5 ms·

>Shouldn't economics sort them out if they really aren't getting more bang for their buck with younger employees? You seem to be missing something really impor

by danjoc 9y ago

>Shouldn't economics sort them out if they really aren't getting more bang for their buck with younger employees? You seem to be missing something really important. That's illegal. Just like it's illegal to discriminate against someone because of their sex or skin color. Being over 40 years of age puts you in a protected class in the US.

lend000 9y ago
>That's illegal. If there is a difference in value, then it isn't illegal to choose the superior candidate. I described characteristics which can be legally used in making a hiring decisions, because they affect value offered for the position. These characteristics tend to on average make younger employees more desirable for typical software engineering positions, all other things equal (like perceived programming skill). For any individual case, where 25 year old Alice and 45 year old Steve have similar perceived programming value but Alice will (a.) work for less and (b.) seems like a better cultural fit, do you think Steve is entitled to the job? What if they are completely identical from a value and cost perspective, 'cultural fit' aside -- is Steve entitled to the job? Unless you can prove Steve was superior for the job and lost it anyway, which is highly arbitrary, there is no recourse for legal action. Which is why I think private discrimination laws are ridiculous, because they are effectively unenforceable. Most prejudiced employers will not print out a rejection letter stating the exact prejudice that led to the decision. Laws are not the "word of God", and just because there is a law, it doesn't mean you stop discussing it. EDIT: Quotes around "word of God," because it was apparently taken literally.
- nolite 9y ago
  Protip: don't go writing any screeds
- mythrwy 9y ago
  I personally think the phrase "cultural fit" should be illegal. Mostly because I get sick of hearing it but also because it sounds pretty blatantly discriminatory. From my perspective, any company that has management using that phrase has an extremely unhealthy culture.
  - lend000 9y ago
    I liked your other comment on this issue, but I have to strongly disagree here. There are definitely such things as cultural fits and especially cultural misfits. And even in software engineering, the human interaction component is typically strong enough to have a large effect on the success of the organization. Would you have all software engineers put our resumes into a government pool and be randomly assigned to companies?
    - kagamine 9y ago
      The problem isn't finding someone introvert or extrovert to fit in with the rest of the crew, the problem is with a catch-all phrase that has lost all meaning except where it is used as a petty excuse not to hire the brown person or the older person or the person who supports the wrong football team.
      - lend000 9y ago
        Perhaps the fact that it's unprovable should give pause to entertaining thought crimes in the first place (i.e. discrimination cases, where the employment decision is only a crime contingent on what the employer was thinking while making it).
        BoiledCabbage 9y ago
        All throughout our legals system we have crimes where intention is absolutely instrument in determining the severity of punishment. Ex. Murder vs Manslaughter. Why does no-one complain about any of those, but seem to be so upset about illegal discrimination having the same distinction?
        lend000 9y ago
        There is a key difference. In all of those "normal" crimes, the action itself was unequivocally a crime, whereas with discrimination laws, the action is only a crime contingent on the intention / what the employer was thinking, which is borderline Orwellian in my opinion.
- danso 9y ago
  > Laws are not the word of God, and just because there is a law, it doesn't mean you stop discussing it. In America, government operates on the rule of law not the Word of God. Discussing an alternate universe in which America is a theocracy seems a bit off-topic for this particular thread. > Which is why I think private discrimination laws are ridiculous, because they are effectively unenforceable. Are you suggesting that the submitted article, to which this discussion thread is attached, is a figment of our imagination? That Google actually is not facing a class-action lawsuit made possible through age-discrimination laws? > Most prejudiced employers will not print out a rejection letter stating the exact prejudice that led to the decision. Are you unaware of cases (or unable to currently use Google) in which companies were found in violation of age discrimination laws?
  - lend000 9y ago
    > Discussing an alternate universe in which America is a theocracy seems a bit off-topic for this particular thread. > Are you suggesting that the submitted article, to which this discussion thread is attached, is a figment of our imagination? That Google actually is not facing a class-action lawsuit made possible through age-discrimination laws? I will try to clear up your confusion -- you are taking everything very literally. There have been many private discrimination lawsuits, and in my opinion, all of the legitimate ones were tied in with something other than discrimination (especially harrassment). There is almost never any hard proof of discrimination of the nature that is the focus of the lawsuit, even the ones that win, and I think it's too arbitrary a thing to try to control. Feel free to list examples to the contrary, where the defendant stated "I did not hire Mr/Mrs. Smith because he/she is X." It also raises questions of freedom of association in the private space.
