5 ms·

The challenge is not people's inability to learn new skills but employers unwillingness to accept the risk of hiring mid-life new-learners.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Zetice 4y ago
This is an example of a practical concern that I'm not sure meshes with what we might presume is our shared philosophical underpinnings. Why is the burden placed on the employer to grow their employee and not the human being to grow themselves? In a generic sense, it could be outside of the purview of the employer to consider the employee's future in that specific way (in other ways it makes more sense, like health and happiness while employed). It seems oddly paternalistic, to me, and once you remove that moral presumption doesn't the conversation become more complex?
- juvvel 4y ago
  Since companies do need workers and working is mandatory in our society, it seems weird to expect people to always be ready (and able) to mold themselves into whatever a company wants at the snap of a finger just so they're "allowed" to work in the first place.
  - Zetice 4y ago
    Ah but isn't "working is mandatory in our society" an "is" argument, not an "ought" argument? Ought jobs be mandatory in our society? That seems like a better question. Even if we did presume that jobs should be required in society, how would it even work for a job creator to preemptively know what skills were needed with enough time to ensure at your current job you were trained for future jobs? Why would that fall to your current employer?
    - juvvel 4y ago
      How is the individual going to know what to learn in advance? If anyone knows the requirements of companies, it's the companies themselves, no?
      - Zetice 4y ago
        Well what are companies, if not collections of individuals? Nobody has a crystal ball, nobody can know what'll be needed next.
jjk166 4y ago
When you have a large pool of qualified mid-life new learners available for hire while fresh graduates are scarce, why wouldn't employers hire them? This is only an issue if either there are genuinely not enough jobs in the field lots of people are trying to go into, in which case people should not be encouraged to go into it; or if older people demand higher compensation for the same skillset as younger people based purely on age, in which case that doesn't seem fair anyways. And realistically, a mid-life learner is generally the better option to begin with - it's nearly impossible that someone after years of working has picked up no transferrable hard or soft skills and made no network connections of any value.
- juvvel 4y ago
  You may think so, companies are notorious for rejecting middle aged applicants in favor of 20-somethings because the latter are considered more malleable and eager to prove themselves.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    > more malleable and eager to prove themselves. That's just a polite way of saying "willing to work for less" which again means either somebody's asking for too much or someone's being exploited, which is the real issue. Obviously its mere anecdote, but every company I have ever worked for has gladly hired middle aged entry level employees. If anything they have been preferred.
    - juvvel 4y ago
      In short, the job hunt is going to become even more unbearable. I don't trust companies with the kind of leverage they're going to have with AI at their fingertips.
  - juvvel 4y ago
    So software engineer salaries will experience a race to the bottom because you'd have to be grateful to be hired as one. That's just the way it is, I guess, but I can't fault people for feeling bitter that the skills they've built over many years or decades will be massively devalued. I often wonder which profession is safe from others working as hard as they can to make it less valuable. Probably you'd have to get on the side of those building the automations. Become an AI/ML engineer or starve, basically.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Zetice 4y ago

This is an example of a practical concern that I'm not sure meshes with what we might presume is our shared philosophical underpinnings. Why is the burden placed on the employer to grow their employee and not the human being to grow themselves? In a generic sense, it could be outside of the purview of the employer to consider the employee's future in that specific way (in other ways it makes more sense, like health and happiness while employed). It seems oddly paternalistic, to me, and once you remove that moral presumption doesn't the conversation become more complex?

juvvel 4y ago
Since companies do need workers and working is mandatory in our society, it seems weird to expect people to always be ready (and able) to mold themselves into whatever a company wants at the snap of a finger just so they're "allowed" to work in the first place.
- Zetice 4y ago
  Ah but isn't "working is mandatory in our society" an "is" argument, not an "ought" argument? Ought jobs be mandatory in our society? That seems like a better question. Even if we did presume that jobs should be required in society, how would it even work for a job creator to preemptively know what skills were needed with enough time to ensure at your current job you were trained for future jobs? Why would that fall to your current employer?
  - juvvel 4y ago
    How is the individual going to know what to learn in advance? If anyone knows the requirements of companies, it's the companies themselves, no?
    - Zetice 4y ago
      Well what are companies, if not collections of individuals? Nobody has a crystal ball, nobody can know what'll be needed next.

jjk166 4y ago

When you have a large pool of qualified mid-life new learners available for hire while fresh graduates are scarce, why wouldn't employers hire them? This is only an issue if either there are genuinely not enough jobs in the field lots of people are trying to go into, in which case people should not be encouraged to go into it; or if older people demand higher compensation for the same skillset as younger people based purely on age, in which case that doesn't seem fair anyways. And realistically, a mid-life learner is generally the better option to begin with - it's nearly impossible that someone after years of working has picked up no transferrable hard or soft skills and made no network connections of any value.

juvvel 4y ago
You may think so, companies are notorious for rejecting middle aged applicants in favor of 20-somethings because the latter are considered more malleable and eager to prove themselves.
- jjk166 4y ago
  > more malleable and eager to prove themselves. That's just a polite way of saying "willing to work for less" which again means either somebody's asking for too much or someone's being exploited, which is the real issue. Obviously its mere anecdote, but every company I have ever worked for has gladly hired middle aged entry level employees. If anything they have been preferred.
  - juvvel 4y ago
    In short, the job hunt is going to become even more unbearable. I don't trust companies with the kind of leverage they're going to have with AI at their fingertips.
- juvvel 4y ago
  So software engineer salaries will experience a race to the bottom because you'd have to be grateful to be hired as one. That's just the way it is, I guess, but I can't fault people for feeling bitter that the skills they've built over many years or decades will be massively devalued. I often wonder which profession is safe from others working as hard as they can to make it less valuable. Probably you'd have to get on the side of those building the automations. Become an AI/ML engineer or starve, basically.