6 ms·

Why would anyone be upset at a company shooting themselves in the foot? Discrimination is a luxury of the wealthy as it has a real market cost. If these older

Why would anyone be upset at a company shooting themselves in the foot? Discrimination is a luxury of the wealthy as it has a real market cost. If these older employees really are equal or more productive per dollar cost than their younger counterparts then surely someone will pick them up and get a market advantage.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
There are a lot of biases that defy logic, age, gender, and ethnic biases being big ones. But let’s just take someone with a record, say a drug offense: even though it has little to do with coding, they are pretty much cut out of the high end labor market. Sure you might be able to get a job at a steel reduction in salary by someone who will exploit your situation, but that still sucks. Same with age: markets aren’t always as efficient as we think they should be.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  You're just expressing your own biases here. How would you prove that age based discrimination is economically irrational unless you let it happen? I tend to agree with you that IBM is hurting itself here. But I admit I could be wrong.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    My only point is that markets are not completely rational, and they are often irrational in many respects.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      Are you willing to even consider that what you're calling rational might not actually be rational? It's one thing to say you want to subsidize $group with some sort of legislation because it's moral or better for the broader economy, etc. It's another thing entirely to claim to be forcing any individual company to be acting in its own best interest.
      - AstralStorm 9y ago
        The problem is that some people take rational for optimal. Real markets are neither clearly rational nor clearly optimal. Rationalizing is the best way to put it. To prove that age discrimination is rational you would have to show real reasons to prefer younger workers. Showing lower pay is not enough of there are costs. Have to show that the costs are outweighting the benefits. Remember the shape of modern developed nation agree structure.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        I'm not making the claim that age discrimination is rational or optimal. I'm merely suggesting that you may not have enough information to claim that it isn't optimal. It's fairly easy to show that age discrimination exists, but far more difficult to show that it's not optimal, especially in an environment in which it's both illegal and socially taboo. And secondly, even if keeping the older workers is both rational and optimal for the business it's not clear to me why we should force a company to do it. If the shareholders feel the company is not acting in their best interest there are mechanisms in place for them to deal with that.
naeemtee 9y ago
> Why would anyone be upset at a company shooting themselves in the foot? You've stabbed at the hilariously backwards logic behind the "employer discrimination" crowd. If a company choses to discriminate against able-bodied people because of factors irrelevant to their performance, that just means more pickings for their competitors.
- cableshaft 9y ago
  Except the competitors are trying to mimic other successful companies hiring practices, i.e. why we have such a horrible interview situation right now, because everyone is copying the interview processes from everyone else (not literally everyone, but enough that it's an issue). There's not enough companies out there taking a Moneyball approach out there, and it'll take some major visibility of a booming company that is pretty much preaching how much of a good deal and competitive advantage they have from hiring these people before we might seeing a shift back to it, but the brainwashing of 'younger thinks outside of the box and saves us money!' is strong.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    You're completely discounting the possibility that the 'brainwashed' crowd is correct. Are you willing to entertain the idea that you're wrong? What evidence would it take and are you willing to allow a world to exist such that the evidence could be attained? In other words, are you willing to live in a world in which a company might openly state that part of the reason for their success is age discrimination? And could they even acknowledge this publicly without it negatively impacting their success? This is why I keep trying to point out that moral arguments are fine. You feel age discrimination is unjust. You feel we should legislatively subsidize a demographic which is usually more wealthy, fine. But if you're going to make an economic argument, that it's better for the employer, then you've lost me. Because I don't believe you know that. And even if you did know that it's unclear why we should legislate it.
    - cableshaft 9y ago
      > are you willing to live in a world in which a company might openly state that part of the reason for their success is age discrimination? Actually, yes. I'd rather they admit it than achieve pretty much the same effect through loophole means. > And could they even acknowledge this publicly without it negatively impacting their success? I'm not sure in which way you mean this. Are you presupposing that they would be successful by discriminating by age, or do you mean that the public shouldn't be free to condemn or boycott them for stating what they did (without taking action against them), or do you just mean without being punished by the government for it? I'm okay with the latter.
compiler-guy 9y ago
"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." -- Schilling. And when that irrationality is not just stupid, but also unjust, then we should not put the burden of such stupidity on the victims of the injustice.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  But you're really just protecting the shareholders. It only takes a small fraction of the market to not be "incorrectly" prejudiced to scoop up all these underpriced assets and outcompete everyone else. If you want to make legislation which subsidizes an older, generally wealthier group of people because you feel it's just, then just say so. If you are doing it because you think it's what's best for the shareholders then say that. Any argument that says it's better for companies to keep the experienced workers is just an argument to maximize the benefit of the shareholders. No legislation is needed there.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    The argument does not work. Small corner of the market can only absorb a small number of workers profitably.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      Their relative success will demonstrate to everyone else the types of behaviors to replicate.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    "But you're really just protecting the shareholders." And the people who need to take care of their families. You keep forgetting that letting these people go has a very severe negative impact on that.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      You're back to making the moral argument that we should subsidize older workers who are generally relatively wealthy compared to the rest of the labor force. There's good arguments to be made there. But you can't come in and make economic arguments about how it's better for the employer because you don't know that.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
"Why would anyone be upset at a company shooting themselves in the foot?" Because the company is never the one that suffers. Meanwhile, the person they laid off is struggling to feed and house their family.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  >Because the company is never the one that suffers. This is interesting, because you're the first responder to acknowledge that age discrimination is either irrelevant to the success of a business or potentially even beneficial. I'm not heartless, I'm willing to entertain the idea that we should subsidize a segment of the population that can't compete. I'm not convinced that older workers can't compete though.
  - mixmastamyk 9y ago
    Or not allowed to compete.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      Forcing a company to hire someone against their will, or forcing them to keep an already hired employee against their will is not the same as "allowing them to compete."
      - mixmastamyk 9y ago
        They are two sides of the same coin. We understand that discrimination by race, gender, etc is wrong, as well as age, arguing anything else makes you (ironically) an old-fashioned pariah, haha.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        No, I don't think you do understand that discrimination by race, gender, etc. is wrong. Because you are doing exhibiting a behavior called the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. If older workers are just as viable as their younger counterparts then it will only take a small fraction of unbiased employers in the market to alleviate all bias pretty quickly. If you can give some small sampling of companies a 5%+ discount on labor costs (achieved by them not biasing), they're going to destroy everyone. Labor costs are a huge part of business costs.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

