You seem to be missing something really important.
That's illegal.
Just like it's illegal to discriminate against someone because of their sex or skin color. Being over 40 years of age puts you in a protected class in the US.
If there is a difference in value, then it isn't illegal to choose the superior candidate. I described characteristics which can be legally used in making a hiring decisions, because they affect value offered for the position. These characteristics tend to on average make younger employees more desirable for typical software engineering positions, all other things equal (like perceived programming skill).
For any individual case, where 25 year old Alice and 45 year old Steve have similar perceived programming value but Alice will (a.) work for less and (b.) seems like a better cultural fit, do you think Steve is entitled to the job? What if they are completely identical from a value and cost perspective, 'cultural fit' aside -- is Steve entitled to the job? Unless you can prove Steve was superior for the job and lost it anyway, which is highly arbitrary, there is no recourse for legal action. Which is why I think private discrimination laws are ridiculous, because they are effectively unenforceable. Most prejudiced employers will not print out a rejection letter stating the exact prejudice that led to the decision.
Laws are not the "word of God", and just because there is a law, it doesn't mean you stop discussing it.
EDIT: Quotes around "word of God," because it was apparently taken literally.
From my perspective, any company that has management using that phrase has an extremely unhealthy culture.
There are definitely such things as cultural fits and especially cultural misfits. And even in software engineering, the human interaction component is typically strong enough to have a large effect on the success of the organization.
Would you have all software engineers put our resumes into a government pool and be randomly assigned to companies?
Why does no-one complain about any of those, but seem to be so upset about illegal discrimination having the same distinction?
Either intention matters or it doesn't.
For any other crime, there is no question that the action is criminal -- it's only a question of whether the defendant intended to/conspired to/did commit it.
However, when intention is the only crime and the action is perfectly fine unless the perpetrator had a certain thought when doing it, it's a thought crime, and not only are thought crimes much more impractical to regulate, but to even attempt to do so would impose a tremendous loss of privacy and freedom of expression upon society.
I'm all for addressing externalities in society, and perhaps there is an externality-centric justification for affirmative action/quota/discrimination laws. Perhaps certain types of publicly-traded corporations beyond a certain size can be considered public goods in certain ways and subject to such laws. However, when we cross into individual cases of thought-crimes, that is where the left has completely lost me.
One of the most fundamental rights is a right of interpretation. If a person perceives themselves to been a risk of harm they have a right to commit otherwise criminal acts. The only reason they aren't deemed criminal is their state of mind and what they thought of the situation.
I'm sure many of us have worked somewhere where 'cultural fit' equates to back-patting self-congratulating group of borderline incompetents who spend all day telling one-another about a job well done while everyone else despairs.
In America, government operates on the rule of law not the Word of God. Discussing an alternate universe in which America is a theocracy seems a bit off-topic for this particular thread.
> Which is why I think private discrimination laws are ridiculous, because they are effectively unenforceable.
Are you suggesting that the submitted article, to which this discussion thread is attached, is a figment of our imagination? That Google actually is not facing a class-action lawsuit made possible through age-discrimination laws?
> Most prejudiced employers will not print out a rejection letter stating the exact prejudice that led to the decision.
Are you unaware of cases (or unable to currently use Google) in which companies were found in violation of age discrimination laws?
> Are you suggesting that the submitted article, to which this discussion thread is attached, is a figment of our imagination? That Google actually is not facing a class-action lawsuit made possible through age-discrimination laws?
I will try to clear up your confusion -- you are taking everything very literally. There have been many private discrimination lawsuits, and in my opinion, all of the legitimate ones were tied in with something other than discrimination (especially harrassment). There is almost never any hard proof of discrimination of the nature that is the focus of the lawsuit, even the ones that win, and I think it's too arbitrary a thing to try to control. Feel free to list examples to the contrary, where the defendant stated "I did not hire Mr/Mrs. Smith because he/she is X." It also raises questions of freedom of association in the private space.
Fortunately for plaintiffs, "hard proof" can come in a variety of ways other than the defendant writing out "Let's break the law"
"The law requires employers to base employment decisions upon each person’s strengths and talents instead of relying upon generalized assumptions calculated around an employee’s age"
Also, this is a case of dismissal, which is more often tied to something tangible like a pension, vesting shares, etc., and can therefore be addressed as a contractual breach of faith instead of needing a new legal class to describe. I have mostly been focused on hiring but it applies here, too.
Serious answer: the difference is that the crime is what the employer was thinking while making the employment decision, where the action is only a crime contingent on the 'thought crime.'
Do you not see the difference between prosecuting an action and a thought? Sure, there are modifications like "premeditation" and "involuntary" but the core crime is an action, not the thought itself. Even with "conspiracy to commit" laws, the conspiracy refers to an action which is unequivocally a crime.
In the case of discrimination, it is the goal of the trial to determine whether the action was a crime based on what the "perpetrator" was thinking. Do you not see how that is in its own league? It's almost Orwellian, if not for the good intentions.
Again, it is a crime to discriminate on the basis of age. If you ignore that premise, then this discussion becomes pretty abstract. You could make the case that companies would (and have, in the past) save a lot of money by employing child labor.
I agree that prosecuting based on what someone is "thinking" could lead down the slippery slope of Orwellian dystopia. Which is why these prosecutions are not based on thoughts, but on actions. If I were a restaurant owner, I have the right to use Confederate flags and Nazi memorabilia as decor. But as soon as I refuse to serve Jewish and black people -- even if I think such persons aren't a great return on investment because I perceive them to order/tip less than other customers -- I am in violation of federal law.
