Ah, the joys of having experience and knowledge, but companies won't hire you because you're "too old."
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a trend in corporate America in recent decade: Hire the least experienced cheaper worker, train him to be expert (only works in fairy tales), and get the work done (good luck with that).
This creates 2 focus areas, one is seeking young inexperienced people, and two seeking third world low-IQ H1B workers.
This is all based on a belief that came from a book written by a Microsoft HR guru (moron), where he explains that any person is replaceable and any person can be trained to do anything. For example pick up a homeless guy, and expect him to find the connection between general relativity and quantum mechanics, after a top down corporate training. These morons truly believe that it is possible. It is a belief system. It is leftist, and anti-meritocratic. They still have consideration for "skill", but they only include managers and executives in that. The concept of a talented and skilled non-manager employee, does not crack their minds.
I don't think it is leftist. Quite the opposite. It is a rabid right-wing (or maybe at times libertarian) unbridled capitalism fantasy. They are just looking for cheap, gullible people to burn out and throw away, so they convince themselves that there is not that much skill involved.
There are many expressions of this, and not just in the IT world. Workers have long been regarded as fungible commodities. Sometime I suppose in the 1980s when at-will employment became the rule, such that employers had no real commitment to employees ... the feeling became mutual. To the point that now you have nomadic tech workers who feel you are a chump if you don't jump ship every year or two at most. So it cuts both ways.
I don't think it is leftist. Quite the opposite. It is a rabid right-wing (or maybe at times libertarian) unbridled capitalism fantasy. They are just looking for cheap, gullible people to burn out and throw away, so they convince themselves that there is not that much skill involved.
There are many expressions of this, and not just in the IT world. Workers have long been regarded as fungible commodities. Sometime I suppose in the 1980s when at-will employment became the rule, such that employers had no real commitment to employees ... the feeling became mutual. To the point that now you have nomadic tech workers who feel you are a chump if you don't jump ship every year or two at most. So it cuts both ways.
I don't think it has anything to do with the politics of management. Doesn't seem to matter whether they are leftist or libertarian, it's part of how man, perhaps most managers think. Heck, it's even part of management training, the belief that "any competent manager can manage anything." We know it isn't true in the real world, but it's what they are taught. And it follows that if you believe "any manager can manage anything" then "any employee can be taught to do any job." Goes right back to the mix of Taylorism and Fordism that has dominated American business for the past hundred years.
Pull pretty much any B school graduate aside and if you can get them talking, and if you can decipher the word salad that comes out, you'll find that regardless of what name they put on it, their basic philosophy of management will be that management thinks and decides, and that workers only need to be trained enough to follow standardized processes. Technical expertise in field is not needed, in fact, under Fordism, considered a negative because it makes the workers knowledgeable enough to argue with management.
There're been a few terms and methods borrowed from other management practices over the years, but these all get implemented through a Taylor/Ford lens and become mostly window dressing rather than actual practice. One of the things that builds the growing cynicism among the workforce.
I don't think it has anything to do with the politics of management. Doesn't seem to matter whether they are leftist or libertarian, it's part of how man, perhaps most managers think. Heck, it's even part of management training, the belief that "any competent manager can manage anything." We know it isn't true in the real world, but it's what they are taught. And it follows that if you believe "any manager can manage anything" then "any employee can be taught to do any job." Goes right back to the mix of Taylorism and Fordism that has dominated American business for the past hundred years.
Pull pretty much any B school graduate aside and if you can get them talking, and if you can decipher the word salad that comes out, you'll find that regardless of what name they put on it, their basic philosophy of management will be that management thinks and decides, and that workers only need to be trained enough to follow standardized processes. Technical expertise in field is not needed, in fact, under Fordism, considered a negative because it makes the workers knowledgeable enough to argue with management.
There're been a few terms and methods borrowed from other management practices over the years, but these all get implemented through a Taylor/Ford lens and become mostly window dressing rather than actual practice. One of the things that builds the growing cynicism among the workforce.
