I'm not saying it's the definitively the most cost-effective way to hire. It very well could be short-sighted. I think your view is 100% valid and could very w

I'm not saying it's the definitively the most cost-effective way to hire. It very well could be short-sighted. I think your view is 100% valid and could very well be correct. The key point is I don't think people who disagree should be presumed "-ist." And if you are correct: Good news! As a hiring manager, you apparently have a wider selection of better candidates because your competitors aren't properly assessing value in the right places. I would argue, though, that being able to readily assess someone's experience in a modern framework you're actually using might be a less risky hire than assessing someone's abilities in decades-old technologies you don't use, hoping their lack of horizon-broadening over the last ten years hasn't been due to complacency, and paying them more just to find out. But I could be wrong! And that's OK. We should be able to disagree without the "-ist" so often.