3 ms·
You are more likely to die soon, and if you have some unique understanding of how the company works, that would be lost.
by reddytowns 10y ago
You are more likely to die soon, and if you have some unique understanding of how the company works, that would be lost.
- jlarocco 10y agoBy that logic people under 30 shouldn't be hired either, because they're more likely to jump ship to another company. TBH, if a single person leaving (for any reason) can tank the company, it's probably doing a person a favor not to hire them. Sounds like a mess.
- reddytowns 10y agoYou are looking at it in black and white terms. Just because there is also a reason younger people might leave unexpectedly doesn't invalidate my assertion. And, having someone leave unexpectedly doesn't have to "tank" the company without still causing damage. Like I said, black and white terms...
- reddytowns 10y agoGuess I hit a lot of sore spots...
- reddytowns 10y agoAll this down voting seems very passive aggressive.. just like most old people I know.
- crpatino 10y agoAnd how is this supposed to be worse than hiring a series of youngsters, each not yet knowing how any company works, and then replace'em when they are just begining to get a clue?
- reddytowns 10y agoWhy would you replace them when they "get a clue"? I really don't understand what everyone here is on about, including the downvoters. The parent asserted there is nothing disqualifying an older person from being hired. I gave one reason, essentially that health declines when you age. No one refuted my point, yet I get downvoted to oblivion. It kind of says something about older people if this is how they respond to critical thinking. I can't say that this sort of response is unexpected, though, given my experiences with the older generations. They tend to be short tempered and unwilling to consider alternative evidence to their (foregone?) conclusions. I guess that's another reason to avoid hiring older workers. They're likely to have a lot of hubris.