    - danso 9y ago
      Serious question: do you believe that all/most defendants who are convicted of murder have confessed to murder, or committed the murder in full view of a judge? Are you unaware that many convictions, criminal and civil, are built on cases that do not require confessions nor motive? Fortunately for plaintiffs, "hard proof" can come in a variety of ways other than the defendant writing out "Let's break the law" https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-22-11a.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-22-11a.cfm
- raesene6 9y ago
  Laws are, when related to restricting companies, generally intended to address the difference between the interests of citizens/the state and the interests of corporates. Many corporations would love to pay staff less money, provide fewer benefits, not worry about pollution, not pay any taxes or other things which cost them money but don't make them money. Laws which restrict corporations or require them to do certain things are designed to change behaviour that would not occur in a free market, for the good of the country and it's citizens. In this case allowing corporations to choose younger people, who can generally be acquired more cheaply, has been considered not to be in the interests of the USA or its citizens, so there is legislation to require companies not to discriminate in this fashion. Seems logical to me. As a citizen of a country I don't want to allow corporations to do whatever they want, given that their interests may not align with mine or those of the country I live in.
  - lend000 9y ago
    If there's an externality, I'm all for addressing it. With pollution, there clearly is. However, for discrimination, there are two issues: 1. challenges to freedom of association. 2. The fact that it is a thought crime, which I discuss in other comments on this thread. Also, it's easy to hate on corporations, but these laws also apply to small family businesses, startups, etc.
    - raesene6 9y ago
      I'd say that there clearly is an externality being addressed by age discrimination legislation. It's not in the interests of the state to have corporations pushing down wages by favouring only younger staff. Low wages == low tax receipts, which is objectively bad for countries and their citizens. Also as citizens it's hardly in the interests of the group as a whole in allowing corporations to drive down salaries and make older citizens redundant. Every young citizen who might benefit from such actions now will become an old citizen who will get the downside later in life. At the moment we're discussing the behaviour of a large corporation (google) so it makes sense to address that class of company. To be clear, I don't hate corporations at all, but nor to I have any faith that they'll always act in the best interests of the country I live in, in fact I expect them not to do so where their interests diverge from the interests of the country and so I expect my government to address that with legislation.
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  > If there is a difference in value, then it isn't illegal to choose the superior candidate The fact that there is a different in outcome produced by two groups, doesn't mean there wasn't discrimination as a root cause of it. An example would be, group A and group B. Members of Group A when they join the team receive mentorship, feedback and constructive reviews. Members of Group B receive due to biases in the company. As a result members of group A perform better. The fact that group A performed better doesn't mean that this isn't inequitable discrimination. Nor does it make it ok to excluding hiring members from group B because you know your company will successfully discriminate against Bs and cause them to perform worse. I'm not saying this is what's happening here - I'm showing that your premise is false - that a difference in outcome doesn't mean discrimination isn't a root cause.
- danjoc 9y ago
  >If there is a difference in value, then it isn't illegal to choose the superior candidate. I'm telling you it is. You will pay fines and legal fees. That's part of the recipe of this story. Google is breaking the law, and now the law should hurt Google for doing it. >do you think Steve is entitled to the job? Neither, because Alice is just going to get pregnant and leave soon anyway. She's just applying for the maternity leave. Everyone knows it. New company policy, no women allowed! See how that sounds yet? I doubt it very much. You don't seem able to understand it. "A broken finger will get better without your cooperation, but not a broken personality."
- fundabulousrIII 9y ago
  I believe that most of these value decisions are made from the speculative perspective of 'because Alice is 25 she will be a better cultural fit and open to working more hours' rather than any known candidate quality. I also believe that this a perfectly valid hiring judgement and if a mistake is made it is self correcting. Older folks (myself included) shouldn't take this personally or get angry. Eventually we will all be working PT as retirees doing something totally different or consulting and/or owning our own business. That's the progression as I've seen it.

