Claims of age discrimination is like claims that there is untapped cheap labor in hiring women in first world countries. If the claims were true anyone could hire up all of the cheap labor and stomp their discriminating competitors. That doesn't happen. Either it's really a grand conspiracy like some claim or the situation is not so simple. I think it's more likely older people expect to get paid more for their experience, are less likely to learn new things on their own like younger people are, are less likely to start up their own companies like younger people are because doing so is risky.
You see people obsessing over youth. They are not. They are valuing risk takers, people who know modern tech, people who don't expect to be paid so much just because they know more less useful to the current situation skills and knowledge. The quality of a low age itself is irrelevant. It will be the same 15 years from now. Current younger people will feel more entitled to higher pay, will feel less willing to compromise or settle for jobs which their younger peers would be happy to get. Ultimately if someone brings value to a job it's the stupidity of the employer to not understand their value. If a company can make 10x more from hiring someone why wouldn't they? Companies which don't hire the best value makers don't do as well, which allows those companies which do hire those people to float to the top. It is the same thing with women. Any sane businessperson would hire people no matter their gender if those people can make them more money, and anyone who is leaving value on the table by being discriminatory despite the lost potential leaves room for their competitors to destroy them. If you think older people can make you more money ultimately then you hire them and rule the tech world.
> Claims of age discrimination is like claims that there is untapped cheap labor in hiring women in first world countries. If the claims were true anyone could hire up all of the cheap labor and stomp their discriminating competitors.
Who is claiming that first world women are an untapped source of cheap labor? In what field?
> [older people] are less likely to start up their own companies like younger people are because doing so is risky.
Even if true, this is irrelevant. Age discrimination in this context applies to employee hiring.
> They are valuing risk takers
Is "risk taking" a criteria your company applies when looking for talent? None of the startups I've worked with have ever sorted engineering candidates by "risk taking".
> It is the same thing with women. Any sane businessperson would hire people no matter their gender if those people can make them more money, and anyone who is leaving value on the table by being discriminatory despite the lost potential leaves room for their competitors to destroy them.
The crux of your argument is that the market will punish bad behavior. I think this sounds convincing. However, it is a flawed argument. For one thing, the market can't reward new approaches if no-one tries them.
50 years ago you could probably have made the argument that outright discrimination against women and minorities was rewarded by the market. After all, all companies observed similar hiring practices - including the market leaders.
Taking a snapshot of current practices, and claiming they are some sort of epitome "because free market!" is simply a logical fallacy.
>Who is claiming that first world women are an untapped source of cheap labor? In what field?
The people who claim that women are discriminated against purely based on gender. If women really are being discriminated based on gender, and companies are hiring less qualified men in favor of more qualified women, then someone should be able to hire up all of the women who are being snubbed by all of the sexist companies and have a competitive advantage over them, right? Same situation with older people, right? Unless of course if this isn't about age or sex. I'm female and not getting any younger by the way. But I still don't buy the bull others try to sell.
>Age discrimination in this context applies to employee hiring.
Are older people better employees or worse? Are they hiring based on age or the other things and age is only an easy thing to blame?
>Is "risk taking" a criteria your company applies when looking for talent?
No startup is a sure thing. Younger people are less risk averse. It's not that a company wants people who will take risks it's that older people want more of a sure thing. They walk in and expect a salary which matches their years of experience, while most places hiring have no use for their experience. Their experience would add no value to their business, and so hiring a younger person who does not demand such a high salary is a better option.
>For one thing, the market can't reward new approaches if no-one tries them.
There is no law keeping the people clamoring about ageism from do that. No one can force others to nor should they be able to. Clearly if they believe that hiring older people is such a good move they should be able to make a lot of money.
I'm unaware of laws which make it harder or impossible for older people to get hired?
> Unless of course if this isn't about age or sex. I'm female and not getting any younger by the way. But I still don't buy the bull others try to sell.
You're rebutting a straw man.
> No startup is a sure thing. Younger people are less risk averse.
