future for programmers is bleak, ageism is rampant and it's also true that many aren't current and stuck in their ways.

So maybe it's best to move into management and at least don't be a PHB, or start your own company, it seems older people have a better succes rate than young ones with that at least.

<comment><USER45> > The word 'senior' used to mean someone with grey hair, but now means people > around thirty and there just are no words available for 40+. Which doesn't > make things easier for recruiters by the way.

Do you mean titles for levels in companies? Isn't staff, senior staff, principal, what gets used now for experienced levels?

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Most of your requirements depend on the quality of each particular workplace; the only aspect that is susceptible to advice is the alignment between somewhat relaxed environment, more or less Android and web for technology, and hard technical problems.

For that, I suggest companies that are as small as possible (you would be more of a generalist and less of a cog), established (filtering out bad ideas and incompetent teams, and ensuring the time to reach a high competence level), product-oriented (to work on interesting improvements, customizations, support requests of something you can become an expert of, instead of random low quality consultancy projects).

As specific examples: machines of all sorts (likely computer-controlled and with external management apps and other auxiliary software) or business software at the intermediate scale at which customers are many enough to ensure stability and variety, but large enough to need interesting kinds of individual attention.

</comment><comment><USER10> One thing you might consider is expanding that "Spring Boot" to "Full Stack". It will give you some options when they decide they don't want a fussy gray on the team and cut you loose.

</comment><comment><USER47> What you are looking for is a worker's co-op. [https://github.com/hng/tech- coops](https://github.com/hng/tech-coops)

</comment><comment><USER48> From another's mid-40 point of view, the only ways to avoid such management like positions is to either go consulting, e.g. Android + Spring Boot expert on your case, or accept a position at a company with lower pay but with those perks that you list.

In either case it is an hard fight, as most HR departments and head hunters try to offer management positions, so it is up to you to make your point about what you really want, and accept it takes a bit longer to find such positions.

</comment><comment><USER49> I think you absolutely can find a position that fulfills your requirements (mainly because I have one like that and love it!), however it's either going to take just getting lucky and striking gold randomly, or networking like crazy with your network and having them tell you about what the work atmosphere at their office is like and back channeling you with their HR. Great companies with great work cultures exist, but they're like exclusive rent control apartments... we tend to fill openings with internal referrals because the talent brings their best colleagues from their previous jobs.

How I got into where I am was I dumb-lucked into it by connecting with a great recruiter and randomly having the hiring team like me a lot. I've been there two years and have recruited two of my best previous coworkers from other jobs to come join us. We are all loving life.

Anyways... work your network! Good luck and don't give up!! I would say stay away from newbie startups and go to midsize profitable firms.

edit: I don't have my own private office, but I have a really big high walled private cube with a door. big enough to leave my bike inside it and do yoga inside. I love it. I feel dorky in a cube but it is really nice!

</comment><comment><USER50> Contract work outside of the startup world (or for a well funded startup that delivers real value) fits the description. Large companies, too.

</comment><comment><USER51> Many government contractors give private offices due to the nature of the work. Sometimes they default to it even if working on non-classified work. There's good work/life balance since you fill out a timesheet. And the work can be very interesting. Maybe look into a contractor that deals with non military entities like NASA?

</comment><comment><USER52> There are many of us willing to leave money on the table in order to get quality of life, but there are basically zero companies whose job ads explicitly make that trade. Finding such companies is thus a frustrating and inefficient process.

<comment><USER53> Basecamp seems to be an exception, see their latest book - "it doesn't have to be crazy at work"

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> If you are inclined to stay IC at 40+, get in to teams where someone needs to write "impossible programs"[1]. Accelerated ray tracing, robotics, computer vision, firmwares, deep learning/machine learning, orchestration stacks, OS kernels, debuggers etc. These are sort of areas which I think benefits tremendously from multi-decade expertise and complexity+stacks are usually pretty high.

[1] [https://www.deconstructconf.com/2018/julia-evans-build- impos...](https://www.deconstructconf.com/2018/julia-evans-build-impossible- programs)

</comment><comment><USER10> It doesn't match all of your wants, but you should consider living in the inner city of a large metropolitan area and working for tech companies there. In Los Angeles, a talented dev/arch with devops can make $185,000/yr with benefits. Another possibility would be turning into a migrant fruit-picker, stick your stuff in a storage facility and follow the contracts around the country, looking for the $200/hr gigs.

Do all of the above, then retire early and spend your time developing your own client list at your own pace at home, working 0 to 10 hours per week.

<comment><USER36> "$200/hr gigs."

do these really exist in sufficiently large numbers? When I was freelancer there seemed to be hard limit at $100.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> "So many recruiters are looking for senior developers like me to join their early stage team and to do development and assist junior devs via knowledge sharing."

What I have encountered is that everyone wants to hire senior developers, but no junior developers, so your "senior" role is the same as that of a junior developer.

I always ask what the team structure is during the phone screen. If it is all senior developers, which is becoming the norm, then I stop the interview process. You will be the defacto junior developer as the newbie on the team.

<comment><USER56> Well, let's be clear about the term "senior".

These days "senior" means "3-5 years experience" and a salary to match.

When you have 20+ years experience, they don't know what to do with you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> These kind of jobs DO exist. This is pretty much exactly our value proposition to our developers (we are a team of 9 in six countries!) Unfortunately for you we are focused on back-end Java developers. (search for CompilerWorks on who's hiring [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17902901](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17902901))

</comment><comment><USER58> Working on hard problems is rarely stress free.

</comment><comment><USER59> Yes they exist. I'm Mid 40's; been working from home for ~5 years for a large international software company as a dev. If you're doing remote, make sure it's in a team where there's a fairly large chunk of remotees - being the only remotee is a bit weird (fortunately at this job most of the team are remote).

