4 ms·

Meh, is it really important. There are many reasons to want younger workers, and there are many reasons you shouldn't want younger workers. I don't find it nec

Meh, is it really important. There are many reasons to want younger workers, and there are many reasons you shouldn't want younger workers. I don't find it necessary for the government to step in to help one of the highest paid fields in america.

tptacek 9y ago
Yes: it is illegal in the United States to discriminate in favor of younger applicants. Tech isn't exempt from the law because it's "one of the highest paid fields"; in fact, that makes it more important to enforce the law, not less.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Its also illegal to carry lobsters of a certain size between states, its doesn't make it important. Being highly paid shows you that there is much competition for labor, which means some might discriminate and some might not. If people don't want to hire older people they wont, no amount of law will change that, but it will make it more expensive to hire in general.
tmh79 9y ago
It is a violation of very important civil rights laws in the US. Imagine a company using Facebook to advertise job openings to white candidates only.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Or to advertise to get large chested women to serve beer! Its just a preference. If they are making an unprofitable preference, the best punishment you can do is let them continue their policy and let other competition pick up where they leave money on the table. If the decision they are making is profitable, no amount of law will help against the desires of people.
brianberns 9y ago
There may be "reasons", but are they ethical? I'd like an example of such a reason, if you have one.
- derekp7 9y ago
  The only one I can think of is casting a part in a movie. You wouldn't cast Sean Connery to play the part of Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network, for example. But I believe there is already exceptions in the law for things like films. And churches typically hire a younger person to be a youth minister, as the kids could relate to them better. Again, not sure about the legality of this though.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    Acting and Religious Bodies have an opt out - your making excuses
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Older people might be closer to having a family, which means less productivity, high cost (parental leave is very expensive*), and also in areas like SF or mountain view might have high turn-over rate because of the expensiveness of the city, whereas younger people can cram into a room for a decade until that happens. Also many corporate benefits like booze, free food and all that might not have the same premium for older people, which might, at the same skill, demand higher salaries that the companies desire to spend considering the available competition. There is always the wildcard of 'culture fit'.
  - syshum 9y ago
    >>Older people might be closer to having a family, which means less productivity, high cost (parental leave is very expensive*), The Demo they were targeting is the age group (25 to 36 years old ) is when most people have their first child. No very many people start a family when they are over 40, sure it happens but it is rare. If parental leave was a concern than hiring people over 40 should be your priority as most people over 40 will have old children and not be taking parental leave. People over 50 will likely have Collage aged or old children and need every very little time off for child related events (school events, illness, etc) So discriminating against older workers because of children seems illogical >>also in areas like SF or mountain view Just so you know, there is an entire world outside of SF and Mountain View... I know it is shocking but... >>whereas younger people can cram into a room for a decade until that happens. Why would you want to? I am in my mid 30;s now, even when I was in my early 20's I refused to have more than 1 roommate. I would much rather make 50-75K in an area where I can afford a 3 bedroom home on my own than make 100-150K and have to live in 100 square feet and "cram into a room for a decade" Each to their own I guess, but count me out of that life style
pcwalton 9y ago
> There are many reasons to want younger workers, and there are many reasons you shouldn't want younger workers. I don't find it necessary for the government to step in to help one of the highest paid fields in america. Would you feel similarly if you replaced "younger" with "gay" or "female"?
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  I've never really understood this. Some restaurants, or clothing stores, have wait staff that are all women. In a massage place you can pick the gender of your masseuse - so surely a massage place that was already well staffed with one gender would be justified in gender discrimination. If I'm hiring a baby sitter for my daughter, I'm not going to hire a male person, and I'm sure there are many similar examples. I get that many times there is no justification for hiring preferences based on gender, but surely sometimes there is.
  - pcwalton 9y ago
    The article talks about Verizon, Amazon, Goldman, Target, and Facebook, none of which are known for massage therapy or babysitting.
    - ImSkeptical 9y ago
      I intended my comment to be on the topic of the thread I replied to, and not the subject of the article. I meant that I don't really understand when you can and can't discriminate based on things.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Yes. I have no desires in protecting bigots by forcing them to camouflage with all the rest, and to shield them from the expensive decisions they were going to make.

