7 ms·

I don't think it's ageism if one person is selected based on being willing to work more for less money. That's just a labor market. There's an argument to be m

I don't think it's ageism if one person is selected based on being willing to work more for less money. That's just a labor market. There's an argument to be made that 20-somethings shouldn't work more than 40 hours a week or should require higher pay. Or that employers should place more value on the work of more experienced developers. Or both. But I don't think experienced developers should be exempt from keeping what they're bringing competitive with less experienced ones. That's a market--which is reality.

balabaster 9y ago
Never compete on price. Provide something that nobody else can and stick with it, otherwise it's a race to the bottom. Those companies that hire the cheapest labour will get the quality they pay for. Let them, it's not your problem. There are enough who care about doing it right that they will eventually find you and will pay you according to the value you bring.
- dennis_jeeves 9y ago
  >There are enough who care about doing it right If you know any of them, please list them. One real problem is that the ones who want to do it 'right' are few and possibly not easily identifiable so potential job seekers may not know where to search for them.
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  Amazon competes on price
  - dozzie 9y ago
    Never take universal quantifiers literally.
    - billmalarky 9y ago
      Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
      - balabaster 9y ago
        Not all Sith ;)
- user5994461 9y ago
  That depends where you live of course. The smaller cities have so little tech companies that it's hard to find any tech job, irrelevant of the price.
  - balabaster 9y ago
    If you want to make money doing something you love, you have to be willing to do what it takes to do that thing. You either have to play in the market as it is defined, make the market change to the way you want to do things or be willing to relocate to make it happen. Why do you think all the most highly paid actors and actresses are in Hollywood? Do you think they all started life there or do you think they moved there from all over the world because that's where their market is and that's what they love doing?
sidlls 9y ago
> I don't think it's ageism if one person is selected based on being willing to work more for less money. That's just a labor market. All sorts of discrimination exists still because "perfectly rational" arguments like yours ignore underlying reasons. For example: it's the same justification racists used for intelligence tests for voting not too long ago.
- moduspol 9y ago
  Yes, and all sorts of underlying reasons are hidden by assuming "-isms" and victimhood at the first sign of disparate outcomes. But trying to address perceived ageism doesn't solve the problem. Being aware of contributing factors and correcting for them on an individual level does.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    > Yes, and all sorts of underlying reasons are hidden by assuming "-isms" and victimhood at the first sign of disparate outcomes. This is a loaded and contentious statement ("assuming...victimhood at the first sign"). And trying to address ageism is trying to solve the problem; the problem is ageism. In your particular example, ageism is manifest because older workers tend to have families and financial obligations (both of which, by the way, contribute to society). That's not "perceived" ageism. It's simply ageism.
    - moduspol 9y ago
      It is assuming victimhood, because it is presumed immoral (or illegal) activity for what could at least as reasonably be totally moral and legal decisionmaking as a result of other factors. If you choose not to work as much as someone else or made choices that require higher compensation, it is not an "-ism" for your employer to choose another candidate on that basis alone. We're going down a dark road claiming victimhood without evidence as quickly as people are.
      - brooklyn_ashey 9y ago
jpindar 9y ago
It's predjudice if you pre-judge how much people are willing to work or how much money they want based on their demographics.
- moduspol 9y ago
  It is, but parent comment stated it as fact--not a prejudgment. If you are avoiding older candidates because of presumptions about them in terms of work ethic or compensation expectations, you are wrong. If you are advertising below-market salaries and expecting >40 hr work weeks and only attract younger people, there is nothing wrong with that. Older candidates are not entitled to employment in the positions they want at the rates they want. They need to compete in the labor market with the rest of us.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    > If you are avoiding older candidates because of presumptions about them in terms of work ethic or compensation expectations, you are wrong. If you are advertising below-market salaries and expecting >40 hr work weeks and only attract younger people, there is nothing wrong with that. You don't seem to understand how discrimination works: the advertisement you describe discriminates against older workers because of how lives typically evolve with age (e.g. ability to sustain long hours, family or other obligations, etc.). The two scenarios you describe aren't objectively independent or even clearly separable.
    - moduspol 9y ago
      We're just getting into a pointless gray area when that argument is made. Doesn't having work hours that don't match with school hours discriminate against parents? Isn't a position with on-call responsibilities inherently discriminating against people with more familial commitments? I don't think it's the employer's responsibility to tailor the job to match a candidate's chosen lifestyle, or that not doing so means you're discriminating. I think people need to be responsible for their own decisions, and if that means you're less competitive relative to another candidate, that is not the employer or the other candidate's fault.
Swinx43 9y ago
> I don't think it's ageism if one person is selected based on being willing to work more for less money. That's just a labor market. Agreed, however very few ever come out and says that so directly. In a lot of cases the reasons are given as not having the right "cultural fit", or being "over qualified" or some other excuse because the person hiring cannot stomach it to simply say "we want cheap resources that we can work to the bone". No one should feel like they need to perform the equivalent of slave labour in order to get a job. 20-somethings should not have to work 80 hour weeks. Allowing them the free time to pursue their interests will make them better employees.
- moduspol 9y ago
  Agreed on all points, but we're going down a dark road when any measurable disparity is assumed to be an unfair "-ism" without evidence, that must be corrected because clearly the decisionmaking gatekeepers are "-ists." It's possible the problem (at a macro level) is caused by other correlating factors, such as differing salary expectations and how up-to-date skillsets are.
  - Swinx43 9y ago
    I definitely agree with you and this particular dark road is best left untraveled. It would be really great to get more data behind what is mostly anecdotal evidence. Also getting data from across the US and other countries would be very useful in understanding this better. Without the data it is too easy to go down the dark path.
    - brooklyn_ashey 9y ago
      we need a #metoo movement for ageist experiences in the interview process and beyond! This antiquated EEOC complaint business needs a "disruption" by a more "agile" and effective approach.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    I'd like to share my story related to ageism: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15642428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15642428 If it's that hard for me, it seems true to say it's much harder for someone much older. I hear you about the -ism fanaticism. But there seem to be serious problems on the horizon. I can't make you believe them. All I can do is try to relate it to something in your life.
walshemj 9y ago
But that's not the legal and societal POV is it would you say that applies to Race Sex Gender and so on?
- moduspol 9y ago
  Of course. I've never seen someone argue they were being discriminated against on the basis of race, and that they know this because someone else offered to do more work for less money and were chosen. I agree it is currently popular to assume "-ism" simply from disparate outcomes, but I don't think it's right (in both the "correctness" and "morally proper" definitions of the word).
mcguire 9y ago
As long as the market has been sufficiently de-skilled, by the belief that it can be taught by weeks-long bootcamps alone and a 25 year old has seen enough crap to be called "senior", that will be a valid view.
- moduspol 9y ago
  Perhaps there is some middle ground, and a fresh perspective with modern tools at a lower price might be more valuable in many circumstances. And perhaps "years spent in industry" is not as universally correlative with cost-effectiveness as some claim.