You have hit the nail right on the head -- this is indeed meant to be an abstract discussion. I am discussing what ought to be and why, not debating which laws exist, which would not be very interesting. Apologies if that was not clear.
But I'm glad we can agree on how dangerous these discrimination laws are. Although I'm not sure if you are applying the logic consistently:
> Which is why these prosecutions are not based on thoughts, but on actions.
These actions are not inherently illegal, not crimes, not aggressions. No one is entitled to your service. However, in our current legal system, unfortunately that is not always the case. Your action could all of a sudden become a crime if a jury suspects your thoughts went a certain way in carrying out the action. That's a thought crime.
I don't think too many commenters would have a hard time agreeing that younger employees would help many companies bottom-line; it's not like child labor came to be because people hated children. What is there more to discuss? You act as if discussing within the "limited" scope of current law is somehow anti-intellectual. But isn't it a bit anti-intellectual and ignorant on your part to think that anti-discriminatory laws came out of thin air, or happy feelings? The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 [0] Admittedly, this law was enacted with a Democratic president and Congress, though a Republican-led Supreme Court affirmed the law and sided with employees in a major 2008 case [1]. At the nation/state-level, these laws impose constraints, but ostensibly they do it for the benefit to the overall national and state health.
Google and other companies operate within the U.S. and California jurisdiction. This means they have to follow federal and state law. But it's not all about just following the laws, companies enjoy the benefits and services that come from being within the U.S. and California, which implies in part that what benefits U.S and California also benefits Google, in the long run. If you want to posit a scenario in which Google did not have to be constrained by American law, then for that discussion to have any intellectual worth, that scenario should also include a Google that does not receive any of America/California's benefits or protections, i.e. what would Google be today if it decided to move to New Hampshire? Or China? Or Andorra?
All interesting hypotheticals, I'm sure. At the same time, not particularly relevant to the article at hand.
[0] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/washington/20scotus.html
You are welcome to feel that way, but many disagree (I've had very many abstract discussions on HN less related than discrimination legal theory is to this article), so your opinion on irrelevance here is irrelevant. If you do not want to entertain any ideas which are not recapitulations of the content of the article and related sources / irrelevant facts about parties, dates, politics, etc., I cannot help.
That being said, child labor should be clearly irrelevant here, as adults are considered citizens with full rights who can legally consent to a contract. Especially when young in this context can be 30 years old.
I would gladly go into depth about alternative solutions to discrimination as a societal problem, which would be less in the category of thought crimes, if you are willing and able to entertain hypotheticals.
Ah, my bad. I momentarily forgot that the people-are-adults-at-age-18 is not just some man-made standard that resulted from the imperfect legislative and political process, but is an immutable rule as universal and constant as π and enshrined in the word of God.
Many corporations would love to pay staff less money, provide fewer benefits, not worry about pollution, not pay any taxes or other things which cost them money but don't make them money.
Laws which restrict corporations or require them to do certain things are designed to change behaviour that would not occur in a free market, for the good of the country and it's citizens.
In this case allowing corporations to choose younger people, who can generally be acquired more cheaply, has been considered not to be in the interests of the USA or its citizens, so there is legislation to require companies not to discriminate in this fashion.
Seems logical to me.
As a citizen of a country I don't want to allow corporations to do whatever they want, given that their interests may not align with mine or those of the country I live in.
Also, it's easy to hate on corporations, but these laws also apply to small family businesses, startups, etc.
It's not in the interests of the state to have corporations pushing down wages by favouring only younger staff.
Low wages == low tax receipts, which is objectively bad for countries and their citizens.
Also as citizens it's hardly in the interests of the group as a whole in allowing corporations to drive down salaries and make older citizens redundant. Every young citizen who might benefit from such actions now will become an old citizen who will get the downside later in life.
At the moment we're discussing the behaviour of a large corporation (google) so it makes sense to address that class of company.
To be clear, I don't hate corporations at all, but nor to I have any faith that they'll always act in the best interests of the country I live in, in fact I expect them not to do so where their interests diverge from the interests of the country and so I expect my government to address that with legislation.
The fact that there is a different in outcome produced by two groups, doesn't mean there wasn't discrimination as a root cause of it.
An example would be, group A and group B. Members of Group A when they join the team receive mentorship, feedback and constructive reviews. Members of Group B receive due to biases in the company. As a result members of group A perform better.
The fact that group A performed better doesn't mean that this isn't inequitable discrimination. Nor does it make it ok to excluding hiring members from group B because you know your company will successfully discriminate against Bs and cause them to perform worse.
I'm not saying this is what's happening here - I'm showing that your premise is false - that a difference in outcome doesn't mean discrimination isn't a root cause.
I'm telling you it is. You will pay fines and legal fees. That's part of the recipe of this story. Google is breaking the law, and now the law should hurt Google for doing it.
>do you think Steve is entitled to the job?
Neither, because Alice is just going to get pregnant and leave soon anyway. She's just applying for the maternity leave. Everyone knows it. New company policy, no women allowed!
See how that sounds yet? I doubt it very much. You don't seem able to understand it. "A broken finger will get better without your cooperation, but not a broken personality."
Older folks (myself included) shouldn't take this personally or get angry. Eventually we will all be working PT as retirees doing something totally different or consulting and/or owning our own business. That's the progression as I've seen it.