Again, a moot point. If an employee is applying to work for a startup, they're acknowledging the risk. The risk, by the way, is negligible for employees.
> It's not that a company wants people who will take risks it's that older people want more of a sure thing. They walk in and expect a salary which matches their years of experience, while most places hiring have no use for their experience.
This is a contrived example. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense. By a "sure thing" do you mean salary vs. equity? I can assure you most young engineers also value salary.
> Their experience would add no value to their business, and so hiring a younger person who does not demand such a high salary is a better option.
What are you basing this on? It reads like a caricature.
> Clearly if they believe that hiring older people is such a good move they should be able to make a lot of money.
I already addressed this. If you're intent on repeating your original claim, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>Ageism: people are not being hired because of their age only and not for any other reason.
>The risk, by the way, is negligible for employees.
What. Employees don't care that they might not have a job? Employees don't care that they might not be able to be paid?
>This doesn't make sense.
Companies don't want to pay for what they don't need. People feel entitled to what they feel they are worth and not necessarily what value they give to a company based on what the company needs. When they have a lot of experience but nothing useful to contribute they blame things which do not factor in at all in hiring.
>What are you basing this on? This reads like a caricature.
I think you are mistaking my snark for me actually asserting things.
>I already addressed this. If you're intent on repeating your original claim, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Whose responsibility is it to fix the apparent ageism if the people complaining about it don't want to do anything to solve their own problems?
>You're relying on make-believe scenario to argue a point.
I live in a reality where technology is constantly changing, where people need to learn new things or get left behind in their usefulness. If they have years of experience in software or systems which no one uses anymore that doesn't guarantee them anything.
>It's an industry wide issue which is actually being addressed.
People solving their own problems instead of complaining about them on message boards? Mission Accomplished! Wait, so companies really were not hiring the best people who give them the most value and now suddenly are thanks to people speaking up? When did all of this happen?
> Then mission accomplished! Wait, so companies really were not hiring the best people who give them the most value and now suddenly are thanks to people speaking up? When did all of this happen?
Get back to me in 15 years when ageism is no longer something people complain about.
Won't happen. It will always be like this. People who refuse to adapt blame others instead of doing something about their own problems. If anything people will invent new isms to blame their problems on.
>Myth : The highest paid are in the 30-40 age bracket.
I'm not saying people are not paid money I'm saying older people will expect higher salaries based on their experience compared to younger people despite the direct value they can contribute to a company. Value = money.
>...but they already know so much more that learning is less important. They know it already!
Yes, they know so much... of things no one uses anymore, of outdated practices, and not what is making money right now. Technology changes fast and what is useful to know now won't be in 15 years.
> Technology changes fast and what is useful to know now won't be in 15 years.
This claim is bandied about way too carelessly. Application level tools do change quite fast. The fundamentals of technology do not.
Knowledge of networking, TCP/IP, x86 assembly, stack discipline, cache implementations, etc. is comparatively timeless. For instance, one of CMU's core CS/ECE classes (213) has been taught in roughly the same manner for the last 15 years. The same I believe holds true for 6.001 at MIT.
You can argue that COBOL is no longer relevant. What you can't claim is that only the framework-du-jour is important to modern business. It's simply not the case.
I would argue that the number of people needed for older technology is finitely limited not that they are no longer needed. There may be demand for older technology, but the majority of new jobs won't be for older technology.
>is comparatively timeless
Why are companies apparently hiring younger people over older people who are vastly more experienced and given that timeless knowledge would give so much more value to their companies? Are they just plain stupid?
> I would argue that the number of people needed for older technology is finitely limited not that they are no longer needed. There may be demand for older technology, but the majority of new jobs won't be for older technology
Obviously no-one is being hired to write x86 assembly. It's taught because it's relevant, important and timeless.
> Why are companies apparently hiring younger people over older people who are vastly more experienced and given that timeless knowledge would give so much more value to their companies? Are they just plain stupid?
Like most of your arguments, this is a logical fallacy. You're appealing to authority and the status quo, without actually addressing any of the issues head on.