balabaster 9y ago

Never compete on price. Provide something that nobody else can and stick with it, otherwise it's a race to the bottom. Those companies that hire the cheapest labour will get the quality they pay for. Let them, it's not your problem. There are enough who care about doing it right that they will eventually find you and will pay you according to the value you bring.

dennis_jeeves 9y ago
>There are enough who care about doing it right If you know any of them, please list them. One real problem is that the ones who want to do it 'right' are few and possibly not easily identifiable so potential job seekers may not know where to search for them.
fjsolwmv 9y ago
Amazon competes on price
- dozzie 9y ago
  Never take universal quantifiers literally.
  - billmalarky 9y ago
    Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
    - balabaster 9y ago
      Not all Sith ;)
user5994461 9y ago
That depends where you live of course. The smaller cities have so little tech companies that it's hard to find any tech job, irrelevant of the price.
- balabaster 9y ago
  If you want to make money doing something you love, you have to be willing to do what it takes to do that thing. You either have to play in the market as it is defined, make the market change to the way you want to do things or be willing to relocate to make it happen. Why do you think all the most highly paid actors and actresses are in Hollywood? Do you think they all started life there or do you think they moved there from all over the world because that's where their market is and that's what they love doing?

sidlls 9y ago

> I don't think it's ageism if one person is selected based on being willing to work more for less money. That's just a labor market. All sorts of discrimination exists still because "perfectly rational" arguments like yours ignore underlying reasons. For example: it's the same justification racists used for intelligence tests for voting not too long ago.