</comment><comment><USER60> Not finding an open office plan is going to be tricky. That's been the fashion for well over a decades now. Buy headphones.

Complaining about colleagues and managers, is well... a bit sad. You've been around the block a few times. You know how people act. There's no perfect place, you just decide what pile of problems you want to deal with.

</comment><comment><USER61> I work in support. Many of my colleagues work remote, and you are increasingly rewarded for deep technical knowledge.

It's not for everybody, but it's been great for me. Many of your 'wish list' items seem aligned.

Good luck.

(Edit: I am in my 50s. I feel it's possible to continue in a similar role 'till retirement age.)

</comment><comment><USER62> The average age of a successful startup founder is 45: [https://hbr.org/2018/07/research-the-average-age-of-a- succes...](https://hbr.org/2018/07/research-the-average-age-of-a-successful- startup-founder-is-45)

</comment><comment><USER63> I suggest you read "Bullshit Jobs: A Theory", by David Graeber.

He explains that apprentice -> journeyman -> master no longer holds; we all get stuck at journeyman, working in the service of others for our entire career.

You, my friend, need to start your own company.

</comment><comment><USER64> Where are you located?

I might have a job that would interest you. You might be able to be remote part time , at least until we get to know you.

We hit all of your marks (devs have offices, laid back, we all WAH 3 days a week). We are near Indianapolis.

</comment><comment><USER65> Did you consider pre-sales/professional services consulting. Most folks who do this that I know are in their forties. Good pay, interesting work, and relies a lot on soft skills

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes I consider that but I'm an introvert so developer jobs are more suitable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Well, Goldilocks, you're going to have to pick which of your list you're willing to give up to have the other. Do such jobs exist? You bet they do, I'm working a job that fits your list to the letter. I'm also making considerably less than I could. That's fine, it was a compromise I was willing to make. But I'm not working on mobile, either.

In a macro sense, though, you're going to have to come to grips with the fact the work environment has changed. I'll bet the fact that you don't want an open office knocks out 60-70% of Seattle-area prospects right off the bat. Quiet colleagues? Tech bros are where it's at...bro! You'll have at least one in 50% of the remaining prospects. Managers are not getting any more competent, so whack off another 25%. The quiet, professional workplace with offices is largely gone, so prospects that fit your parameters are less common than in the past.

That all said, my brief flirtinsg with embedded and the reports from others indicate that it is a field with higher instances of what you're looking for.

<comment><USER67> Embedded is definitely a place where this sort of Goldilocks environment can be found. I suspect it's because embedded -- and I mean really low-level stuff, not "We run embedded Linux!" level -- requires a lot of EE knowledge in addition to software engineering skill to do it well. That, in turn, requires test instruments and such, which lends itself to an office or at least a dedicated section of lab bench rather than an open office. In addition, embedded often seems to be sort of voodoo for managers, so I've found they tend to keep their hands off more than on, say, front-end web dev projects. Lots of guys doing it remotely, too. There are guys (and gals) in their mid 20s who are doing it and good at it, but I'd say overall it skews towards late 30s or older.

Or maybe I've just been lucky.

<comment><USER66> _Or maybe I 've just been lucky._

Well, it's not just you. I didn't want to act like I know what I'm talking about, given that I'm eight months into my only "real" embedded job (I've previously consulted on projects, but they didn't let me near the low-level stuff.) The only difference in our situations is that our remote solution (GoToMyPc, no VPN) sucks. :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I'm 50 and work remotely from rural Japan. I work with a good team and I genuinely like the people I work with. I'll try to respond to each of the points you make in relation to my job:

\- I work from home. My wife volunteers most days so I have the place to myself most of the time. However I work in Japan and my colleagues are in the UK, so this means I often work nights. In our small apartment, it's hard to separate myself from what my wife is doing. I try my best to do work where I need to concentrate during the day and then collaborate with people during the evening. It's hard to juggle, though.

\- These days lots of companies are doing office work with work at home a few days a week. We do that, but because the company is growing fast, we ran out of desks. This means that people _mostly_ work at home and hot swap when then are in the office. The hot swapping is actually a real sore point with people as they like to have their own space at work, but you can imagine that it's hard for the company to justify having a floor 3/4 empty most of the time. Still, before I moved back to Japan, I did the WFH one or two days a week and IMHO, if you are close to your office this is really ideal -- lots of opportunity to collaborate and lots of opportunity to put your head down. In that kind of environment, _personally_ I'm happy to have open office, hot swap setup. I differ from many people ;-)

\- Meetings are a function of company culture. Some companies value them, some do not. I once worked in a company and my manager asked me what I'd like from him (NB: managers, please do this!) I said, I don't ever want to go to a meeting. Can you go to all my meetings and send me a quick email with the result? He said, No problem! (Best manager _ever_ ) When you are shopping for jobs, make sure to ask about what kinds of meetings people have and why they have them. I like companies where meetings are for disseminating information to large groups of people. I dislike companies where meetings are for collaboratively coming up with a solution. Other people like the opposite. Know what you want and find a compatible group to work with.

\- Incompetent managers. Sorry, no panacea for this one. Most managers are terrible (sorry, but it's truly how I feel). It's a massively hard job, people are not trained for it and often people get into management because they want to bully people into doing what they say. I want a manager who feels their job is to remove obstacles from me so that I can concentrate on work (see point above). 90% of the time I don't get managers like that. It's hard for me to complain too much because _I_ don't want to be a manager, even though I am very opinionated about what managers should do. Again, pre-screen your prospective employers. Specifically ask your potential manager what they think a manager should be doing. I've never met a manager who would lie about that.