>Obviously no-one is being hired to write x86 assembly. It's taught because it's relevant, important and timeless.
Not everything is timeless. Not everything everyone specializes now will be timeless. Some knowledge will be useful always, but if there is not demand for the timeless positions, or demand shrinks rather than grows, then even if someone has timeless knowledge that may not actually be useful in them getting hired, because what they know wouldn't give value to companies looking to hire.
>You're appealing to authority and the status quo, without actually addressing any of the issues head on.
I refuse to accept without evidence that companies are only hiring younger people because of their youth and not because they give the company some kind of competitive advantage.
>Like most of your arguments, this is a logical fallacy.
That was a question, which was refused any answer, not an argument. You are asserting that people have timeless knowledge making them more valuable employees than younger people without that timeless knowledge. I'm asking why then do companies make hiring decisions which go against their interests.
> You are asserting that [older] people have timeless knowledge making them more valuable employees than younger people without that timeless knowledge.
Just like my questions weren't arguments? I thought you saying that knowledge was timeless was related to older people (the topic) having knowledge. A person may understand principles but if they are not wiling to learn what a company wants they won't be hire able - do you disagree with that too?
I'm trying to understand exactly what on topic (you arguing that ageism is real but not explaining why people would possibly want to higher younger people over older people) you are saying.
If you really think I'm wrong say something which will change my mind.
To summarize the generalizations:
- Companies hire younger people for competitive reasons : they cost less, they are more willing to learn, they have less baggage and less liability
- Older people demand more - they know they can't take risks with jobs and want high paying positions
- Older people are less willing to learn the things younger people are for whatever reason
- Older people may have more fundamental experience, more general knowledge, but if they have specialized heavily in something which is obsolete they can't compete unless they learn something new
- We know that older people run the companies, and start up most new companies - so why are older people choosing younger people instead of their peers?
Are these all wrong? Your other posts have not been convincing. I'm sure if you care about this cause it would be worth converting someone who cares to your view point, because right now all I see are lazy whiners who don't want to compete and want an easy scapegoat to blame.
You conflated statements. You were (and still are) putting words in my mouth.
This statement [of mine] :
> Application level tools do change quite fast. The fundamentals of technology do not.
Was in response to your blanket assertion that technology changes so fast current knowledge will be useless in 15 years.
I believe this claim to be false, and provided evidence to that effect. You then claimed I had claimed this knowledge was unique among older engineers. I said no such thing. I don't even know how you would get that impression. I cited current University courses, after all.
As for our previous discussion on ageism, I think it's clear we won't ever see eye to eye and will have to agree to disagree.
>Was in response to your blanket assertion that technology changes so fast current knowledge will be useless in 15 years.
What I meant was that some of what is useful now won't be useful in years to come not absolutely all technology ever. Some people choose to specialize in company specific technology which wouldn't be at all useful outside of it.
Although I roughly agree with the sentiment ('if you think everybody else is leaving money at the table, you should be picking it up rather than complaining about it') - there is evidence to the contrary.
A large part of the post-WWII economic growth of the Soviet Union has been attributed to the integration of women into the labour force - and the final stagnation to the fact that at that point there were no more women to integrate, everybody was already working.
You see people obsessing over youth. They are not. They are valuing risk takers, people who know modern tech, people who don't expect to be paid so much just because they know more less useful to the current situation skills and knowledge. The quality of a low age itself is irrelevant. It will be the same 15 years from now. Current younger people will feel more entitled to higher pay, will feel less willing to compromise or settle for jobs which their younger peers would be happy to get. Ultimately if someone brings value to a job it's the stupidity of the employer to not understand their value. If a company can make 10x more from hiring someone why wouldn't they? Companies which don't hire the best value makers don't do as well, which allows those companies which do hire those people to float to the top. It is the same thing with women. Any sane businessperson would hire people no matter their gender if those people can make them more money, and anyone who is leaving value on the table by being discriminatory despite the lost potential leaves room for their competitors to destroy them. If you think older people can make you more money ultimately then you hire them and rule the tech world.