Age discrimination--more evidence

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.propublica.org/article/older-workers-united-states-pushed-out-of-work-forced-retirement

Mostly it's not hiring them rather than firing them, but the latter also happens.

In a story this year, ProPublica described how IBM has forced out more than 20,000 U.S. workers aged 40 and over in just the past five years in order to, in the words of one internal company planning document, “correct seniority mix.”

I smell gunsmoke.

 

[Jarhyn]

See, I wanted to bring something like this up in the ridiculous 'trans-age' thread: the very fact that age, after the age of majority, is ever validated by government or anyone else is shitty and wrong.

People have a right to remove irrelevant information from consideration. In the US discrimination by age is illegal. And while I'm the first person to acknowledge that experience, knowledge, and wisdom come only with time, we shouldn't use age (or appearance of age) as a proxy for that.

Honestly I don't know why it should matter that someone wants to petition that they are "a different age". The only person it hurts to conceal that from is the person themself, and the only context that damage would happen in is the context of medical discussion and diagnosis.

So tell me again why we should record this after someone certifies that they are of the age of majority?

It's pretty absurd and ridiculous to care about age.

 

[Trausti]

See, I wanted to bring something like this up in the ridiculous 'trans-age' thread: the very fact that age, after the age of majority, is ever validated by government or anyone else is shitty and wrong.

People have a right to remove irrelevant information from consideration. In the US discrimination by age is illegal. And while I'm the first person to acknowledge that experience, knowledge, and wisdom come only with time, we shouldn't use age (or appearance of age) as a proxy for that.

Honestly I don't know why it should matter that someone wants to petition that they are "a different age". The only person it hurts to conceal that from is the person themself, and the only context that damage would happen in is the context of medical discussion and diagnosis.

So tell me again why we should record this after someone certifies that they are of the age of majority?

It's pretty absurd and ridiculous to care about age.

Right on, brother. I'll skip to 65 and take my Social Security please.

 

[Jarhyn]

See, I wanted to bring something like this up in the ridiculous 'trans-age' thread: the very fact that age, after the age of majority, is ever validated by government or anyone else is shitty and wrong.

People have a right to remove irrelevant information from consideration. In the US discrimination by age is illegal. And while I'm the first person to acknowledge that experience, knowledge, and wisdom come only with time, we shouldn't use age (or appearance of age) as a proxy for that.

Honestly I don't know why it should matter that someone wants to petition that they are "a different age". The only person it hurts to conceal that from is the person themself, and the only context that damage would happen in is the context of medical discussion and diagnosis.

So tell me again why we should record this after someone certifies that they are of the age of majority?

It's pretty absurd and ridiculous to care about age.

Right on, brother. I'll skip to 65 and take my Social Security please.

See, this is entirely nonsequitur, and irrelevant to me. It doesn't speak to any shared premise, largely because I find the concept of age-based retirement ridiculous.

Medically-based, productivity-based, or needs-based retirement makes much more sense.

 

[RVonse]

It's pretty absurd and ridiculous to care about age.

Our time left on this earth is by far the most important thing that everyone cares about. To think otherwise is very disingenuous.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's pretty absurd and ridiculous to care about age.

Our time left on this earth is by far the most important thing that everyone cares about. To think otherwise is very disingenuous.

It is something we, as individuals, have a right to care about with respect to ourselves. If you want to talk about disingenuous, maybe you can look at the fact that your post tries to make an argument to "concern troll" over the ages of others.

I would hazard to say there are a lot of things that we have a lot of concern for, and concern over, that nonetheless are nobody else's business. I would pose that age, or any other proxy that can be used to inappropriately judge someone falls under this banner. Everything from race when considered for housing, to age when considered for work, to religious affiliation and history when considered for education.

It is fully possible for someone to care about something about their own selves without it being appropriate for others to k ow or ask.

 

[Copernicus]

https://www.propublica.org/article/older-workers-united-states-pushed-out-of-work-forced-retirement

Mostly it's not hiring them rather than firing them, but the latter also happens.

In a story this year, ProPublica described how IBM has forced out more than 20,000 U.S. workers aged 40 and over in just the past five years in order to, in the words of one internal company planning document, “correct seniority mix.”

I smell gunsmoke.

In normal times, this would be a blatant violation of the law, and this would definitely turn into a class action lawsuit. I'm not sure what the rules are anymore, given that the administration appears intent on cancelling or simply not enforcing regulations on businesses.

When I worked for a large aerospace manufacturer, the company was caught red-handed laying off older workers and replacing them with younger ones. One of the idiot executives actually admitted publicly that the company was trying correct the age demographics--just like this case. One reason they did this was to reduce the cost of carrying health insurance for an aging workforce. The union successfully sued the company, and that executive was fired. The company promised not to take age into consideration in future hiring and firing policies. They had to pay a heft fine, and they clearly knew that it was illegal.