\- Colleagues: Let me preface this by saying again, I like my current colleagues. As I get older, though, it gets pretty difficult. I'm the oldest person in the IT department at my company. I'm double the age of most of the people (we have a lot of junior people). I remember talking to a colleague about Tenerife because we had both vacationed there. It's an amazing place, but my colleague said that they didn't see any of it because they spent an entire week in night clubs. All of the other people listening to our conversation murmured with great appreciation. The industry is growing rapidly so as you get older you often become a minority. Even though you were there first, it's _you_ that is the "foreigner" in the group (me, especially, LOL). You have to adapt to that culture rather than expecting people to adapt to your culture. For me, that's extremely difficult. Having said that, I have worked in a small startup where nobody was under the age of 35 (and we even had a guy in his 60's) -- _I_ was the baby in that group! There _are_ some founders who want only experienced people and are willing to pay extra money up front to get it. Reach out through your contacts because probably you can find them.

Now, I really like working the way I work (and the day after tomorrow I'm actually going to the UK to meet and greet with the team, which I'm super excited about!) However there are tons of downsides.

\- Working remotely for a non-remote team means that there is a definite power differential. People who see each other in person regularly naturally have a better rapport. As a remote person, you're always a bit of an outsider. It's easy for people to forget about including you in discussions (especially if you are in a different time zone!) There are sometimes bad actors in companies too and if someone decides to _intentionally_ lock you out of decisions, there is practically nothing you can do about it. You are at the mercy of others. I spend a _lot_ of my energy trying to keep my relationships working well at work -- tons more than I would need to if I worked in the office. That's why 3 days in 2 days WFH is such a nice setup (and really, I think all companies should do something similar for programmers).

Working remotely and solo is a huge risk. However, if you want to take on that risk, 40 is a really good time to do it. At 50, I've got 15 years left of my career. I need to save for retirement (and I admit to neglecting that in order to traipse around the world doing strange things). I've got savings, but if I was out of work for a year or two, it would be rather bad for me. At 40 (or earlier) you can take that risk a lot more easily because you can then put your head down and do less risky things when you are older if you need to (like me).

Especially since you are relatively young (still 25 years left of work!) and you have no children, you are pretty flexible. Earlier I've been pointing out the need to keep thinking about the work environment when interviewing. If work environment is very important to you, make sure that you value that _yourself_. Don't take a job for more money that has a worse environment. Maybe there's a jerk that you have to work with, but you can still get your job done acceptably -- don't give up that job. No job is going to be perfect, so make sure you prioritise things appropriately.

If I were you, the strategy I would probably employ (because I'm hugely risk averse) is to find a job with part time WFH that has the option to lead to full time remote. Get a couple of years of experience with working from home (and at least 6 months of full time remote). Then toy with the idea of doing solo consulting (ideally fully remote). As you are learning to work remotely, go to meet ups, etc to make contacts so that you have an avenue for solo consulting. This may mean moving to a fairly large city if you don't already live in one. Try out selling yourself and seeing if you have the character to do that (because not everyone can be successful in that regard, and being solo means you don't have anyone else to lean on). And finally, don't panic. You have lots of time to sort this out. Good for you thinking about it now -- take a few years trying different things and seeing how they work out. But don't procrastinate. This is your time for exploring -- if you wait until you are 50, it gets much scarier (believe me!)

</comment><comment><USER69> RadiaSoft offers that sort of work environment, with a small world-class team and plenty of interesting work. David radiasoft.net

</comment><comment><USER70> Nobody cares about your age as much as they care about what you can do for them.

Sell the vision of what your experience can bring to the company.

</comment><comment><USER71> > Do you suggest I go solo and take on development jobs myself

Yes.

You don't want to help juniors. You don't want to waste your time in meetings explaining things to "incompetent" managers. You only want to work in a private office on your own schedule. You don't want to be stressed or asked to put in extra hours. You only want to work on "hard technical problems" that you find interesting.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're getting really close to what I want. I just don't find it easy to get this kind of job. Do you have experience working for your self helping small clients with fun work and your description?

<comment><USER72> I have experience with something like that. I'm 40 years old and been working remotely most of the time for maybe ten years.

I mostly find good projects online. Building prototypes helps get contracts.

However, the major problem I have had is finding those awesome low stress remote jobs or gigs that _also_ have "US market rate" pay and that can sustain it. I have certainly been successful in that to some degree but my current startup hasn't had funding. And rather than give up when he started running out of money, I cut my rate.

So in order to save money I recently moved to a beach area in Mexico. It has an amazing view of the ocean and is affordable.

However there are downsides. I have discovered new types of diarrhea that I did not know existed. The water was shut off for five days. And yesterday the ATM had an error and just decided it couldn't give me my $170 even though my account was debited.

So today I am trying to find an inexpensive place to live in the US again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Have you thought about working for IT department at a University?

Would like check off all the items on your wish list.

</comment><comment><USER74> > __ _I 'm 40 years old without any children and would like to be able to not > be stressed and work overtime and solve hard technical problems_ __

You have no kids... You can work overtime and do anything you want when you want with respect to working and focusing on work without kids.

I'll assume those downvoting this comment dont have kids.

<comment><USER75> I have kids and down-voted your comment. Simply because a person has (or might have) the capacity for working overtime doesn't mean this should be a requirement. We're employees, not slaves.

