Interesting Article on Ageism in Silicon Valley

Every once in a while we will just refer to an article or articles that we think are interesting and hope our readers will as well.  This one is on ageism in Silicon Valley.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117088/silicons-valleys-brutal-ageism

Further Issues With Hiring More Experienced Workers (MEWs)

[updated 7/27/2013]

In a previous post (see here), we discussed issues that may become apparent when you hire a more experienced worker, or MEW as they are known in the literature, such as their tendency to fail to fall for your lies and a stupid desire to learn from experience. These are bad enough, but there are others that can be added to the list and we have some of them here.

I should first mention that not all experienced workers suffer from these character flaws, but the very possibility that they might should be enough to see that MEWs are never hired.

1. More experienced workers tend to mutter to themselves.

After all they are subjected to the most obvious and abusive ageism by your younger workers on a daily basis, they are likely to have some sort of verbal response. This is unacceptable and any MEW that mutters to themselves should immediately be fired.

2. More expereinced workers tend to exhibit diversity in opinions and ideas.

The most efficient workplace is one in which there is no dissent because the workers are cut from the same conforming cloth, everyone knows that. Unanimity should come not through discussion of the best approach, but because the worker units believe that there is only one way, their way, what they have been programmed to believe, thus they can proceed without discomfort or thought. By having more experienced workers who may know other ways or have contrary opinions based on genuine experience, you potentially open your organization to inefficient discussion and debate.

Remember, debate is weakness. Unthinking unanimity is strength!  

3. More experienced workers after being subjected to abuse might show some sign of anger at being treated like garbage.

Any who do so should be fired at once. Management should have no fear of being subjected to any penalty by government because the government supports ageism in all ways, that is obvious. Thus MEWs can be fired with impunity.

4. An MEW might be better educated than the "stupid morons" (1) companies hire as management and thus this management might suffer from insecurity which might affect their ability to be stupid.

Imagine the poor 20 or 30 something management, stupid and shallow as they are, spitting teeth in frustration if they had to deal with a MEW who might actually use a big word that our stupid management did not understand. Oh Gods! Forbid this gross unjustice !

I think we have established without doubt that our government is right in supporting ageism in all its forms and that an older and more experienced worker must never be hired.

_____________________________________

1. A "stupid moron" is an innovative personal insult and a colloquialism that is not in common usage in English, but was innovated by the author to communicate a higher degree of "moron"-icity than one might normally experience.   English is a Germanic language and it is a natural part of the language process to create new terms from existing words to extend the language.   Thus "stupid moron" is obviously a way of saying "a particularly unintelligent person of low intelligence".

Some Issues with Hiring More Experienced People

[in progress 7/9/2013]


I apologize.  I wanted this essay to be much more sarcastic and biting and self-deprecating, but it just has not come out that way.  It is mostly just serious and with a little sarcasm about American industry and the importance of lying to workers to motivate them.   Maybe the essay will evolve into something more vicious later, with time.


In America, ageism is everywhere.   And American industry is very ageist in its hiring policies.   But are there potentially good reasons for this discrimination?  Is there perhaps a dark side to hiring an older, more experienced worker, one with a reputation in the field, and a style and name that goes along with it?  Are there genuine good reasons to stay away from such people?

Yes, there are such reasons and we know that a priori because in America the actions of business are the leading indicators of right and wrong in our society and they are certainly ageist.

In America, the company is always right because the company is endowed with the test of efficiency in a perfectly competitive market.  Therefore if the company is ageist in their hiring practices, as nearly all of them are, then it has to be for a good reason.  Anything that the company does not want to do, e.g. hire older and more experienced workers,  must ipso facto be inefficient and lead to the destruction of America and its way of life.  It is up to us to explain why ageism is the right thing by examining the case studies provided us by industry.

Technically, ageism in hiring is against the law.  But the law is deliberately written to make this impossible to enforce and so practically there are no serious legal impediments to discrimination on the basis of age.