There are a lot of biases that defy logic, age, gender, and ethnic biases being big ones. But let’s just take someone with a record, say a drug offense: even though it has little to do with coding, they are pretty much cut out of the high end labor market. Sure you might be able to get a job at a steel reduction in salary by someone who will exploit your situation, but that still sucks. Same with age: markets aren’t always as efficient as we think they should be.

Consultant32452 9y ago
You're just expressing your own biases here. How would you prove that age based discrimination is economically irrational unless you let it happen? I tend to agree with you that IBM is hurting itself here. But I admit I could be wrong.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  My only point is that markets are not completely rational, and they are often irrational in many respects.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Are you willing to even consider that what you're calling rational might not actually be rational? It's one thing to say you want to subsidize $group with some sort of legislation because it's moral or better for the broader economy, etc. It's another thing entirely to claim to be forcing any individual company to be acting in its own best interest.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      The problem is that some people take rational for optimal. Real markets are neither clearly rational nor clearly optimal. Rationalizing is the best way to put it. To prove that age discrimination is rational you would have to show real reasons to prefer younger workers. Showing lower pay is not enough of there are costs. Have to show that the costs are outweighting the benefits. Remember the shape of modern developed nation agree structure.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        I'm not making the claim that age discrimination is rational or optimal. I'm merely suggesting that you may not have enough information to claim that it isn't optimal. It's fairly easy to show that age discrimination exists, but far more difficult to show that it's not optimal, especially in an environment in which it's both illegal and socially taboo. And secondly, even if keeping the older workers is both rational and optimal for the business it's not clear to me why we should force a company to do it. If the shareholders feel the company is not acting in their best interest there are mechanisms in place for them to deal with that.

naeemtee 9y ago

> Why would anyone be upset at a company shooting themselves in the foot? You've stabbed at the hilariously backwards logic behind the "employer discrimination" crowd. If a company choses to discriminate against able-bodied people because of factors irrelevant to their performance, that just means more pickings for their competitors.