<comment><USER74> Thats not what I meant - the OP stated "I dont have kids and I want to be able to work overtime and focus on a project" \-- so, my comment was "well if you dont have kids, you should be better able to work overtime and focus on a project"

<comment><USER76> That's really interesting. Reading the OP's post:

> I <...> would like to be able to not be stressed and work overtime and solve > hard technical problems and move towards a more rewarding job

I cannot tell whether he is saying he would like to be able to work overtime, or whether he doesn't want to <be stressed and> work overtime. I would assume, "work overtime" has a tighter coupling with the preceding "not" than with the preceding "would like to", but can't tell for sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> Why not retire and contribute to open source? You can set your own schedule and speak to whomever you want or no one at all.

It amazes me that people in their 40s are working as software developers. Did everyone gamble their money away?

20 years in software developement is easily a few million in the bank + retirement account + home. Why not retire?

<comment><USER78> This is harsh but true. I am an average 32 years old software engineer in the Bay Area, and in my average 8 years career I amassed roughly $1.2M by diligently saving, investing in index funds and living frugally.

My real hope is that by the time I'm in my mid 40s this amount, including the new savings, will have at least doubled (if not 3X), and I'll be able to retire or take some very light job in a cheaper area, not worrying about this nonsense software engineering bias against age.

<comment><USER77> Yeah. I'm surprised that I'm downvoted. If you are clearing six figures ( most software devs should in this environment ), you could max out your 401k/ira/etc ( $40K ) to lower your tax basis and then save half the remaining income easily. Especially if you are single with no kids.

My biggest problem was hitting the max and not being able to shelter more income from taxes.

$40K per year in retirement + $20K or $30K in saving and interest + capital gains will easily make you a multimillionaire over 20 years. I don't think people understand how long 20 years really is and how consistent savings starts to add up.

As long as you don't gamble away your money or do something stupid with it, a six figure salary as a software engineer should make you are multimillionare ( in assets ) by your 40s.

<comment><USER78> Fully agree.

Just out of curiosity, is the $40k pre-tax including 401k contributions of a spouse too? Otherwise, how can I, as an single person, achieve retirement contributions of $40k?

In general, working for startups with crappy retirement plans, retirement accounts have been a big pain point for me, a big portion of my assets are actually held in taxable accounts, which is not too bad if you invest in tax efficient funds which at most provide qualified dividends, and during a downturn you can do some valuable tax loss harvesting, but I would gladly take advantage of more tax deferred space.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> It may seem to you like you're asking for advice, but may come across to others like you're complaining.

We'd all prefer a better work environment, with better people and less stress, so that we can thrive and have better balance in life. You haven't mentioned anything that you're doing to get there, besides asking somebody else (HN) to hand you some sort of 'insightful' answer.

The insight may very well be that given your current skillset and level of ambition and willingness to sacrifice, you are right where you deserve to be. If you want something to change, the only variable you really have control over, is you.

I'd give a 2pac quote, but it'd get flagged so I'll link it - the last line is for you.

[https://genius.com/2pac-starin-through-my-rear-view- lyrics](https://genius.com/2pac-starin-through-my-rear-view-lyrics)

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually I've been actively searching and responding to recruiters and sent spontaneous applications etc. You have no idea.</comment></comment>


Court Says Using Chalk on Tires for Parking Enforcement Violates Constitution - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2019/04/23/716248823/court-says-using-chalk-on-tires-for-parking-enforcement-violates-constitution <comment><USER4> I suppose I'm happy that the fourth amendment was upheld, but from a privacy perspective I'm disheartened.

A chalked tire was ephemeral. I doubt that whatever replaces it will be.

<comment><USER5> Given this ruling, the 2012 ruling about GPS trackers, and the ubiquity of number plate scanners, it's possible someone could challenge the constitutionality of requiring license plates on vehicles — they're not all black model Ts anymore, so there's less need for the registration number to be visible a mile away.

<comment><USER6> Oh good, even less chance to catch hit and runs. Removing license plates would mean a field day for criminals all to appease a few tinfoil hat wearers.

<comment><USER7> Tinfoil amplifies signals.

That, and "conspiracy theorist", are propaganda terms, and should be rejected.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, no. /r/conspiracy has a 1000 comment thread that witchhunts people at my friend's company _because it shared an address in SF with some dating site loosely related to Hillary Clinton._ People I cared about were literally threatened with their lives.

<comment><USER7> Everybody that reads about conspiracies, or discusses conspiracy theory, must be just like those people.

...wow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I had a very pleasant experience with "Parking Enforcement" in a commercial district outside of Pittsburgh recently. I had either forgot to put money in the meter or it ran out. Got back to my car to find a ticket. The fine was only a dollar and I think it was voluntary. On the ticket was printed a note explaining that the business community really values people coming to visit and so doesn't want to annoy those people with high parking rates or ticket fines. It was the most pleasant parking ticket experience I could imagine.

<comment><USER9> What bizarre machinations of Moloch; "we decided to fine you, but then we decided to not fine you, so we had to settle on fining you as little as possible while still fining you because we have to fine you or there wouldn't be a reason for this sub-sub-department of us to exist."

<comment><USER10> I think the "fine" was the cost of feeding the meter. To be paid if the person wants or not.

<comment><USER9> That could be the rationale, but I doubt it. Seems more likely they were trying to keep their target numbers up (they're not allowed to call them "quotas" anymore). An officer with low numbers gets passed up for promotion. A department with low numbers gets passed up for budget increases. Gotta keep writing tickets, or there isn't a reason to exist anymore...

<comment><USER8> I think it's more likely that the business community told the traffic police to piss off. This was a financially distressed community whose main street business district is trying to bounce back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I would much rather they chalk my tires than store my car's license plate and location in a database...

<comment><USER12> I find it strange we the people for the people by the people don't just straight up outlaw things like this with an amendment.