tptacek 9y ago

Yes: it is illegal in the United States to discriminate in favor of younger applicants. Tech isn't exempt from the law because it's "one of the highest paid fields"; in fact, that makes it more important to enforce the law, not less.

conanbatt 9y ago
Its also illegal to carry lobsters of a certain size between states, its doesn't make it important. Being highly paid shows you that there is much competition for labor, which means some might discriminate and some might not. If people don't want to hire older people they wont, no amount of law will change that, but it will make it more expensive to hire in general.

tmh79 9y ago

It is a violation of very important civil rights laws in the US. Imagine a company using Facebook to advertise job openings to white candidates only.

conanbatt 9y ago
Or to advertise to get large chested women to serve beer! Its just a preference. If they are making an unprofitable preference, the best punishment you can do is let them continue their policy and let other competition pick up where they leave money on the table. If the decision they are making is profitable, no amount of law will help against the desires of people.

brianberns 9y ago

There may be "reasons", but are they ethical? I'd like an example of such a reason, if you have one.

derekp7 9y ago
The only one I can think of is casting a part in a movie. You wouldn't cast Sean Connery to play the part of Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network, for example. But I believe there is already exceptions in the law for things like films. And churches typically hire a younger person to be a youth minister, as the kids could relate to them better. Again, not sure about the legality of this though.
- walshemj 9y ago
  Acting and Religious Bodies have an opt out - your making excuses
conanbatt 9y ago
Older people might be closer to having a family, which means less productivity, high cost (parental leave is very expensive*), and also in areas like SF or mountain view might have high turn-over rate because of the expensiveness of the city, whereas younger people can cram into a room for a decade until that happens. Also many corporate benefits like booze, free food and all that might not have the same premium for older people, which might, at the same skill, demand higher salaries that the companies desire to spend considering the available competition. There is always the wildcard of 'culture fit'.
- syshum 9y ago
  >>Older people might be closer to having a family, which means less productivity, high cost (parental leave is very expensive*), The Demo they were targeting is the age group (25 to 36 years old ) is when most people have their first child. No very many people start a family when they are over 40, sure it happens but it is rare. If parental leave was a concern than hiring people over 40 should be your priority as most people over 40 will have old children and not be taking parental leave. People over 50 will likely have Collage aged or old children and need every very little time off for child related events (school events, illness, etc) So discriminating against older workers because of children seems illogical >>also in areas like SF or mountain view Just so you know, there is an entire world outside of SF and Mountain View... I know it is shocking but... >>whereas younger people can cram into a room for a decade until that happens. Why would you want to? I am in my mid 30;s now, even when I was in my early 20's I refused to have more than 1 roommate. I would much rather make 50-75K in an area where I can afford a 3 bedroom home on my own than make 100-150K and have to live in 100 square feet and "cram into a room for a decade" Each to their own I guess, but count me out of that life style

pcwalton 9y ago

> There are many reasons to want younger workers, and there are many reasons you shouldn't want younger workers. I don't find it necessary for the government to step in to help one of the highest paid fields in america. Would you feel similarly if you replaced "younger" with "gay" or "female"?

ImSkeptical 9y ago
I've never really understood this. Some restaurants, or clothing stores, have wait staff that are all women. In a massage place you can pick the gender of your masseuse - so surely a massage place that was already well staffed with one gender would be justified in gender discrimination. If I'm hiring a baby sitter for my daughter, I'm not going to hire a male person, and I'm sure there are many similar examples. I get that many times there is no justification for hiring preferences based on gender, but surely sometimes there is.
- pcwalton 9y ago
  The article talks about Verizon, Amazon, Goldman, Target, and Facebook, none of which are known for massage therapy or babysitting.
  - ImSkeptical 9y ago
    I intended my comment to be on the topic of the thread I replied to, and not the subject of the article. I meant that I don't really understand when you can and can't discriminate based on things.
conanbatt 9y ago
Yes. I have no desires in protecting bigots by forcing them to camouflage with all the rest, and to shield them from the expensive decisions they were going to make.