4 ms·
Suddenly I understand why the comments on these articles tend to be so hostile.
by brainfire 9y ago
Suddenly I understand why the comments on these articles tend to be so hostile.
- jenkstom 9y agoI've pondered the above statement for a bit. It could go either way. From a demand side (hiring), it's very positive. "We have increased our talent pool AND lowered cost." Win-win. From a supply side (employee/contractor) it would be fantastically negative: "These jerks are lowering my rockstar wages by hiring women, ethnic minorities and old people." Lose-lose. There's a lot in what you expect to see here. I wonder how much this type of thing makes these discussions worse than they have to be?
- toyg 9y agoI wouldn't put "old people" in the mix - after all, they were already around; if anything ageism restricts what was the established pool. Ageism is enacted to lower wages (young talent is cheaper), not fought. For women and ethnic minorities, the opposite is true: the more you promote them, as a simple employed worker, the more you're effectively lowering your own wage in real terms. You are effectively self-taxing out of solidarity, while your employer reaps the rewards in terms of additional productivity and profit. This is one of the problems of modern life for which progressives (including me) really have no answer beyond a generic "all will get well eventually" feelgood optimism. One quick look at statistics for male remuneration and wages in real term post-feminism doesn't really support that optimism.