The constitution is a great document that lasted far longer than expected. And surprisingly holds up extremely well to modern era technological change.

But I suspect the founding fathers would be down right horrified by the loss of privacy and liberty that has taken place in the name of safety.

Why do they need chalk or a location database? Find a better solution that doesn't require loss of privacy. It's not hard even with tech from 50 years ago.

We are supposedly at the pinnacle of civilization and knowledge. Yet we are not yet wise or skilled enough to question and alter that which governs us?

I mean a lot has changed since then our understanding of the reasoning may have been loss but I suspect non breaking improvements may be a viable course of action.

<comment><USER13> The sad answer is that the great majority of voters are ignorant and/or apathetic about privacy - at least in comparison to things like taxes and health care. The population that is willing to vote against party lines for privacy is trivial, whereas the government (at every scale) is heavily incentivized to invade privacy.

Before we can change the government, we need to make people _care_ \- and while recent debacles (see: Facebook) have helped, there's a long way to go yet.

<comment><USER14> The not sad answer is that the great majority of voters understand that there has to be a tradeoff between the ability of the police to detect and enforce the law and our personal privacy.

Generally, transparency, rather than privacy, could be reasonably said to be the driving function of government -- things like arrest records, court records, marriage records, real estate transactions, are all public records, with exceptions being made only for cases where the harm of the record itself exceeds the public benefit. To facilitate credit markets we've even gone so far as to make personal credit information semi-public.

If you want something to be private, it's your responsibility to keep it private. And all privacy goes away in the face of a lawful search and seizure, accompanied by probable cause. The (very wiggly) privacy line is only crossed when another party goes to unreasonable lengths to violate situations where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The logical solution would be for cities to switch to photographs and even automated cameras, which in the end will probably be more invasive of privacy than a chalk mark on your tires.

Funny how the legal system can work sometimes.

<comment><USER16> The more logical solution, from the city's perspective, might be to just get rid of free-but-time-limited parking. Then parking meters could serve as both the enforcement mechanism and another revenue source.

<comment><USER17> If they tried to do that then they'd have a massive protest by traffic enforcement people. They don't want that.

If you look at almost any seemingly wasteful/pointless/inefficient thing a local government does, you're pretty much guaranteed to find jobs behind it. The very slight relief of annoyance from what these things cause to the general public is not enough to overcome the extreme outrage that occurs when a group of people lose their jobs.

<comment><USER18> Why. Park, register with a meter. Your first 15 minutes are free, as they used to be. More time is paid time. Unregistered parking leads to an immediate ticket.

Those who did not abuse the system continue to park for free, and may expect more vacant spaces.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> A lot of places in Europe just use a parking disk. No chalking, no second check needed.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_parking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_parking)

<comment><USER20> I have seen officers making notes of how the tires are aligned so they know whether the car has been moved when they come by a second time. (Seen in DACH countries)

<comment><USER21> What's to say you didn't leave and return and your wheels are in roughly the same configuration?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> 20 years ago Portland, Oregon used to chalk tires and had coin fed meters in downtown. And a fleet of go-cart driving officers for the rest of the city.

Around that time the city started moving to electronic meters in downtown that produced a printed ticket with a time that you were required to post on a street facing window. There was the usual city waste and political kickbacks iirc, at least one city employee got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Now the traffic enforcement officers have a handheld plate scanner, on each end of every block the parking enforcement signs have a QR-like code on the back that the officers first scan, then they go down the block scanning every car, then they scan the sign at the other end. This defines a complete audit trail of the officers movement with respect to every block and every car.

Using this technique, they not only scan for expired tickets, but can also issue citations for expired plates, previously unpaid tickets, warrants for outstanding criminals (in which they notify city police) and even summon a boot or tow truck.

I suspect that all cities that use chalk now will eventually move to some fully automated system like this. Perhaps not even ticket printing machines, just cameras looking down at all the cars, watching them (and you) come and go. Stay too long, and you get a ticket in the mail. Have a warrent on you an the police are there waiting when you return. The upshot for them? Besides the usual hands in cookie jars like in Portland, they won't have to pay all those traffic enforcement officers.

<comment><USER23> Reminds me of tolls.

It makes me comically angry that our toll roads require RFID equipment in most cars and slow cash lanes for people without. The fallback for people running the toll booth is to automatically take a photo of the plate and send the owner a bill.

Why not just use the fallback system as the primary system?

You already have the equipment to collect tolls automatically. Why do I need to glue something to my window or wait in a long line to pay cash?

Comically angry because I know this is "old man yells at cloud" territory.

<comment><USER24> The Golden Gate Bridge did away with cash lanes a long time ago. There are signs that tell you to go to their website, where you can enter your license plate number and pay with a credit card.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Couldn't take the time to park legally then went out of her way to launch a lawsuit against the city. This is not community behavior. It's toxic.

<comment><USER26> Yeah, this does seem like someone getting away with antisocial behavior.

The thing about the US legal system (and other systems derived from English law) though, is that legal rulings aren't only about the particular case — they establish general principles that will be applied in a variety of future cases.

So, if they're doing their jobs properly, judges should not be thinking of how sympathetic a particular party in a particular case is.

One famous example of this is Ernesto Miranda, by all accounts a horrible monster (murderer and rapist). The Supreme Court rightly ignored the distasteful nature of the particular individual, and threw out his confession as having been illegally obtained. That's why we have what are now called Miranda rights, something practically every liberal can agree is a good thing.

(Tangent: in case you were wondering, Ernesto Miranda was still convicted, in the end. The evidence against him was strong enough even without the illegally-obtained confession.)

<comment><USER27> "Yeah, this does seem like someone getting away with antisocial behavior."

