4 ms·

"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 of

"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.
        mixmastamyk 9y ago
        Must be nice living in a fantasy world where markets are perfectly rational, enjoy. Companies that are not under direct threat, i.e. most can do just fine working sub-optimally. There are hundreds of variables regarding why a company is successful or not. Many work way less efficiently than 5%, and will continue to happily screw folks unless we work together to keep a reasonably level playing field. You've not been discriminated against yet I gather. I hadn't until recently either, so it's become less than theoretical. Your time will come as well, put out to pasture at the top of your game right when you're trying to put children through college or similar.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        Markets are not perfectly rational but you seem to be unwilling to consider the idea that favoring younger workers might actually be rational. I doubt age discrimination is economically efficient, but I'm willing to let that play out. Secondly, if older workers need to be subsidized in some way because they're unable to compete there's probably a better way to do so than to punish employers who are unable to skirt labor laws.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  When you focus solely on the "economics" of it, then yes, you are showing yourself to be heartless. There is far, far, far more to this situation than just the economics, and your robotic like desire to focus solely on that does not reflect well on you.

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.
      - mixmastamyk 9y ago
        Must be nice living in a fantasy world where markets are perfectly rational, enjoy. Companies that are not under direct threat, i.e. most can do just fine working sub-optimally. There are hundreds of variables regarding why a company is successful or not. Many work way less efficiently than 5%, and will continue to happily screw folks unless we work together to keep a reasonably level playing field. You've not been discriminated against yet I gather. I hadn't until recently either, so it's become less than theoretical. Your time will come as well, put out to pasture at the top of your game right when you're trying to put children through college or similar.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        Markets are not perfectly rational but you seem to be unwilling to consider the idea that favoring younger workers might actually be rational. I doubt age discrimination is economically efficient, but I'm willing to let that play out. Secondly, if older workers need to be subsidized in some way because they're unable to compete there's probably a better way to do so than to punish employers who are unable to skirt labor laws.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
When you focus solely on the "economics" of it, then yes, you are showing yourself to be heartless. There is far, far, far more to this situation than just the economics, and your robotic like desire to focus solely on that does not reflect well on you.