3 ms·

And how many months do the people that support such laws get of jail, when their policies affect the poorer and younger workers disproportionately?

toomuchtodo 8y ago
If you're young, you have less experience. Are you poor? Unlikely (speaking of the tech industry). Do you make less? Probably. You see "discrimination", I see a skills and experience gap, and faux outrage.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Are you willing to go to jail if your analysis is wrong?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    If I'm aware of the consequences of a failed analysis upfront, yes.
tchaffee 8y ago
I don't get your question. This is not about who gets affected by what. It's about preventing intentional discrimination. Companies should not be able to discriminate based on age. That protects everyone. Fire everyone under 30 as a way of reducing staff? Just as bad as the opposite or racial or any other kind of discrimination.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  The thread here is about increasing the wager/skin in the game of companies and executives that do anything that disproportionately disadvantages older workers: I turn that around and say that the people that advocate those policies should also have to risk something in case what they think is good for old people is actually bad for other group, for example, poorer untrained workers. A relative advantage for one is necessarily a relative disadvantage for another.
  - tchaffee 8y ago
    That's not what the thread is about. It's not about disadvantaging older workers. It's about discrimination based on age. Just as an example, some states are no longer allowing insurance companies to charge a higher rate for younger drivers. > is actually bad for other group, for example, poorer untrained workers. Those poorer untrained workers will also eventually become old. What then? > A relative advantage for one is necessarily a relative disadvantage for another. Could you explain that in terms of not allowing companies to discriminate based on race? Who is that a disadvantage to in any sense that could be framed as just or ethical?

toomuchtodo 8y ago

If you're young, you have less experience. Are you poor? Unlikely (speaking of the tech industry). Do you make less? Probably. You see "discrimination", I see a skills and experience gap, and faux outrage.

conanbatt 8y ago
Are you willing to go to jail if your analysis is wrong?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  If I'm aware of the consequences of a failed analysis upfront, yes.

tchaffee 8y ago

I don't get your question. This is not about who gets affected by what. It's about preventing intentional discrimination. Companies should not be able to discriminate based on age. That protects everyone. Fire everyone under 30 as a way of reducing staff? Just as bad as the opposite or racial or any other kind of discrimination.

conanbatt 8y ago
The thread here is about increasing the wager/skin in the game of companies and executives that do anything that disproportionately disadvantages older workers: I turn that around and say that the people that advocate those policies should also have to risk something in case what they think is good for old people is actually bad for other group, for example, poorer untrained workers. A relative advantage for one is necessarily a relative disadvantage for another.
- tchaffee 8y ago
  That's not what the thread is about. It's not about disadvantaging older workers. It's about discrimination based on age. Just as an example, some states are no longer allowing insurance companies to charge a higher rate for younger drivers. > is actually bad for other group, for example, poorer untrained workers. Those poorer untrained workers will also eventually become old. What then? > A relative advantage for one is necessarily a relative disadvantage for another. Could you explain that in terms of not allowing companies to discriminate based on race? Who is that a disadvantage to in any sense that could be framed as just or ethical?