cableshaft 9y ago
Except the competitors are trying to mimic other successful companies hiring practices, i.e. why we have such a horrible interview situation right now, because everyone is copying the interview processes from everyone else (not literally everyone, but enough that it's an issue). There's not enough companies out there taking a Moneyball approach out there, and it'll take some major visibility of a booming company that is pretty much preaching how much of a good deal and competitive advantage they have from hiring these people before we might seeing a shift back to it, but the brainwashing of 'younger thinks outside of the box and saves us money!' is strong.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  You're completely discounting the possibility that the 'brainwashed' crowd is correct. Are you willing to entertain the idea that you're wrong? What evidence would it take and are you willing to allow a world to exist such that the evidence could be attained? In other words, are you willing to live in a world in which a company might openly state that part of the reason for their success is age discrimination? And could they even acknowledge this publicly without it negatively impacting their success? This is why I keep trying to point out that moral arguments are fine. You feel age discrimination is unjust. You feel we should legislatively subsidize a demographic which is usually more wealthy, fine. But if you're going to make an economic argument, that it's better for the employer, then you've lost me. Because I don't believe you know that. And even if you did know that it's unclear why we should legislate it.
  - cableshaft 9y ago
    > are you willing to live in a world in which a company might openly state that part of the reason for their success is age discrimination? Actually, yes. I'd rather they admit it than achieve pretty much the same effect through loophole means. > And could they even acknowledge this publicly without it negatively impacting their success? I'm not sure in which way you mean this. Are you presupposing that they would be successful by discriminating by age, or do you mean that the public shouldn't be free to condemn or boycott them for stating what they did (without taking action against them), or do you just mean without being punished by the government for it? I'm okay with the latter.

compiler-guy 9y ago

"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." -- Schilling. And when that irrationality is not just stupid, but also unjust, then we should not put the burden of such stupidity on the victims of the injustice.

Consultant32452 9y ago
But you're really just protecting the shareholders. It only takes a small fraction of the market to not be "incorrectly" prejudiced to scoop up all these underpriced assets and outcompete everyone else. If you want to make legislation which subsidizes an older, generally wealthier group of people because you feel it's just, then just say so. If you are doing it because you think it's what's best for the shareholders then say that. Any argument that says it's better for companies to keep the experienced workers is just an argument to maximize the benefit of the shareholders. No legislation is needed there.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  The argument does not work. Small corner of the market can only absorb a small number of workers profitably.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Their relative success will demonstrate to everyone else the types of behaviors to replicate.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  "But you're really just protecting the shareholders." And the people who need to take care of their families. You keep forgetting that letting these people go has a very severe negative impact on that.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    You're back to making the moral argument that we should subsidize older workers who are generally relatively wealthy compared to the rest of the labor force. There's good arguments to be made there. But you can't come in and make economic arguments about how it's better for the employer because you don't know that.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

"Why would anyone be upset at a company shooting themselves in the foot?" Because the company is never the one that suffers. Meanwhile, the person they laid off is struggling to feed and house their family.

Consultant32452 9y ago
>Because the company is never the one that suffers. This is interesting, because you're the first responder to acknowledge that age discrimination is either irrelevant to the success of a business or potentially even beneficial. I'm not heartless, I'm willing to entertain the idea that we should subsidize a segment of the population that can't compete. I'm not convinced that older workers can't compete though.
- mixmastamyk 9y ago
  Or not allowed to compete.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Forcing a company to hire someone against their will, or forcing them to keep an already hired employee against their will is not the same as "allowing them to compete."
    - mixmastamyk 9y ago
      They are two sides of the same coin. We understand that discrimination by race, gender, etc is wrong, as well as age, arguing anything else makes you (ironically) an old-fashioned pariah, haha.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        No, I don't think you do understand that discrimination by race, gender, etc. is wrong. Because you are doing exhibiting a behavior called the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. If older workers are just as viable as their younger counterparts then it will only take a small fraction of unbiased employers in the market to alleviate all bias pretty quickly. If you can give some small sampling of companies a 5%+ discount on labor costs (achieved by them not biasing), they're going to destroy everyone. Labor costs are a huge part of business costs.