4 ms·

Unfortunately, I screwed up the question. As downvotes will have me in the penalty box until sometime later tonight, I made a new username in hopes of salvagin

Unfortunately, I screwed up the question. As downvotes will have me in the penalty box until sometime later tonight, I made a new username in hopes of salvaging some value from my incomplete original asking of the question as I feel it is an important topic. A hopefully improved asking of the same question: Two employees, one 22 years old, one 50 years old. The younger employee makes $46k, the older employee makes $127k. While the older employee has slightly better useful to the company experience, an omniscient (this is an sincere attempt to stop people from avoiding the question being asked) being would judge the younger employee to have objectively superior cost/benefits to the company. In other words, for the context of this particular question only, the older work does NOT offer experience-based value superior to the younger worker. In some countries, such as the USA, the older employee would be protected by age discrimination legislation. However, not all global companies are limited by the type of worker's rights legislation noted in the article. While this survival of the fittest, hyper-capitalism approach will optimize return on investment and technological innovation, I suspect it is also ~destroying the careers of many high achievers who would likely have outperformed in other fields without having their careers derailed. As well, in a globalized free trade world, this would limit the competitiveness of countries who have passed such legislation. (Once again, our omniscient being above has confirmed this assertion.) Does anyone see a way to reconcile this? Or in other words, how might one explain how this is "no problem, at all"?

s73v3r_ 9y ago
Looking at pure numbers, when those are actual people, with lives and families, is the absolute wrong way to frame the question. "an omniscient (this is an sincere attempt to stop people from avoiding the question being asked) being would judge the younger employee to have objectively superior cost/benefits to the company." There's no evidence that's true in the least. "In other words, for the context of this particular question only, the older work does NOT offer experience-based value superior to the younger worker." You might as well be asking about unikitties, then.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  > Looking at pure numbers, when those are actual people, with lives and families, is the absolute wrong way to frame the question. It's sad, but so many people on HN seem to think their Econ 101 textbook was teaching them ethics and morality.
cornholio 9y ago
Having been through it myself (buried for voicing a perfectly legitimate and reasoned, but politically unpopular position), I would say HN has a downvotes problem and would benefit from some metamoderation facility or at least significant reduction of available downvotes. They should be reserved for disruption and trolling and not much else. > Two employees, one 22 years old, one 50 years old. The younger employee makes $46k, the older employee makes $127k. Good god, why is the older employee take home such a massive paycheck for doing "slightly better" work than an entry level grunt? This is clearly a payscale that favors seniority above everything else, that's your real problem, not the aging workforce. I would say the exact opposite is usually true in most corporations, an order of magnitude productivity disparity is compressed in a 2:1, $50.000 to $100.000 compensation band. So while the old timer with the $100.000 paycheck might be somewhat less productive than a hotshot hire with the same advanced salary expectations, they are still many times more productive than the fresh out of college girl expecting half their salary. When you factor in the low friction, low risk, experience, loyalty and living institutional memory the older employees represent, you quickly realize how disruptive and stupid it is to simply throw them to the curve.
- ramses0 9y ago
  girl?
- mistermann 9y ago
  Agreed, HN has a moderation problem. I think the culture here has changed significantly over the last decade (how time flies), but particularly in the last year or two. The former open-mindedness has been replaced by a somewhat militant leftist culture, at least in some respects. Strong opinions, with no reasoning to back them up. Anyways, the point I was trying to make is: older people are often drastically overpaid (seniority, unions, bad contracts, legislative protection, whatever......historic baggage). Countries (and in turn companies that outsource to them) that do not have these issues have a distinct competitive advantage in this respect. So while it's fine to criticize short thinking, there is also a legitimate and serious issue involved as well.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

Looking at pure numbers, when those are actual people, with lives and families, is the absolute wrong way to frame the question. "an omniscient (this is an sincere attempt to stop people from avoiding the question being asked) being would judge the younger employee to have objectively superior cost/benefits to the company." There's no evidence that's true in the least. "In other words, for the context of this particular question only, the older work does NOT offer experience-based value superior to the younger worker." You might as well be asking about unikitties, then.

Slansitartop 9y ago
> Looking at pure numbers, when those are actual people, with lives and families, is the absolute wrong way to frame the question. It's sad, but so many people on HN seem to think their Econ 101 textbook was teaching them ethics and morality.

cornholio 9y ago

Having been through it myself (buried for voicing a perfectly legitimate and reasoned, but politically unpopular position), I would say HN has a downvotes problem and would benefit from some metamoderation facility or at least significant reduction of available downvotes. They should be reserved for disruption and trolling and not much else. > Two employees, one 22 years old, one 50 years old. The younger employee makes $46k, the older employee makes $127k. Good god, why is the older employee take home such a massive paycheck for doing "slightly better" work than an entry level grunt? This is clearly a payscale that favors seniority above everything else, that's your real problem, not the aging workforce. I would say the exact opposite is usually true in most corporations, an order of magnitude productivity disparity is compressed in a 2:1, $50.000 to $100.000 compensation band. So while the old timer with the $100.000 paycheck might be somewhat less productive than a hotshot hire with the same advanced salary expectations, they are still many times more productive than the fresh out of college girl expecting half their salary. When you factor in the low friction, low risk, experience, loyalty and living institutional memory the older employees represent, you quickly realize how disruptive and stupid it is to simply throw them to the curve.

ramses0 9y ago
girl?
mistermann 9y ago
Agreed, HN has a moderation problem. I think the culture here has changed significantly over the last decade (how time flies), but particularly in the last year or two. The former open-mindedness has been replaced by a somewhat militant leftist culture, at least in some respects. Strong opinions, with no reasoning to back them up. Anyways, the point I was trying to make is: older people are often drastically overpaid (seniority, unions, bad contracts, legislative protection, whatever......historic baggage). Countries (and in turn companies that outsource to them) that do not have these issues have a distinct competitive advantage in this respect. So while it's fine to criticize short thinking, there is also a legitimate and serious issue involved as well.