4 ms·

I think thats an unfair, and frankly agist extrapolation. I can cook for myself every day and there is plenty of inefficiency in that action. Its wasteful, the

I think thats an unfair, and frankly agist extrapolation. I can cook for myself every day and there is plenty of inefficiency in that action. Its wasteful, the food isnt as good as a professional, I have to shop and waste gas, I have to pay retail pricing. Or I could use the shared resource thats done professionally and efficiently. We are engineers, are we not programmed to reduce complexity and waste. I dont think its fair yo assume they couldnt cook for themselves if they thought it was needed.

_qulr 6y ago
> I think thats an unfair, and frankly agist extrapolation. Is it ageist to point out that Facebook is ageist in its hiring and operations? Or that Facebook encourages its employees to be overly dependent on Facebook? What some would view as a "perk" — the company providing every meal — others would view as a downside. What if you prefer to be home and have meals with your family? "A major sell to candidates is our office perks include free food" "with work from home, we’ve lost a huge financial part of our package" For those who prefer not eating meals at the office, how fair is it that this is considered a significant perk of Facebook employment? I'd say that whole thing could be considered kind of ageist. It's certainly highly unusual, compared to most other workplaces in the world. You mentioned "inefficiency", but it seems that efficiency is ruling out relationships with people outside of work. ;-)
- scsilver 6y ago
  I wasn't worried about facebook, mostly just commenting that its unfair to assume these individuals who creat 400k+ in value to their companies a year aren't able to cook for themselves if they have to because they are young. I think its more likely that they are taking advantage of economic incentives. I dont really have an opinion about facebooks agism in their hiring. I just think you are making an unfounded assumption.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > I think its more likely that they are taking advantage of economic incentives. My question is, who is taking advantage of whom? As I said originally, "one may fairly ask whether Facebook's hiring process produced this result." It seems like Facebook specifically targets people who are amenable to Facebook's "caretaker" benefits, and then encourages those people to become dependent on those benefits. If you work for Facebook, you may have the choice of "taking advantage" of those incentives, but most people outside of Facebook don't have the choice: they're forced to take care of themselves. This is not necessarily a bad thing though, because self-reliance is an important life skill. If short-term economic incentives prevent you from learning important life skills, this may actually be to your long-term disadvantage. I'm not sure Facebook is doing anyone any favors in this respect. If you think about it, why would Facebook approach hiring and employment any different from how Facebook approaches everything else? The goal is ultimately to increase "engagement" with Facebook.
    - scsilver 6y ago
      I dont know why you dragging me into a different conversation, I have not comment about who facebook hires, I don't really care.

_qulr 6y ago

> I think thats an unfair, and frankly agist extrapolation. Is it ageist to point out that Facebook is ageist in its hiring and operations? Or that Facebook encourages its employees to be overly dependent on Facebook? What some would view as a "perk" — the company providing every meal — others would view as a downside. What if you prefer to be home and have meals with your family? "A major sell to candidates is our office perks include free food" "with work from home, we’ve lost a huge financial part of our package" For those who prefer not eating meals at the office, how fair is it that this is considered a significant perk of Facebook employment? I'd say that whole thing could be considered kind of ageist. It's certainly highly unusual, compared to most other workplaces in the world. You mentioned "inefficiency", but it seems that efficiency is ruling out relationships with people outside of work. ;-)

scsilver 6y ago
I wasn't worried about facebook, mostly just commenting that its unfair to assume these individuals who creat 400k+ in value to their companies a year aren't able to cook for themselves if they have to because they are young. I think its more likely that they are taking advantage of economic incentives. I dont really have an opinion about facebooks agism in their hiring. I just think you are making an unfounded assumption.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > I think its more likely that they are taking advantage of economic incentives. My question is, who is taking advantage of whom? As I said originally, "one may fairly ask whether Facebook's hiring process produced this result." It seems like Facebook specifically targets people who are amenable to Facebook's "caretaker" benefits, and then encourages those people to become dependent on those benefits. If you work for Facebook, you may have the choice of "taking advantage" of those incentives, but most people outside of Facebook don't have the choice: they're forced to take care of themselves. This is not necessarily a bad thing though, because self-reliance is an important life skill. If short-term economic incentives prevent you from learning important life skills, this may actually be to your long-term disadvantage. I'm not sure Facebook is doing anyone any favors in this respect. If you think about it, why would Facebook approach hiring and employment any different from how Facebook approaches everything else? The goal is ultimately to increase "engagement" with Facebook.
  - scsilver 6y ago
    I dont know why you dragging me into a different conversation, I have not comment about who facebook hires, I don't really care.