4 ms·

As far as I can see, the arguments about the legality of age-discrimination is precisely about what is just. And everyone has been saying that. It may or may n

As far as I can see, the arguments about the legality of age-discrimination is precisely about what is just. And everyone has been saying that. It may or may not be a nice side effect that companies end up doing better, but that is not the gist of most arguments around this, and even absent that effect, most proponents would still argue that the unjustness of such discrimination is the primary driver of such legislation. If you want to say that we are protecting a class that doesn't deserve protection because they are (on average) more wealthy than others, feel free to make that argument on the merits.

Consultant32452 9y ago
This is the content of the GP to the post you're responding to: >"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. In other words the poster believes that age based discrimination is both economically irrational and unjust. I'm pointing out that it's unknown whether age discrimination is economically rational, but that proponents of age based discrimination laws must believe that it is. Whether it's rational matters, because if it's more economically efficient to put a young person in a worker slot there may be better ways to help the older worker than punishing the employer for not skirting equal employment opportunity regulations.