> 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.
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.