It is commonly said that older workers are not hired because they are more expensive.  I don't think so, I think that the older and more experienced but out of work professional will absolutely compromise on salary compensation without a moment's hesitation if it meant getting a serious position for a serious company that allowed him or her to do their work, whatever that may be.

But there *is* a dark side with hiring older, more experienced workers.   In some ways, an older worker can be like a disease that contaminates the corporate ethos, and may unconsciously or consciously undermine the esprit de corps that the corporation is working so hard to establish.

Here are some of the ways in which having an experienced worker can cause problems.  

1. Its harder to lie to a more experienced worker.

Go team, this will change the world! Burn yourself out and you will be recognzied for your achievement and establish yourself! But the older worker is living proof that this is a bad strategy.  These workers *did* burn themselves out, they did do groundbreaking work, and they didn't get shit for it, nor are they the least bit recognized for their achievements after a few years. As we say in Los Angeles, that and $3.50 will buy you a decaf espresso in this town.  Thus the older worker may act as an impediment when the time comes to lie to the workers and exploit them because that worker is a living example of what their fate may be.

2. The older worker is by their very nature a failure, and failure is hard to have around.

We want a rah, rah, don't think just do as you are told culture here. Part of that culture has to be the belief that what the worker is doing will lead to their success, ultimately. Sure they may not own any of the upside of their work, being disenfranchised workers in the classic sense, but ultimately, the story goes, this effort will lead to their fame and fortune, trust me. But the company will eventually go under, as most of them do, or be acquired and under new management, as the rest of them do, or had layoffs as all of them do. And all but a few ended up with their paycheck and that is it. People who DID good work and took care of people, and then just got fucked and discarded and had to find a job. Well that person is not only a failure in the eyes of America, but even worse, it is possible that the younger workers would realize that the career path they are on may very well lead to the same result. Well, that is not a good way to get people to mindlessly and enthusiastically do as they are told.

3. Older workers bring a history with them.

Good or bad, older workers have done things in their life.  That means they know people, and some people like them and usually some people don't.   And people are competitive, and frankly, some people are just fucking crazy.  But when you hire an older worker you also hire a person who has a network of people in the field who have made up their minds about the person you have hired.  Maybe it would be better to just hire a new person who has no history and keep things simple.

4. Older workers bring other company cultures with them.

Corporate culture is real.  Building a culture is critical to building a company.  If someone does not fit in, possibly because they have done things differently in other companies, then that person may represent an obstacle to building the culture you desire.    Better to hire someone with little background, they will be easier to indoctrinate into the company way.

5. The older worker may expect, stupidly, to be able to learn from their experience.

We are told such stupid things as we are growing up "he never made the same mistake twice". I am here to tell you today that I have been compelled to make the same mistake over and over again because I had no choice, it was either take the job or not. But the more experienced worker, innocently thinking that it is part of their life and work to be able to learn from their mistakes, may not realize that no one wants to fix the problem.  Telling your management what you have learned and about a way to proceed that you think is better, or about what the problems are with their approach is exactly the wrong thing to do.    You may never be forgiven.    It will either annoy them because their tiny ego can not stand being wrong about something, or it will annoy them because they knew that already and they want you to shut up and do it their way, or it will annoy them because they do not understand a word of what you are talking about and that scares them.

So hiring a younger worker is much better, they have no experience to mention and therefore are much more likely to comply and do as they are told, which brings us to our last issue.

6. Younger people are less of a political threat

Maybe if you hire the older worker, who is qualified to be your boss or your boss's boss, something weird will happen and they will end up with your job. Since you know that you are a worthless piece of shit that does not deserve the job you have, this is a real and practical concern.  Of course, you may also be replaced by one of the younger people you hire as well, so it is not clear what this buys you.

In conclusion, it seems clear that the younger worker will be more pliable, have less history, and won't try to tell you how to do your job.   The answer is clear.   One should hire younger workers, burn them out, then discard them so that they can go away to live the rest of their life in misery and poverty.

That is the American Way.