I don't disagree with any of this. I think, though, that a mindless devotion to capitalism as in, it must be unbridled / unregulated & can do no wrong, is part of the problem. One's political leaning does inform their aversion to regulation, or whether they buy the fiction that businesses are self-controlled beneficent entities that can invariably be trusted by workers; their attitude toward unions, etc.
But yes, the circle-jerk that is management theory does strike me as beyond discredited ... one wonders how it doesn't just unravel, it produces such extremes of incompetence and demonstrably bad results.
I worked for a business that was very youth oriented. The only people over 40 were the principals of the firm. They once sent out an email requesting everyone's personal health information. How many surgeries you had, what medications you take, what illnesses you've had, etc. This email was later used in a discrimination lawsuit against them.
I think businesses are concerned with health costs of older workers.
Age discrimination gets worse, with some businesses not wanting to hire anyone over age 30.
Yep. This is the only reason. Older people cost the company millions of dollars in health coverage. My moms company outright told everyone that they are planning to let everyone go and move all their operations to a different country to save on health insurance costs.
Yep. This is the only reason. Older people cost the company millions of dollars in health coverage. My moms company outright told everyone that they are planning to let everyone go and move all their operations to a different country to save on health insurance costs.
That's part of it, but plain old salary/wage is also part of it. Someone with 20 years of experience in a role is generally (and generally should be) paid more than someone with 5. So in many cases employers want someone with less experience because that candidate will not be able to command as high a salary/wage. I realize this is a bigger issue with professional careers where the value of additional experience is less likely to "top out."
I don't disagree with any of this. I think, though, that a mindless devotion to capitalism as in, it must be unbridled / unregulated & can do no wrong, is part of the problem. One's political leaning does inform their aversion to regulation, or whether they buy the fiction that businesses are self-controlled beneficent entities that can invariably be trusted by workers; their attitude toward unions, etc.
But yes, the circle-jerk that is management theory does strike me as beyond discredited ... one wonders how it doesn't just unravel, it produces such extremes of incompetence and demonstrably bad results.
When your definition of right and wrong, moral and immoral only pertains to maximizing the bottom line of the P&L statement, then it's natural that we might feel that it doesn't align with right/wrong, moral/immoral from a societal standpoint. Often times it doesn't.
In objectivism and many other business schools of thought, profit seeking is akin to morality and may as well be the only moral objective that can be achieved. Anything else is for the birds.
At the end of the day, society ends up paying the price. Whether that's subsidizing low wage workers through programs like Medicaid/CHP/food stamps, enduring detrimental impacts on environment, or offshoring/outsourcing/automating/ostracizing entire workforces. We pay for it through loss of income, loss of habitable environments, and subsidies to ensure that our people don't go homeless or starve to death on the streets or die a horrible, painful death to some malady.
That's part of it, but plain old salary/wage is also part of it. Someone with 20 years of experience in a role is generally (and generally should be) paid more than someone with 5. So in many cases employers want someone with less experience because that candidate will not be able to command as high a salary/wage. I realize this is a bigger issue with professional careers where the value of additional experience is less likely to "top out."
Yes. I might have unexplained pains, outdated fashion, and see death rushing at me, but at least I make much more money than I ever did at thirty.
When your definition of right and wrong, moral and immoral only pertains to maximizing the bottom line of the P&L statement, then it's natural that we might feel that it doesn't align with right/wrong, moral/immoral from a societal standpoint. Often times it doesn't.
In objectivism and many other business schools of thought, profit seeking is akin to morality and may as well be the only moral objective that can be achieved. Anything else is for the birds.
At the end of the day, society ends up paying the price. Whether that's subsidizing low wage workers through programs like Medicaid/CHP/food stamps, enduring detrimental impacts on environment, or offshoring/outsourcing/automating/ostracizing entire workforces. We pay for it through loss of income, loss of habitable environments, and subsidies to ensure that our people don't go homeless or starve to death on the streets or die a horrible, painful death to some malady.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
