[gtsop]

I am really not sure why my point isn't clear. I am not judging people differently based on age. I observe that skills/performance is not a fair metric for old people to compare against young ones. Thus, in order to create a field of fair competition I argue that for the baseline desicisons (getting and keeping a job) people of all ages should be judged on the effort they put in, a fair metric for all ages. Then comes the second layer of judgement based on skills which decides who gets promoted or gets performance bonuses. Old people would have less chances to win in this layer of judgement but at least they can keep their jobs safe as long as they put in effort.

[TheOtherHobbes]

There's a common trope about an established worker who works really, really hard at tasks - evenings, weekends, the whole deal.

Then they retire. Someone else takes over, and they do exactly the same work in $small_percentage of the time.

So no - effort is not a good metric. Why would you be paying someone who can't do the job - or at least can't do the job well, with enough spare capacity to deal with more complex work requirements?

Of course this is a parable, but I suspect a lot of people have seen something similar happen at work at least once.

[reflectiv]

By doing that you are hurting your business by not putting the best person in that position. Also, that better person can help bring up your younger less experienced staff.

Blindly saying 'ok you are technically better, but your also old and I want young people' is what you are arguing.

That is bad discrimination.