I think I would agree with you, if she lost ...

However, the ruling suggests that her behavior was _not_ antisocial _by definition_.

I have never thought to care about this issue, nor would I spend my time fighting it, but if the constitution is ruled to disallow this behavior her lawsuit was, again, by definition, a socially positive act ...

<comment><USER28> She was still parking illegally, the court just threw out the method they used to catch her.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Instead of chalking the tire they can chalk the pavement just before and after the tires. Perhaps they could even write the license plate number on the pavement too.

<comment><USER30> The appeal of chalking the tires is you can do it pretty fast, and if the car moves, so does the chalk.

Chalking the ground doesn't work - "I just got here. That was chalk from before."

Chalking the license plate doesn't work, it takes way too much time to write out all the license plates .

<comment><USER31> My understanding is that the chalking is mostly an aid for the parking people to keep tabs. "I just got here" can be used for any situation involving a ticket can't it? It's your word against the parking person anyway.

> and if the car moves, so does the chalk. But the person handing out tickets > would notice they moved. Or, if a person is trying that hard to evade > tickets while still parking were they aren't supposed to, wouldn't they just > wipe off the chalk?

<comment><USER32> The chalk on the tread of the tire proves you didn't just get there, though. If you did, then it would not have been possible for the parking enforcement officer to have chalked it an hour ago.

But if it's on the pavement, it's not crazy to imagine the marks were for a previous car, and that you parked in the same spot. Even the officer would be unsure of it.

<comment><USER33> Chalk your own tires, it's the only way to be sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Didn't the whole "drinking and driving" thing establish that the 14th amendment is limited when it comes to the complicated relationship between a private vehicle on publicly-owned roads?

I can see the argument that a GPS tracking device crosses the line because the intent is to track the _owner_ of the vehicle and the scope is far beyond their interaction with the public roadway.

But on this? It's directly about your usage of the public roadway for storage purposes.

<comment><USER35> This case seems to be more about the 4th amendment.

<comment><USER36> It's about the rights in the Fourth as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth, just like DUI stop cases, but the safety factors at issue in the DUI (and other traffic) stop cases that have been held to make limited stops reasonable without cause short of probable cause do not seem to apply to the case here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is really interesting.

The summary is that chalking a car is similar to attaching a GPS device without a warrant, and it violates fourth amendment rights.

I imagine an easy workaround for this is to just take photos of the license plates with geolocation and have an app that can easily show you who was there ~ 1 hour ago. Probably less efficient initially, but I'm sure they could automate it.

<comment><USER37> Oh good, so now cities will need to pay a contractor to develop, operate, and maintain some complex hardware/software solution to perform a task that was until now being easily and efficiently performed using a stick of chalk. Because... reasons.

Hmm... I'll have to keep an eye out for the RFPs.

<comment><USER38> It already exists. It's just too expensive for small municipalities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> What about people who stick flyers under windshield wipers? Isn't that also a physical trespass? What about dropping flyers into open car windows, or into convertible cars with the hood down?

Will cities start having "chalk notices" similar to cookie notices that websites have saying that you consent to having your car wheels chalked by using this parking space?

<comment><USER40> People who stick flyers under windshield wipers aren't government entities, so they aren't bound by constitutional notions of what is and isn't a reasonable search.

Having said that, I _really_ wish this practice was considered a form of property damage or defacement, maybe littering, or at least, as you suggest, a form of trespass.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Would this extend to companies putting flyers under your windshield wipers?

(Years ago—also in Michigan—I turned on my wipers and ended up with a littering citation. Probably still legit, but please don't put trash on my car.)

<comment><USER42> IANAL but while I don't think the 4th Amendment would apply, you might be able to make an argument that they are trespassing? Personally, I'd like to nail the guys who put landscaping flyers in sandwich bags with some rocks and drop them on my driveway.

<comment><USER43> > Personally, I'd like to nail the guys who put landscaping flyers in sandwich > bags with some rocks and drop them on my driveway.

In the grand scheme of things, this kind of advertising for me is minimal at best. I'd by far much rather that the junk mail I get sent via postal mail would go away, though the practical effect of that would be that the postal system itself would die, I suppose.

That said, had I started collecting the rocks from those baggies the day I bought the house, I'd probably have a pretty nice rock landscaping by now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I used to work in a government office when I was young. One of my jobs was every 165 minutes to go out and wipe the chalk marks off the tires of anyone in the department who parked on that wonderfully close to work street.

</comment><comment><USER45> I used to listen to a radio show hosted by a law professor and iirc he said that airport security doesn't violate the privacy amendment because you don't have to fly. When you choose to fly you implicitly wave those rights. How is this different?

<comment><USER46> Basically, yes:

 _9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908... airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft ... are allowed if no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly_

[https://flyingwithfish.boardingarea.com/2010/11/20/how- the-t...](https://flyingwithfish.boardingarea.com/2010/11/20/how-the-tsa- legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/comment-page-1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> My immediate alternative would be to drop a grape behind a tire.

Though the fact that it's edible is problematic. The rats (with and without wings) would enjoy my scheme.

Still, any cheap inedible alternative would work. As long as, when you squish it, it stays squished.

But that leads me to think: why not build it into the parking spaces? Glue something down that takes just over 2 hours to fully reinflate. Would need to be wide enough to ensure it gets run over. Probably want to be clever and make the reinflation not appear to be linear - once it gets to a certain point, it would stand itself up or something. Would be fun to design.

</comment><comment><USER48> ... now there was that time somebody noticed that the Sheriff always had a vehicle parked at the airport and was curious if it ever moved and proved that it didn't by chalking the tires.

