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.
>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?