15 ms·
Perhaps not in principal, but in practical terms it ends up being "ageist."
by droptablemain 2y ago
Perhaps not in principal, but in practical terms it ends up being "ageist."
- manuelmoreale 2y agoI’ll say this again because people are downvoting as if I’m trying to defend this practice: I think it’s stupid. Now, what I’m pushing against is this idea that it is “ageist”. I’m no native speaker but ageist is defined as > a bias against individuals and groups based on their age Now if I decide to fire everyone who’s making more than 500k at a company and it just so happens that those people are all above a certain age I don’t think that’s ageist. It’s certainly stupid and I think I made it clear. It’s a money driven decision, which is also stupid. I just think it’s important of accuse people of the right thing if you want to accuse them of something. That’s all I’m saying. But again, the fuck do I know. I don’t work in corporate, don’t play the stupid ladder game, will never get a promotion. I’m just here sharing a random thought on the bizarre business world you people live in.
- gtirloni 2y agoIn most of these corporations, the people making the most are older. They don't have a habit of hiring young rockstars with insane salaries (because these people wouldn't fit the culture).