3 ms·

Wouldn't it solved by market automatically very easily. Let's say older people are paid less or discriminated in some way for the same skill. Then the company w

Wouldn't it solved by market automatically very easily. Let's say older people are paid less or discriminated in some way for the same skill. Then the company which employs them are at financial advantage on average leading to more demand till return on investment becomes same for both old and young employees.

jzb 3y ago
“Solved by market” is such a bullshit concept in this context. Firstly, the idea that the “market” is this self-correcting process that works out fairly is demonstrably bullshit. Secondly - who gives a fuck if “the market” in the abstract solves a problem when you, personally, get fucked because of ageism? People need to stop spouting off abstract market theory bullshit in response to real people being harmed as if it’s any real consolation to the actual humans involved.
- maerF0x0 3y ago
  +1 I like to remind folks of a Keynes attributed popular phrase and applicable in this case "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  > “Solved by market” is such a bullshit concept in this context Do you have any point or just a opinion that you labelled as fact? Secondly I am saying if older people have better ROI then there must be some success just by randomness in hiring that would be visible to everyone.
datathrow0007 3y ago
Not when you optimize for: 1. Paying less than what a worker is worth 2. Owning a serf rather than establishing an engagement with a professional On #1, older, more experienced workers are not going to accept bottom-of-the-barrel compensation for the outsized impact they make relative to. Generally, this is just "free market economics" looking to maximize returns compared to costs. The easiest way to get costs down is to keep payroll down (in service-based businesses, as many tech and tech-reliant firms are, payroll is going to be your highest cost). It's low hanging fruit; and by the far the easiest way to increase the bottom-line (see: startups). On #2, this is mostly more relevant in large, established companies. The main goal on everyone's mind is no longer to make money, but to climb the ladder. Yes, costs and profits are important, but only in times of "bad vibes." In better times, everyone is trying to justify why they're a part of the gravy train, and to get a bigger portion. Usually, this is achieved through utilizing "human resources" to work on "big projects" (that usually do not materialize anything of note -- but generate impact, i.e. intrigue ). In other cases, a newly-minted lord will not be given sufficient bodies or budget to expand his realm, so he'll need to squeeze as much as he can out of what he has in order to make do. Older workers are less tolerant of bullshit and being squeezed for no material reward to themselves. Generally this means that older workers will not be the first-pick for startups (cost-conscious, "scrappy," i.e. #1) or well-established bigcos (reliant on transmuting human souls for the enrichment of the faux-nobility, as in #2). In either case, neither type of company is looking for great technical talent, but just a body to achieve an end. Any schmuck can fill either role -- because competence isn't necessary for the success of whoever controls the purse strings. Unfortunately, these two types of companies are the prevailing sort; thereby "ageism" can be seen in tech, the same way educational box-ticking has become en vogue: it is politically more advantageous. Companies with sane leadership, and bodacious-yet-grounded vision, that are looking to actually offer something of substance will value competence over anything else (look at old SV startups for an example). But once again, they're an unfortunate minority, and they most likely will not be doing cold recruiting (as it is insane).

jzb 3y ago

“Solved by market” is such a bullshit concept in this context. Firstly, the idea that the “market” is this self-correcting process that works out fairly is demonstrably bullshit. Secondly - who gives a fuck if “the market” in the abstract solves a problem when you, personally, get fucked because of ageism? People need to stop spouting off abstract market theory bullshit in response to real people being harmed as if it’s any real consolation to the actual humans involved.

maerF0x0 3y ago
+1 I like to remind folks of a Keynes attributed popular phrase and applicable in this case "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."
YetAnotherNick 3y ago
> “Solved by market” is such a bullshit concept in this context Do you have any point or just a opinion that you labelled as fact? Secondly I am saying if older people have better ROI then there must be some success just by randomness in hiring that would be visible to everyone.

datathrow0007 3y ago

Not when you optimize for: 1. Paying less than what a worker is worth 2. Owning a serf rather than establishing an engagement with a professional On #1, older, more experienced workers are not going to accept bottom-of-the-barrel compensation for the outsized impact they make relative to. Generally, this is just "free market economics" looking to maximize returns compared to costs. The easiest way to get costs down is to keep payroll down (in service-based businesses, as many tech and tech-reliant firms are, payroll is going to be your highest cost). It's low hanging fruit; and by the far the easiest way to increase the bottom-line (see: startups). On #2, this is mostly more relevant in large, established companies. The main goal on everyone's mind is no longer to make money, but to climb the ladder. Yes, costs and profits are important, but only in times of "bad vibes." In better times, everyone is trying to justify why they're a part of the gravy train, and to get a bigger portion. Usually, this is achieved through utilizing "human resources" to work on "big projects" (that usually do not materialize anything of note -- but generate impact, i.e. intrigue ). In other cases, a newly-minted lord will not be given sufficient bodies or budget to expand his realm, so he'll need to squeeze as much as he can out of what he has in order to make do. Older workers are less tolerant of bullshit and being squeezed for no material reward to themselves. Generally this means that older workers will not be the first-pick for startups (cost-conscious, "scrappy," i.e. #1) or well-established bigcos (reliant on transmuting human souls for the enrichment of the faux-nobility, as in #2). In either case, neither type of company is looking for great technical talent, but just a body to achieve an end. Any schmuck can fill either role -- because competence isn't necessary for the success of whoever controls the purse strings. Unfortunately, these two types of companies are the prevailing sort; thereby "ageism" can be seen in tech, the same way educational box-ticking has become en vogue: it is politically more advantageous. Companies with sane leadership, and bodacious-yet-grounded vision, that are looking to actually offer something of substance will value competence over anything else (look at old SV startups for an example). But once again, they're an unfortunate minority, and they most likely will not be doing cold recruiting (as it is insane).