moduspol 9y ago
Yes, and all sorts of underlying reasons are hidden by assuming "-isms" and victimhood at the first sign of disparate outcomes. But trying to address perceived ageism doesn't solve the problem. Being aware of contributing factors and correcting for them on an individual level does.
- sidlls 9y ago
  > Yes, and all sorts of underlying reasons are hidden by assuming "-isms" and victimhood at the first sign of disparate outcomes. This is a loaded and contentious statement ("assuming...victimhood at the first sign"). And trying to address ageism is trying to solve the problem; the problem is ageism. In your particular example, ageism is manifest because older workers tend to have families and financial obligations (both of which, by the way, contribute to society). That's not "perceived" ageism. It's simply ageism.
  - moduspol 9y ago
    It is assuming victimhood, because it is presumed immoral (or illegal) activity for what could at least as reasonably be totally moral and legal decisionmaking as a result of other factors. If you choose not to work as much as someone else or made choices that require higher compensation, it is not an "-ism" for your employer to choose another candidate on that basis alone. We're going down a dark road claiming victimhood without evidence as quickly as people are.
    - brooklyn_ashey 9y ago

jpindar 9y ago

It's predjudice if you pre-judge how much people are willing to work or how much money they want based on their demographics.

moduspol 9y ago
It is, but parent comment stated it as fact--not a prejudgment. If you are avoiding older candidates because of presumptions about them in terms of work ethic or compensation expectations, you are wrong. If you are advertising below-market salaries and expecting >40 hr work weeks and only attract younger people, there is nothing wrong with that. Older candidates are not entitled to employment in the positions they want at the rates they want. They need to compete in the labor market with the rest of us.
- sidlls 9y ago
  > If you are avoiding older candidates because of presumptions about them in terms of work ethic or compensation expectations, you are wrong. If you are advertising below-market salaries and expecting >40 hr work weeks and only attract younger people, there is nothing wrong with that. You don't seem to understand how discrimination works: the advertisement you describe discriminates against older workers because of how lives typically evolve with age (e.g. ability to sustain long hours, family or other obligations, etc.). The two scenarios you describe aren't objectively independent or even clearly separable.
  - moduspol 9y ago
    We're just getting into a pointless gray area when that argument is made. Doesn't having work hours that don't match with school hours discriminate against parents? Isn't a position with on-call responsibilities inherently discriminating against people with more familial commitments? I don't think it's the employer's responsibility to tailor the job to match a candidate's chosen lifestyle, or that not doing so means you're discriminating. I think people need to be responsible for their own decisions, and if that means you're less competitive relative to another candidate, that is not the employer or the other candidate's fault.

Swinx43 9y ago

> I don't think it's ageism if one person is selected based on being willing to work more for less money. That's just a labor market. Agreed, however very few ever come out and says that so directly. In a lot of cases the reasons are given as not having the right "cultural fit", or being "over qualified" or some other excuse because the person hiring cannot stomach it to simply say "we want cheap resources that we can work to the bone". No one should feel like they need to perform the equivalent of slave labour in order to get a job. 20-somethings should not have to work 80 hour weeks. Allowing them the free time to pursue their interests will make them better employees.

moduspol 9y ago
Agreed on all points, but we're going down a dark road when any measurable disparity is assumed to be an unfair "-ism" without evidence, that must be corrected because clearly the decisionmaking gatekeepers are "-ists." It's possible the problem (at a macro level) is caused by other correlating factors, such as differing salary expectations and how up-to-date skillsets are.
- Swinx43 9y ago
  I definitely agree with you and this particular dark road is best left untraveled. It would be really great to get more data behind what is mostly anecdotal evidence. Also getting data from across the US and other countries would be very useful in understanding this better. Without the data it is too easy to go down the dark path.
  - brooklyn_ashey 9y ago
    we need a #metoo movement for ageist experiences in the interview process and beyond! This antiquated EEOC complaint business needs a "disruption" by a more "agile" and effective approach.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  I'd like to share my story related to ageism: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15642428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15642428 If it's that hard for me, it seems true to say it's much harder for someone much older. I hear you about the -ism fanaticism. But there seem to be serious problems on the horizon. I can't make you believe them. All I can do is try to relate it to something in your life.

walshemj 9y ago

But that's not the legal and societal POV is it would you say that applies to Race Sex Gender and so on?

moduspol 9y ago
Of course. I've never seen someone argue they were being discriminated against on the basis of race, and that they know this because someone else offered to do more work for less money and were chosen. I agree it is currently popular to assume "-ism" simply from disparate outcomes, but I don't think it's right (in both the "correctness" and "morally proper" definitions of the word).

mcguire 9y ago

As long as the market has been sufficiently de-skilled, by the belief that it can be taught by weeks-long bootcamps alone and a 25 year old has seen enough crap to be called "senior", that will be a valid view.

moduspol 9y ago
Perhaps there is some middle ground, and a fresh perspective with modern tools at a lower price might be more valuable in many circumstances. And perhaps "years spent in industry" is not as universally correlative with cost-effectiveness as some claim.