What happened later was that they found a way to get around the age discrimination barrier. Older workers tended to have deep roots in local communities and not be willing to move. So the company started shifting large numbers of jobs around and making it difficult for workers to relocate. In many cases, workers could apply for jobs in other states, but they had to pay their own moving expenses, and they often ended up doing the same work for lower pay. Another very successful strategy was to outsource jobs to companies that specialized in providing technically skilled workers to perform the same jobs. For example, Boeing outsourced much of its IT to other companies and then laid off large numbers of its own IT staff. I knew IT support staff who were fired and then ended up back at the same desk doing exactly the same job. They were then paid lower salaries as "contractors" and lost many of their former benefits. I'm not sure whether that actually saved any money, since the contracting companies also added a markup on the labor of their contractors, but it probably made executives feel good that they were "fixing" the workforce demographics. It certainly had a huge negative impact on workforce morale.

 

[Gun Nut]

See, I wanted to bring something like this up in the ridiculous 'trans-age' thread: the very fact that age, after the age of majority, is ever validated by government or anyone else is shitty and wrong.

People have a right to remove irrelevant information from consideration. In the US discrimination by age is illegal. And while I'm the first person to acknowledge that experience, knowledge, and wisdom come only with time, we shouldn't use age (or appearance of age) as a proxy for that.

Honestly I don't know why it should matter that someone wants to petition that they are "a different age". The only person it hurts to conceal that from is the person themself, and the only context that damage would happen in is the context of medical discussion and diagnosis.

So tell me again why we should record this after someone certifies that they are of the age of majority?

It's pretty absurd and ridiculous to care about age.

Right on, brother. I'll skip to 65 and take my Social Security please.

See, this is entirely nonsequitur, and irrelevant to me. It doesn't speak to any shared premise, largely because I find the concept of age-based retirement ridiculous.

Medically-based, productivity-based, or needs-based retirement makes much more sense.

The reply was on point (see bolding added by me). On the one hand, you don't see what the harm is... and on the other hand (once the obvious was pointed out) you reject the basis for the harm. That's a pretty slick shifting of the goal posts there. nice one.

 

[Jarhyn]

See, this is entirely nonsequitur, and irrelevant to me. It doesn't speak to any shared premise, largely because I find the concept of age-based retirement ridiculous.

Medically-based, productivity-based, or needs-based retirement makes much more sense.

The reply was on point (see bolding added by me). On the one hand, you don't see what the harm is... and on the other hand (once the obvious was pointed out) you reject the basis for the harm. That's a pretty slick shifting of the goal posts there. nice one.

See, this is part of the larger problem with discourse today, and in general. Someone says something, and someone responds with an attack rather than a question. Rather than ask "how would retirement work?", You'll notice that they just snarked about how they would exploit the current system if there was no legal recognition of age. They made an argument from incredulity, possibly an embedded Straw-man as well, in making their post rather than actually engaging with the premise.

I am fairly consistent, I think, in my views that we should not use proxies for traits when we have available to us the means to directly measure traits. We shouldn't use "is black" to gauge whether someone is discriminated against, we should use objective measures of differentiation between application quality and interview outcomes.

I don't see what the harm is, and their ridiculous implication that age must survive in those context despite it being a bad proxy in the first place, is, well, ridiculous.

In short, my post was essentially "Age is a bad proxy for measuring shit" and his response was responding that he would then use his age for some shit that I already argued was a bad proxy for measurement of. That I didn't specify exactly what relevant qualities may be in every context where we are using the irrelevant agism standard currently, is immaterial; it still doesn't speak back to the principle "age is a bad proxy".

Now if you would like to provide an example where age isn't a bad proxy, or arguments as to why age isn't a bad proxy, I might entertain that. But right now, you are doing nothing but faffing about and masturbating over a bad argument.

 

[Gun Nut]

no, your reply was "I don't see the problem". When someone pointed out one of many problems, you shifted over to "well, err.. I mean it shouldn't be that way.. and if it wasn't that way then your point about how stupid my idea was wouldn't count (in Latin, no less).
Funny thing is that I just corrected my cousin for doing something like that... he's 5 and has yet to learn about the value of honesty. It's OK to be wrong sometimes... better, even... that's were learning comes from.

 

[Jarhyn]

no, your reply was "I don't see the problem". When someone pointed out one of many problems, you shifted over to "well, err.. I mean it shouldn't be that way.. and if it wasn't that way then your point about how stupid my idea was wouldn't count (in Latin, no less).
Funny thing is that I just corrected my cousin for doing something like that... he's 5 and has yet to learn about the value of honesty. It's OK to be wrong sometimes... better, even... that's were learning comes from.

Bullshit. Actually read the comment at the top of the chain. It's right there in black and white:

People have a right to remove irrelevant information from consideration. In the US discrimination by age is illegal. And while I'm the first person to acknowledge that experience, knowledge, and wisdom come only with time, we shouldn't use age (or appearance of age) as a proxy for that.

My argument from the beginning here is that we shouldn't use age as a proxy. His response was a snarky shitpost about how he would then use a claim of age as a proxy in the absence of tracking age.

Age was already thrown out, in my argument, as a proxy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

More information on the IBM case:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/09/ibm_age_iayoffs/