Ok, and what about discrimination against young people? I can assure that that discrimination against young people is significantly more prevalent. It is just wrapped up in pretty words about "experience" or "maturity".
Nobody seems to care about the 18 year who can produce a lot of good work, but isn't likely to be paid even a third of what an equally capable 40 year old makes. How is that fair?
It's hard to imagine you actually believe that maturity and experience are not related to job performance. Regardless, it might be helpful to think about experience as a hiring heuristic, like having a college degree: you certainly don't need it to be a good programmer, but having it is positively correlated with skill (in a way that is rationally causal, unlike, say, race). Recruiting, screening and hiring are massively expensive. Screening every inexperienced candidate who wants a senior position to find the rare gem would have an outsized cost.
“Experience” is a value producing parameter. Around here (Boston) people just starting out seem to make near what people with many more years experience. If you are somewhere that isn’t paying you, shop around and leave for a company that will pay/appreciate you like you deserve.
I never made decent money programming until I became an independent contractor. (For reference, I probably have been a developer longer than you’ve been alive.)
There is a lot that goes into 'producing good work' at a company, and a lot of those things can only be gained by experience. Of course, not all experience is equal, but experience is still important.
> Of course, not all experience is equal, but experience is still important.
Would you say the same thing if someone used similar dog whistles to talk about old people?
IE, "oh, being able to move quickly and think on your fit is important, and sometimes this can only be gained by being in good physical shape, and having good health, like a young person would have".
Either discrimination is OK or it isn't. One person's justifications aren't any different than another person's.
I mean, if you are going to be THAT loose in your definition of 'discrimination', then basically everything is discrimination. It would be discrimination to hire someone who is a better programmer, because you are unfairly advantaging people who have more skill.
So yes, you are allowed to discriminate on those sorts of things. If the attribute you are discriminating for is relevant to the job, it is ok to discriminate.
Take, for example, discrimination against the physically disabled - if a construction company requires that you are able to lift 50 pound bags of concrete, it wouldn't be guilt of unlawful discrimination because that is required for the job.
On the other hand, if you require someone be able to lift a 50 pound bag, but their job is to sit at a desk and program a computer... then you would be found guilty of unfair discrimination against the disabled.
I am not being loose in my definition of discrimination. Instead I am using the exact same definition of description that the people in the lawsuit are using.
IE age discrimination.
Either age discrimination is morally OK or it isn't.
I'd be fine with either the situation of age discrimination being disallowed or allowed, across the board, regardless of whether the discrimination is against young or old people.
Either way. I just want age discrimination against young and old people to be treated exactly the same.
Your example isn’t really discrimination if you’re looking for fire fighters. “Experience” is largely acquired by making mistakes. People don’t care how old you are, they care how many years of experience you’ve acquired. I guess you can call it discrimination but only if you think hiring people “who are good at their job” discriminates against people aren’t. Of course, this is a US centric view, it could be totally different where you live.
The post you're responding to specifically calls out "illegal discrimination" - for better or for worse, youth is not a protected class (in the US, at least). Age discrimination is only illegal against those 40+ years old.
Lol you idiots downvoting. I learned this fact from a law professor/attorney. You don't like it so you are downvoting? Lol. Go look it up on wikipedia, but I think maybe if your are getting this emotional about a fact I learned in a law class, then wikipedia may be too advanced.
Either age discrimination is morally OK or it isn't.
I don't care whether it is legal or not. If you are engaging in this discrimination you are exactly morally the same as any other person engaging in discrimination, whether that be based on age, sex or race.
It's not a question of morality. The act doesn't cover people under 40 because there was no finding of age discrimination. Just like there is no discrimination against white people or men ;). Don't like it, run for Congress or Supreme court.
Or instead of that, I could condemn people who engage in age discrimination in the same way that I would condemn racists, bigots, or sexists who engage in discrimination.
There are lots of places in the world where discrimination on race, gender, and sexual orientation is legal.
And people who engage in this kind of behavior, even when it is legal, are still horrible people, and should be treated as such, by society.
It is fully within my rights to judge horrible people, and to also treat horrible people as they deserve to be treated (ie, I will treat them poorly, as they deserve).
People are often under the mistaken impression that the only way to punish someone is through the law.
That's incorrect. There are many many perfectly legal ways to punish horrible people, and there are even methods of punishing horrible people that are illegal but you are unlikely to get caught for.
Nobody seems to care about the 18 year who can produce a lot of good work, but isn't likely to be paid even a third of what an equally capable 40 year old makes. How is that fair?