The Age Discrimination in Employment Act was a terrible idea.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Thought of the day |
Author
Recent Comments
The Sauciest Duck on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Michael on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Stephen Moreton on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Merry Christmas Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Mele Kalikimaka somdeblahiriyahoocoi… on Thought of the day Michael on Wuhan virus and one last… Quick correction | F… on The A-Unicornist, Bernie Bro… The A-Unicornist, Be… on When I know I’ve beat… Somdeb Lahiri on Thought of the day
For the Sake of Science 
Are you serious? Do you really believe that we should discriminate anyone seeking employment or being employed because of age? Can you live with yourself thinking when one turns 50 they run the risk of being laid off because their employer wants to replace them with a younger employee?
Greed does not appear to be a motive here with you Michael…I’ll chalk it up to youthfull ignorace….
Doesn’t it strike you as ironic to argue that it is wrong to discriminate against people due to age when you support a law which aims to do exactly that?
It would if it did .
It doesn’t.
So I don’t.
I find it ironic that you think a Law which seeks to prohibit discrimination promotes it.
There are many laws and policies that do exactly that. I think Mr. Hawkins feels that discrimination is fine under certain circumstances. My personal feelings are, of course, that if you want to discriminate against people in your business, than you should be free to do so, and face the social consequences of that choice. I think only governmental discrimination should be prohibited by law.
I have to wonder why he makes a departure from his usual position when it comes to age. Typically speaking, the longer a person works, the more they get paid and if they work long enough they may even get to retire. It’s illegal to discriminate against people based one age for that reason, at least in part.
Oh look, Michael Hawkins is almost 65, lets fire him and hire a younger person we can get to work for less and we won’t have to pay his retirement either.
Score! Or maybe not…
My objection is to the idea that it is okay to say no to a 20 year old seeking a job solely on the basis that said person is 20, yet that is somehow wrong when the person is 40. Not only is that overt discrimination codified, but I have to imagine it would be nothing but detrimental in certain fields, such as construction, if anyone was stupid enough to follow that part of the law.
I understand. As you graduate (or about to, or are contemplating it) , you believe that you face a competition with more experienced group of people who are older. You will be leaving the age protected grounds of Academia into the real world where you’ll have to apply your science with those who might, just might, be more knowledgeable than you.
It is not fair that you have to wait your turn…..get experience….move up as others have done…earn accolades….get financially rewarded . I would hire a 20yr. old in an instant if he brought with him all the skills and experience of a 40yr old if he had a proven track record he could turn his talents over into fulfilling the mission of my company better than the 40 yr.old. There would be nothing in the Age Discriminate Act which would prevent that from happening.
But I would be hard pressed to devalue the service of a similar 50 yr. old for someone who bring with him,,,,well,,,just youth…. and the age Discrimination Act laws does curtail this.
Ah sweet innocent youth….your education only begins as you graduate…..
I think you have expressed some openness to the idea that affirmative action could be called codified discrimination, am I correct?
We should have both become plumbers. When we are both dirt poor and living in adjacent boxes on the street somewhere in 20 years, I’ll remember to tell you that I told you so when a plumber who makes a cool 80,000 a year walks by and tosses change at us.
That change is mine, don’t touch it.
Damn you Paul, damn you!
I wish wordpress would tell you when someone else is typing a comment. In this case I don’t see anything I would have wanted to reply to, but it happens all the time that I do.
It’s like a lot of legislation: the powers that be have some fuzzy ideal of what Nirvana looks like, and are always tinkering around the edges to force people to accept what they see as the ideal state.
However, it reminds me of a story I heard some years ago: at an African game reserve, they kept the numbers of nasty old lions down so the cute, gambolling deer could gambol away in peace and perfect harmony. And yea, their numbers did greatly increase.
When the deer’s antlers first erupted, the skin was exceptionally itchy, and the deer would rub their heads against the trees, rubbing the bark off and killing the trees. In time, all the trees were dead, the topsoil blew away and all the deer died, as well, as all the few remaining lions.
Governments always seem blind to the controversies their legislation is almost guaranteed to arouse.
All governments can be sometimes blind. Humans are imperfect creatures and we create imperfect legislation. I don’t think our forefathers were blind in forming an imperfect secular constitution. It sought to “create a more perfect union” and we have, sometimes blindly, sometimes wisley,proceeded to do precisely just that.
I for one think that to protect the ideal that “all men are created equal” we can and should strive to prevent discrimination of anyone’s civli rights through legislation. Rand Paul might think legislation which allowed private business to exlude serving blacks was wrong in that it denied the rights of the private business owner to serve who he wants. Michael seems to agree with the Libertarian view a law which legislates anti-discrimation agaisnt one group codifies discrimination against another group,
I say Viva anti discrimination laws….it bring us closer not further to a “More perfect union”.
No, that’s horseshit. The same goes for your comment that my view is at all libertarian. I am against the ADEA because it is inherently – in fact, overtly – discriminatory on its face. I don’t see any defense for it, and if this country wasn’t run by old people who almost solely seek to protect themselves as they wither, it never would have even been considered.