by danjoc 9y ago

lend000 9y ago

>That's illegal. If there is a difference in value, then it isn't illegal to choose the superior candidate. I described characteristics which can be legally used in making a hiring decisions, because they affect value offered for the position. These characteristics tend to on average make younger employees more desirable for typical software engineering positions, all other things equal (like perceived programming skill). For any individual case, where 25 year old Alice and 45 year old Steve have similar perceived programming value but Alice will (a.) work for less and (b.) seems like a better cultural fit, do you think Steve is entitled to the job? What if they are completely identical from a value and cost perspective, 'cultural fit' aside -- is Steve entitled to the job? Unless you can prove Steve was superior for the job and lost it anyway, which is highly arbitrary, there is no recourse for legal action. Which is why I think private discrimination laws are ridiculous, because they are effectively unenforceable. Most prejudiced employers will not print out a rejection letter stating the exact prejudice that led to the decision. Laws are not the "word of God", and just because there is a law, it doesn't mean you stop discussing it. EDIT: Quotes around "word of God," because it was apparently taken literally.

nolite 9y ago
Protip: don't go writing any screeds
mythrwy 9y ago
I personally think the phrase "cultural fit" should be illegal. Mostly because I get sick of hearing it but also because it sounds pretty blatantly discriminatory. From my perspective, any company that has management using that phrase has an extremely unhealthy culture.
- lend000 9y ago
  I liked your other comment on this issue, but I have to strongly disagree here. There are definitely such things as cultural fits and especially cultural misfits. And even in software engineering, the human interaction component is typically strong enough to have a large effect on the success of the organization. Would you have all software engineers put our resumes into a government pool and be randomly assigned to companies?
  - kagamine 9y ago
    The problem isn't finding someone introvert or extrovert to fit in with the rest of the crew, the problem is with a catch-all phrase that has lost all meaning except where it is used as a petty excuse not to hire the brown person or the older person or the person who supports the wrong football team.
    - lend000 9y ago
      Perhaps the fact that it's unprovable should give pause to entertaining thought crimes in the first place (i.e. discrimination cases, where the employment decision is only a crime contingent on what the employer was thinking while making it).
      - BoiledCabbage 9y ago
        All throughout our legals system we have crimes where intention is absolutely instrument in determining the severity of punishment. Ex. Murder vs Manslaughter. Why does no-one complain about any of those, but seem to be so upset about illegal discrimination having the same distinction?
        lend000 9y ago
        There is a key difference. In all of those "normal" crimes, the action itself was unequivocally a crime, whereas with discrimination laws, the action is only a crime contingent on the intention / what the employer was thinking, which is borderline Orwellian in my opinion.
danso 9y ago
> Laws are not the word of God, and just because there is a law, it doesn't mean you stop discussing it. In America, government operates on the rule of law not the Word of God. Discussing an alternate universe in which America is a theocracy seems a bit off-topic for this particular thread. > Which is why I think private discrimination laws are ridiculous, because they are effectively unenforceable. Are you suggesting that the submitted article, to which this discussion thread is attached, is a figment of our imagination? That Google actually is not facing a class-action lawsuit made possible through age-discrimination laws? > Most prejudiced employers will not print out a rejection letter stating the exact prejudice that led to the decision. Are you unaware of cases (or unable to currently use Google) in which companies were found in violation of age discrimination laws?
- lend000 9y ago
  > Discussing an alternate universe in which America is a theocracy seems a bit off-topic for this particular thread. > Are you suggesting that the submitted article, to which this discussion thread is attached, is a figment of our imagination? That Google actually is not facing a class-action lawsuit made possible through age-discrimination laws? I will try to clear up your confusion -- you are taking everything very literally. There have been many private discrimination lawsuits, and in my opinion, all of the legitimate ones were tied in with something other than discrimination (especially harrassment). There is almost never any hard proof of discrimination of the nature that is the focus of the lawsuit, even the ones that win, and I think it's too arbitrary a thing to try to control. Feel free to list examples to the contrary, where the defendant stated "I did not hire Mr/Mrs. Smith because he/she is X." It also raises questions of freedom of association in the private space.
