Meh, is it really important.
There are many reasons to want younger workers, and there are many reasons you shouldn't want younger workers. I don't find it necessary for the government to step in to help one of the highest paid fields in america.
There are many reasons to want younger workers, and there are many reasons you shouldn't want younger workers. I don't find it necessary for the government to step in to help one of the highest paid fields in america.
Being highly paid shows you that there is much competition for labor, which means some might discriminate and some might not.
If people don't want to hire older people they wont, no amount of law will change that, but it will make it more expensive to hire in general.
Its just a preference. If they are making an unprofitable preference, the best punishment you can do is let them continue their policy and let other competition pick up where they leave money on the table. If the decision they are making is profitable, no amount of law will help against the desires of people.
Would you feel similarly if you replaced "younger" with "gay" or "female"?
And churches typically hire a younger person to be a youth minister, as the kids could relate to them better. Again, not sure about the legality of this though.
Also many corporate benefits like booze, free food and all that might not have the same premium for older people, which might, at the same skill, demand higher salaries that the companies desire to spend considering the available competition.
There is always the wildcard of 'culture fit'.
The Demo they were targeting is the age group (25 to 36 years old ) is when most people have their first child.
No very many people start a family when they are over 40, sure it happens but it is rare.
If parental leave was a concern than hiring people over 40 should be your priority as most people over 40 will have old children and not be taking parental leave.
People over 50 will likely have Collage aged or old children and need every very little time off for child related events (school events, illness, etc)
So discriminating against older workers because of children seems illogical
>>also in areas like SF or mountain view
Just so you know, there is an entire world outside of SF and Mountain View... I know it is shocking but...
>>whereas younger people can cram into a room for a decade until that happens.
Why would you want to? I am in my mid 30;s now, even when I was in my early 20's I refused to have more than 1 roommate.
I would much rather make 50-75K in an area where I can afford a 3 bedroom home on my own than make 100-150K and have to live in 100 square feet and "cram into a room for a decade"
Each to their own I guess, but count me out of that life style
I hadnt seen the exact age group and you are correct: in terms of parental leave 25-36 are more dangerous. All what follows your argumentation supports that there are reasons to want people from one age group or another. Which is what the person I answered to was asking: examples of legitimate reasons to (literally, not 'negatively')discriminate by age.
> Just so you know, there is an entire world outside of SF and Mountain View... I know it is shocking but...
Im not american, you don't need to tell me about that. But to this day, SF suffers from very low diversity in the work environment, maybe because families leave the city.
> Why would you want to? I am in my mid 30;s now, even when I was in my early 20's I refused to have more than 1 roommate. I would much rather make 50-75K in an area where I can afford a 3 bedroom home on my own than make 100-150K and have to live in 100 square feet and "cram into a room for a decade" Each to their own I guess, but count me out of that life style
The more energy you put behind your preferences, the more you justify that is logical for employers to target different groups. Its not about what you think, its about what whatever employer thinks employees think. And if they think 25 year olds are more likely to move , to start working for them, to live in SF or MV for 10 years,and are more likely to be swayed by social media ads for a job, then they have an absolutely legitimate reason to target.
For discrimination in america, I think Adam Smith made one of the best arguments: because it is illegal to have that preference, it makes people accusative. If it weren't illegal, it would barely be a topic at all, as it is that so many job positions show these biases but because they are legal people dont even care.
"The law which put an end to all prosecutions against witchcraft, which put it out of any man’s power to gratify his own malice by accusing his neighbour of that imaginary crime, seems effectually to have put an end to those fears and suspicions by taking away the great cause which encouraged and supported them."
Which is the universal way to discriminate against others based on race, gender, country of origin ...
all "technically" illegal in the US. (under Trump, nothing is "illegal" )