[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 of things no one uses anymore, of outdated practices, and not what is making money right now.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.

[Tohhou]

Just like my questions weren't arguments? I thought you saying that knowledge was timeless was related to older people (the topic) having knowledge. A person may understand principles but if they are not wiling to learn what a company wants they won't be hire able - do you disagree with that too?

I'm trying to understand exactly what on topic (you arguing that ageism is real but not explaining why people would possibly want to higher younger people over older people) you are saying.

If you really think I'm wrong say something which will change my mind.

To summarize the generalizations:

- Companies hire younger people for competitive reasons : they cost less, they are more willing to learn, they have less baggage and less liability

- Older people demand more - they know they can't take risks with jobs and want high paying positions

- Older people are less willing to learn the things younger people are for whatever reason

- Older people may have more fundamental experience, more general knowledge, but if they have specialized heavily in something which is obsolete they can't compete unless they learn something new

- We know that older people run the companies, and start up most new companies - so why are older people choosing younger people instead of their peers?

Are these all wrong? Your other posts have not been convincing. I'm sure if you care about this cause it would be worth converting someone who cares to your view point, because right now all I see are lazy whiners who don't want to compete and want an easy scapegoat to blame.

[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.