[techmatters]

> I think it's more likely older people expect to get paid more for their experience,

Myth : The highest paid are in the 30-40 age bracket. See http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_241497.pdf (UK-focussed, but the US is probably similar)

> are less likely to learn new things on their own like younger people are,

...but they already know so much more that learning is less important. They know it already!

> are less likely to start up their own companies like younger people are because doing so is risky.

Myth : http://www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/research/2009/04/educatio...

[Tohhou]

>Myth : The highest paid are in the 30-40 age bracket.

I'm not saying people are not paid money I'm saying older people will expect higher salaries based on their experience compared to younger people despite the direct value they can contribute to a company. Value = money.

>...but they already know so much more that learning is less important. They know it already!

Yes, they know so much... of things no one uses anymore, of outdated practices, and not what is making money right now. Technology changes fast and what is useful to know now won't be in 15 years.

>Myth : http://www.kauffman.org/what-we-o/research/2009/04/educatio.....

Great, so why are older people discriminating against other older people?

[doktrin]

> Technology changes fast and what is useful to know now won't be in 15 years.

This claim is bandied about way too carelessly. Application level tools do change quite fast. The fundamentals of technology do not.

Knowledge of networking, TCP/IP, x86 assembly, stack discipline, cache implementations, etc. is comparatively timeless. For instance, one of CMU's core CS/ECE classes (213) has been taught in roughly the same manner for the last 15 years. The same I believe holds true for 6.001 at MIT.

You can argue that COBOL is no longer relevant. What you can't claim is that only the framework-du-jour is important to modern business. It's simply not the case.

[Tohhou]

I would argue that the number of people needed for older technology is finitely limited not that they are no longer needed. There may be demand for older technology, but the majority of new jobs won't be for older technology.

>is comparatively timeless

Why are companies apparently hiring younger people over older people who are vastly more experienced and given that timeless knowledge would give so much more value to their companies? Are they just plain stupid?

[doktrin]

> I would argue that the number of people needed for older technology is finitely limited not that they are no longer needed. There may be demand for older technology, but the majority of new jobs won't be for older technology

Obviously no-one is being hired to write x86 assembly. It's taught because it's relevant, important and timeless.

> Why are companies apparently hiring younger people over older people who are vastly more experienced and given that timeless knowledge would give so much more value to their companies? Are they just plain stupid?

Like most of your arguments, this is a logical fallacy. You're appealing to authority and the status quo, without actually addressing any of the issues head on.

[Tohhou]

>Obviously no-one is being hired to write x86 assembly. It's taught because it's relevant, important and timeless.

Not everything is timeless. Not everything everyone specializes now will be timeless. Some knowledge will be useful always, but if there is not demand for the timeless positions, or demand shrinks rather than grows, then even if someone has timeless knowledge that may not actually be useful in them getting hired, because what they know wouldn't give value to companies looking to hire.

>You're appealing to authority and the status quo, without actually addressing any of the issues head on.

I refuse to accept without evidence that companies are only hiring younger people because of their youth and not because they give the company some kind of competitive advantage.

>Like most of your arguments, this is a logical fallacy.

That was a question, which was refused any answer, not an argument. You are asserting that people have timeless knowledge making them more valuable employees than younger people without that timeless knowledge. I'm asking why then do companies make hiring decisions which go against their interests.

[doktrin]

> You are asserting that [older] people have timeless knowledge making them more valuable employees than younger people without that timeless knowledge.

I never said that.

[spiralpolitik]

This is truth.

Concepts are eternal and new ones don't come along very often. Tools and languages on the other hand are transitory.

Understanding the concepts well and you will be employable for longer than if you are an expert in tool or language X.