</comment><comment><USER49> I'm left wondering if the ruling applies to cops using it on people who frequent bars? It's common practice at least in rural areas in Michigan to target cars in bar parking lots.

If you're there for three hours they assume you will be leaving drunk so they put a chalk mark across your headlight. They park down the road and stop everyone with the mark on their headlight.

It's not foolproof because people catch on and wipe down their headlights before leaving the bar ;<).

<comment><USER50> > It's not foolproof because people catch on and wipe down their headlights > before leaving the bar.

There are many reasons it's not foolproof, chiefly among them that leaving a bar is not a basis for knowing that someone is over the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle. The driver might well be a DD.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Honestly paying for parking is an insult in the first place.

Here in MA to drive a car you have to pay.....

1\. Sales tax, whether you bought the car out-of-state or not. This is calculated by the RMV and NOT by your bill of sale. So if MA thinks your $500 car is worth $3,000 you're paying 6.25% of $3k.

2\. Registration fees that go up every year. This pays for the 4 hours you have to sit at the RMV watching people who get paid $30/hour help one person every 15 minutes.

3\. Private insurance, which is required. Lots of out-of-state policies aren't eligible, so we see ads on TV for competetive policies from Progressive, Geiko, ect yet nobody in MA is eligible to buy them. It's worth it to note that state vehicles don't need insurance as they are "self-insured." So if you crash into a cop you or your insurance will pay 100% but if a cop crashes into you the town and its taxpayers get to pay 100%.

4\. We have toll booths all over the fucking place yet we still have some of the worst paved road conditions in the country. Anyone who has visited Cambridge MA can attest to this.

5\. We pay yearly excise tax on each vehicle to the town we live in.

6\. Exorbiant state fuel tax (27th highest in the nation).

How much more can they charge us for infrastructure without actually having to invest anything on infrastructure? On top of property and income tax and sales tax and excise tax you've gotta pay $3 to park on a public street.....

<comment><USER52> My understanding is that pay for parking (aside from large garages) is generally about space availability rather than making money. Public street parking in Boston is fairly cheap per unit time and my understanding is that the maximum time limits are meant to allow new people to come in and take the spot to do whatever business they need to do in the area. Otherwise people would just squat on spots all day and the businesses would be starved for customers.

Not disagreeing with all the other shenanigans you listed for Ma though.

<comment><USER51> I agree with your assessment, but not entirely. If it weren't at all about making money you could just stand up a kiosk that dispenses parking tickets and not charge money for them. The ticket-to-park method of parking enforcement doesn't _require_ the payment element to enforce parking laws.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> <rant> So can I retroactively sue the Berkeley municipality? I'm not joking (...okay I am). I've gotten a fucking ticket literally every time I've been in Berkley because they don't keep track of WHO marks your tires or WHERE they fucking mark them. The city also refuses to at all harbor the mere concept of a mistake by their own... </end-rant>

And yes I know I ain't ever getting my money back from the city of Berkeley.

</comment><comment><USER54> Is there a reason disc parking is not practiced in the US? Seems a lot less work than marking tires or keeping track of license plates. Are there any legal or other issues with it?

<comment><USER55> Probably some combination of never hearing of such a thing (I just looked it up) and that the whole idea of directly paying for parking / time-limited parking is still offensive to many of us ("just build more parking lots") and doesn't exist in many places. Then after hearing about it an obvious objection is that it puts an extra burden on the driver to manage the thing even when they just want to pop-in/pop-out, and that if the level of abuse is actually a problem we might as well go all the way with a full blown pay-always approach.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> They can't chalk your tires but they can get a location trace from your mobile phone just because you were close to the wrong place at the wrong time. Pfft.

</comment><comment><USER57> Even if this ruling is upheld, parking enforcement will just switch to using photos or license plate readers. At least in an area that uses chalking for enforcement, if your car hasn't been marked, you'll over the time limit but you can't leave immediately, you know you have a little more time. No such luck when you don't know whether your car's license plate # has already been recorded.

</comment><comment><USER58> On the other hand, imprisoning people for fleeing danger and seeking refuge without the rights we even give other people arrested before trial who are actually accused of a crime, stealing their babies and putting them in cages or giving them away to Christians, all that is totally fine under the 4th ammendment and the rest of the Constitution.

Thank God we live in a free country!

</comment><comment><USER59> There are two obvious possible solutions to this from the city:

(1) tiny print on the parking signs that says you consent to be chalked, creating an explicit contract

(2) sell the rights to manage the city's parking to a private entity using private contractors to chalk with no prescription on methodology, rendering the "search" non-governmental in nature

</comment><comment><USER60> Here's a link to the local news story about this topic: [https://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw-bay- city/2019/04/appeals-...](https://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw-bay- city/2019/04/appeals-court-rules-chalking-tires-violates-fourth- amendment.html:wq)

<comment><USER61> Fixed link: [https://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw-bay- city/2019/04/appeals-...](https://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw-bay- city/2019/04/appeals-court-rules-chalking-tires-violates-fourth- amendment.html)

There was a :wq at the end (too much vim everywhere ;) ).

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> My hometown uses license plate recognition. To pay for parking we put our license plates into the kiosk. The enforcement person has a gadget with camera instead of expired meters.

</comment><comment><USER63> Dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19724969](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19724969)

</comment><comment><USER64> Legally speaking, city could have easily argued that parking space is not a _private property_ and therefore they can easily enforce an agreement to be chalked. I wouldn't like this but the thing is that 4AM cannot be applied if you willingly relocated your private property in to a place that is not owned by you. This is the principle (I think) behind government able to search in whatever way they deem fit at airport because airport is not your private property. If supreme court upholds this then things would become very messy for the government.

