> American age discrimination laws only protect people over 40 from discrimination, they don't protect people under 40 from being discriminated against.
Are you sure about that? Do any lawyers want to weigh in?
Explicitly hiring only 40+ for any given role seems like it would be a lawsuit magnet.
>Shouldn't economics sort them out if they really aren't getting more bang for their buck with younger employees?
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.
I have talked to literally hundreds of people in my life who have suffered through illegal workplace discrimination and I've honestly never met a single one who prosecuted a discrimination case successfully. Things are only illegal if you can prove them, and most managers don't go around yelling "holy shit I hate old people".
> For example, I don't think I've ever seen ageism specifically called out.
Ageism is illegal in the US, however the way the law is written it specifically only protects people over 40. I've always personally theorized that this is why tech ageism tends to start affecting people in their 30s, so that it doesn't wait until it's illegal and gets the job done of oppressing more senior employees earlier on.
Partially illegal. I'm 39, and it is perfectly legal for companies to tell me they won't hire me because I'm too old. Next year it becomes illegal for them to do so.
1). Same thing that's wrong with racial discrimination and LGBT discrimination, etc.
2). It's illegal.
3). It's stupid and hurts our economy by making it less efficient.
4). Reverse age discrimination: This is wrong and inefficient also, but unfortunately legal. If you face this it's highly annoying but there are strategies to work around it. It might require changing jobs but you can usually find someone who appreciates your talent if it is truly something special.
In the US, that would be inviting an age discrimination lawsuit. It's admitting that the company preferentially hires young people (which is illegal), and implying that older people wouldn't "fit in" and would thus be discriminated against.
I can't comment on other jurisdictions, but the United States has a section of legislation called the Civil Rights Act Title VII[1] codifying that discrimination on the basis of a variety of factors (age included) is actually not (legally) right.
I think this is hard to enforce in practice, but just to be clear -- it's not (technically) "right" to be ageist in one's hiring practices in the US.
Only if you discriminate against old people, it is legal to openly discriminate against the young.
I guess I'm biased because I'm young but it's a little non-sensical since young people are the ones with student debt and record-high housing costs to pay for while 50-year-olds have decades of savings and stock market and real-estate appreciation to fall back on if they find themselves unemployed.
> In the US, we have the same laws. It's flat-out illegal to discriminate by age, as it is by race, religion, gender, pregnancy, marital status, etc.
This is true, sort of. Age discrimination is different where it matters - the threshold to prove age discrimination is so high that the law could just as well not exist.
> Many clients decide not to try masking age, as any company that might discriminate based on age isn't a place they would want to work. I respect that as well.
That's exactly my attitude. I am aware of age discrimination and I am not gonna hide my age. The people who do it aren't pleasant, and work is not only about the money. You have to like your workplace else your life becomes a wide-awake nightmare.
For what? Youth is not a protected class. Discriminate against them all you want.
> You would need to prove there is any difference in language skill from someone with 15 years versus 35 years, otherwise it is just an age requirement superficially disguised as a needed skill requirement
Age discrimination is different from other discrimination cases. It's really hard to win, for instance[1]. The company doesn't have to prove anything. The worker would have to prove that it was explicit age discrimination. For other types of discrimination, like race, the only thing that needs to be shown is differences in outcomes.
> I'm pretty sure that is basically the definition of age discrimination people are facing.
Age discrimination is based on a fact you can't do anything about, your age. A company's culture is very important, a vital aspect of its identity. If you aren't open to making a change then you probably don't belong. Anyway, a lot of things people my age and older like are just the things 20 year olds liked when they were 20.
I don’t know your location, but in the US it’s already illegal to discriminate against someone’s age if they’re over 40
reply