  - danso 9y ago
    Serious question: do you believe that all/most defendants who are convicted of murder have confessed to murder, or committed the murder in full view of a judge? Are you unaware that many convictions, criminal and civil, are built on cases that do not require confessions nor motive? Fortunately for plaintiffs, "hard proof" can come in a variety of ways other than the defendant writing out "Let's break the law" https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-22-11a.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-22-11a.cfm
raesene6 9y ago
Laws are, when related to restricting companies, generally intended to address the difference between the interests of citizens/the state and the interests of corporates. Many corporations would love to pay staff less money, provide fewer benefits, not worry about pollution, not pay any taxes or other things which cost them money but don't make them money. Laws which restrict corporations or require them to do certain things are designed to change behaviour that would not occur in a free market, for the good of the country and it's citizens. In this case allowing corporations to choose younger people, who can generally be acquired more cheaply, has been considered not to be in the interests of the USA or its citizens, so there is legislation to require companies not to discriminate in this fashion. Seems logical to me. As a citizen of a country I don't want to allow corporations to do whatever they want, given that their interests may not align with mine or those of the country I live in.
- lend000 9y ago
  If there's an externality, I'm all for addressing it. With pollution, there clearly is. However, for discrimination, there are two issues: 1. challenges to freedom of association. 2. The fact that it is a thought crime, which I discuss in other comments on this thread. Also, it's easy to hate on corporations, but these laws also apply to small family businesses, startups, etc.
  - raesene6 9y ago
    I'd say that there clearly is an externality being addressed by age discrimination legislation. It's not in the interests of the state to have corporations pushing down wages by favouring only younger staff. Low wages == low tax receipts, which is objectively bad for countries and their citizens. Also as citizens it's hardly in the interests of the group as a whole in allowing corporations to drive down salaries and make older citizens redundant. Every young citizen who might benefit from such actions now will become an old citizen who will get the downside later in life. At the moment we're discussing the behaviour of a large corporation (google) so it makes sense to address that class of company. To be clear, I don't hate corporations at all, but nor to I have any faith that they'll always act in the best interests of the country I live in, in fact I expect them not to do so where their interests diverge from the interests of the country and so I expect my government to address that with legislation.
BoiledCabbage 9y ago
> If there is a difference in value, then it isn't illegal to choose the superior candidate The fact that there is a different in outcome produced by two groups, doesn't mean there wasn't discrimination as a root cause of it. An example would be, group A and group B. Members of Group A when they join the team receive mentorship, feedback and constructive reviews. Members of Group B receive due to biases in the company. As a result members of group A perform better. The fact that group A performed better doesn't mean that this isn't inequitable discrimination. Nor does it make it ok to excluding hiring members from group B because you know your company will successfully discriminate against Bs and cause them to perform worse. I'm not saying this is what's happening here - I'm showing that your premise is false - that a difference in outcome doesn't mean discrimination isn't a root cause.
danjoc 9y ago
>If there is a difference in value, then it isn't illegal to choose the superior candidate. I'm telling you it is. You will pay fines and legal fees. That's part of the recipe of this story. Google is breaking the law, and now the law should hurt Google for doing it. >do you think Steve is entitled to the job? Neither, because Alice is just going to get pregnant and leave soon anyway. She's just applying for the maternity leave. Everyone knows it. New company policy, no women allowed! See how that sounds yet? I doubt it very much. You don't seem able to understand it. "A broken finger will get better without your cooperation, but not a broken personality."
fundabulousrIII 9y ago
I believe that most of these value decisions are made from the speculative perspective of 'because Alice is 25 she will be a better cultural fit and open to working more hours' rather than any known candidate quality. I also believe that this a perfectly valid hiring judgement and if a mistake is made it is self correcting. Older folks (myself included) shouldn't take this personally or get angry. Eventually we will all be working PT as retirees doing something totally different or consulting and/or owning our own business. That's the progression as I've seen it.