<comment><USER36> > Legally speaking, city could have easily argued that parking space is not a > private property and therefore they can easily enforce an agreement to be > chalked.

They could perhaps enforce such an agreement, if the agreement existed.

> I wouldn't like this but the thing is that 4AM cannot be applied if you > willingly relocated your private property in to a place that is not owned by > you.

No, the fourth Amendment doesn't go away on public property, generally.

> This is the principle (I think) behind government able to search in whatever > way they deem fit at airport because airport is not your private property.

It's not. A variety of administrative search criteria together with the "grave and urgent" need to prevent hijackings is, and it's not unlimited.

[https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/482/482.F2d...](https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/482/482.F2d.893.71-2993.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Seems like there's a simple solution to be found here. Don't put the chalk mark on the car, put it on the city owned street underneath it.

</comment><comment><USER66> If tire chalking constitutes an unconstitutional seizure, I wonder when we will see followup suits over towing and booting

<comment><USER47> No, because that only happens when there's reasonable belief that you are breaking a law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> I suspect that this decision will get overturned. People don't have privacy expectations concerning the appearance of tires of their cars. Any member of the general public can come by and chalk your car. No specialized equipment is required. As I recall, that was the deciding factor when the SCOTUS ruled that finding pot-growers with the help of a an infrared camera was unconstitutional.

<comment><USER68> I don't believe the argument being used here is about expectations of privacy - its in regards to the trespassing of a police officer by interacting directly with your property.

<comment><USER67> Your car is parked in a public space. A dog could walk by and mark it. No wanting something to happen is quite different from having a reasonable expectation it won't happen.

Kyllo was decided by a narrow 5-4. That case was by far stronger. It involved a person's home, first of all. And as I mentioned, it involved the use of sophisticated equipment not generally possessed by the public. Without the camera, the police would have to enter the house to obtain the same information. One can therefore establish an equivalence between the two acts. In the present case, such equivalence does not exist. The police could conceivably just stare at the car for an hour or two. Chalking is thus only a time saver. It's not a search.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> So who is going to create the app that helps cops track how long a vehicle has been present in an area?

<comment><USER70> Already done in DC. [https://twitter.com/howsmydrivingdc?lang=en](https://twitter.com/howsmydrivingdc?lang=en)

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> So then will they be violating the constitution when they place a ticket under my windshield wipers?

<comment><USER72> No, because presumbaly that doesn't count as a search, because they are not gathering information by performing the act.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> It's also quite possible that this will be overturned. Seems kinda bonkers to me.

</comment><comment><USER74> Off-topic, but I really like that the website offers a text-only version without tracking.

</comment><comment><USER75> Definitely not a lawyer, and I know a lot of places are moving to photo enforcement of parking anyway, but it's hard for me to understand why a chalk mark on a tire would be determined an "unreasonable" search by the court.

<comment><AUTHOR> It really feels like a stretch if you ask me. But since the car is private property, even though it's on a public road, the mark itself is an "action" taken by the police against your property despite not having committed any crime. I'm wondering how many other weird interpretations of this new ruling one could come up with where it would apply to a bunch of other things.

<comment><USER76> Would a police officer looking at tire tread depth also be considered an illegal search?

<comment><USER77> Not if they had reason to believe that your tires were worn out. The problem is that your tire is being marked when there is no evidence that you will overstay your parking. Everyone is marked indiscriminately. At least, thats how I understood the description.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> No more having to clear parking cookies, at least.

</comment><comment><USER79> Perhaps they can chalk the curb instead? 'Bracket' the tire(s) with marks on the curb, and a "code" indicating where the valve stem

</comment><comment><USER80> Better to just ban cars completely.

</comment><comment><USER81> someone please ELI5: what purpose does the chalking serve , in the parking enforcement ?

<comment><USER82> Chalk on the tires marks the time the parking officer saw the car. If they come back to that car, they can know it's been parked there over the time limit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> But infrared pictures of your license plate ran through private corporations databases are not.

The future is grand

</comment><comment><USER84> Always wondered about this..

..only kidding, of course I didn't. It's silly.

</comment><comment><USER85> this is a big day for chalk stories on HN

</comment><comment><USER86> Yep, chalk on your tires violates your rights. But if you are within 100 miles of a border, we can search everything in your car and on your persons no questions ask.

<comment><USER87> That's not actually true. You can be stopped and questioned about your immigration status, but the CBP still need a warrant or probable cause to search your vehicle. Same as if you were >100 miles away from the border.

<comment><USER86> You can determine a lot by stopping and asking someone about their immigration status, probably way more than chalk on a tire would.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> The car has a unique identifier already. Several of them infact.

I don't see how chalking could have ever been an option on the table. Why do you need to touch someone's car to identify it? A notepad and a pen would suffice, no?

EXAMPLE ST. - <USER2>

-Green honda AAB-234

-Red Toyota 22F-554

-Blue Land Rover 9JG-532

EXAMPLE ST. - <USER3>

-Green Honda AAB-234 <\- Getting a ticket

-Yellow Nissan BB5-K25 <\- New, no ticket

-Blue Land Rover 9JG-532 <\- Getting a ticket

I mean it really is that easy and it takes about the same amount of time, perhaps a little more diligence. It's sad that we need to govern for the lowest common denominator. If the civil servants weren't so lazy/disinterested/uneducated this wouldn't have cost the city as much money as it did to resolve.

<comment><USER47> Try it. See how many plate numbers you can write down in half an hour. (To be fair, you'd need to read and compare those plate numbers too.) Then see how many tires you can mark with chalk on a stick in the same amount of time.

As a taxpayer, I'd rather not pay for the difference in staff.</comment></comment>