4 ms·
I've read about this sort of discrimination in many industries outside of tech. However, what I'm curious about is this: what is the likelihood that someone thi
by FreakyT 11y ago
I've read about this sort of discrimination in many industries outside of tech. However, what I'm curious about is this: what is the likelihood that someone this age will retire in < 5 years? If that likelihood is high, I could see why a company would pass over hiring them (though I know how annoying this can be if you're in that age range and looking for a job).
I wonder if anything could be done to make hiring someone who is potentially near retirement more appealing to companies?
- MrZongle2 11y agoHowever, what I'm curious about is this: what is the likelihood that someone this age will retire in < 5 years? In terms of headcount, how does that differ from (for example) a 25-year-old leaving for another employer after a couple of years?
- wrsh07 11y agoI don't think it does, but in terms of absolute numbers, if a hundred 25-year-olds are hired, how many will stay for > 5 years? Because those ones will become extremely valuable to the company. Especially a company that has eg a 6 month ramp-up period.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- hn_ 11y agoYou can't count on someone retiring at a certain age. Many can't wait to retire and many can't imagine retiring at all.
- locahost 11y agoI'm 48. I'd love to retire in < 25 years, but that isn't looking financially realistic. There are legions of "older" workers like me. Given that the average stint for employees at SF/SV companies these days seems to be about two years, I don't understand why these companies think older job candidates pose flight risks. It's certainly not that they're obliged to pay pensions.
- jusben1369 11y ago48 is so far from 60 though in the context of this question that I'm not sure it's helpful. It's an interesting point.
- loopbit 11y agoThen put 58 as the age. If the average stay for an employee in SV is 2 years it means that you still get a worker with amazing experience for the average workers stay. You come out on top. Even more, let's assume that this person doesn't retire at 60. In that case, the chances of being hired at a different company are even less, you you get a person with brilliant experience who will stay in the company 2-3 times that of the average worker.
- defen 11y ago"What is the likelihood that a 33 year old married woman will become pregnant in the next < 5 years? If that likelihood is high, I could see why a company would pass over them."
- FreakyT 11y agoExactly. It is very clearly wrong for companies to act this way, but at the same time, just like your example, it is also pragmatic. Clearly there's a problem, and my question is: how can we fix it?
- hn_ 11y agoStop assuming crap about people. Not everyone retires (and at all different ages) and not everyone gets pregnant and its pretty insulting to assume a candidate's life choices and make future judgements about them. Are you also going to avoid hiring young males because they are more likely to get murdered or get into a car accident? Or people in their 20s because they are likely to switch jobs? It's not even pragmatic, its just projecting your stereotypical judgements on others. By the way, the fix was to make it illegal.
- FreakyT 11y ago> Not everyone retires (and at all different ages) and not everyone gets pregnant and its pretty insulting to assume a candidate's life choices and make future judgements about them. It's also insulting to charge insurance rates based on aggregate statistics, but that's what's done because it's effective, not because it's nice. > By the way, the fix was to make it illegal. Right, and that's clearly not working, so evidently more needs to happen. Writing angry comments at people on the internet isn't going to fix the problem.