| > Would you like to get operated on by a surgeon that lacks the skill necessary to perform his job but tries damn hard? [...] Would you want to ride the bus where the driver has been practicing all his life but can't quite drive well enough to meet a reasonable standard based on skill? Breaking news, this is already happening. Actually, pure performance-based judgement drives incapable people to hide their inability to perform the task at hand leading to bad results (instead of facing the reality in a safe environment that would help them get better at what they do). > Why should anyone respect a workplace that is effectively a daycare for try-hards? How can such a workplace result in a good product or service? This sentence assumes the majority of workers are incapable try-hards which is plain false. A few less-skilled try-hards aren't going to ruin any service. Again, this is already the case in the world we live in. > Frankly, the whole premise that old people need to be "allowed to compete fairly" by arbitrarily judging workers on some other merit than the quality of their work strikes me as incredibly patronizing. I clearly stated two layers of judgement. A baseline for effort and a second layer for career progression based on lerformance, both age-agnostic. Never proposed a system discriminating against age. Get over it please. > consider socialized efforts that can maintain a sense of security for people that for one reason or another can't perform the work available to them to a reasonable standard. Pensions, unemployment insurance, disability insurance...that kind of thing. Ok so I proposed a system that would ensure someone has a job as long as they are not a lazy-a$$ (but probably wouldn't be able to climb up the career ladder if they don't have the skills), always age-agnostic, but that is somehow not a socialized effort to provide security? Ok. |