Ageism

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Ageism

Postby Pandora » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:56 am

Why is everyone concerned about giving sexual and religious minorities when both Europe and US are experiencing an increase of aging population? Why not give older people equal rights by eliminating discrimination in employment and media representation? Old people have years of experience and expertise in the workplace and life, in general, so why are they being pushed aside in our society?

Image


Image
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4291
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Ageism

Postby Uccisore » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:02 am

You're asking if there is a problem and demanding we solve the problem at the same time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Ageism

Postby Pandora » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:09 am

I just see that nobody really cares about the older population in the West. It's all about gay rights and transsexual rights right now. Old people are like invisible people in our society.
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4291
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Ageism

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:14 pm

You are jut now realizing it is a slave society? It is a slave society. Slave owners, want to hire young slaves. Slave owners toss old slaves aside like Emperor Palpatine did with Vader...are you just now realizing this.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Ageism

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:15 pm

My dad is old and can't even get pills for his hip
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Ageism

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:16 pm

Young people can't get jobs either, neither can transsexuals, they only hire people who conform to all the rules regs and are maximum cucks and slaves
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Ageism

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:22 am

Because the baby boomers are responsible for the economic mess that the world is in and they don't deserve any special treatment. Why don't they mortgage their mcmansions and cash in their 401k's and go and fuck themselves.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 27022
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Ageism

Postby MagsJ » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:32 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote:Because the baby boomers are responsible for the economic mess that the world is in and they don't deserve any special treatment. Why don't they mortgage their mcmansions and cash in their 401k's and go and fuck themselves.

Let the younger generations make some money and get a pension... they've had their turn.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20909
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Ageism

Postby Carleas » Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:27 pm

Ageism is one of those made up -isms. When someone discriminates on the basis of race or sex, it is frequently irrational. Unless you're hiring for a sunscreen commercial, race just doesn't tell you much about how good someone is for the job.

Age, on the other hand, tells you a lot. A person who is 65 now was 55 when Facebook was started. They were 45 when cell phones hit the market. In a lot of roles, that matters. Moreover, someone who is 65 is eligible for retirement, they're more likely to die, they're unlikely to take direction as well from a boss who is likely to be younger than them. These are all true by definition or very highly correlated with age. Age has predictive power about work-related attributes.

I many industries, the additional experience is as much a liability as an asset. If an industry is trying to innovate, to overhaul processes to use new technologies to gain efficiency, someone with years of experience in an analogue workplace may find that change more challenging than someone who is used to doing everything online.

That isn't always true: since enterprise applications tend not to be as glitzy as Facebook/Google/Twitter, older workers actually tolerate them better than digital natives whose expectations are never met. It can't be said that age is all costs, and surely there are some roles where age is at least as much or more an asset than it is a liability.

Still, in a lot of cases, the benefits don't outweigh the rationally predicted costs. In a lot of cases (not all cases, of course, but most, and in any case in a larger percentage of cases than is the case with sexism or racism), ageism isn't irrational, it is actually pricing in real factors about a potential job candidate.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Ageism

Postby gib » Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:40 pm

Are you getting old, Pandora?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9035
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Ageism

Postby phyllo » Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:03 pm

Carleas wrote:Ageism is one of those made up -isms. When someone discriminates on the basis of race or sex, it is frequently irrational. Unless you're hiring for a sunscreen commercial, race just doesn't tell you much about how good someone is for the job.

Age, on the other hand, tells you a lot. A person who is 65 now was 55 when Facebook was started. They were 45 when cell phones hit the market. In a lot of roles, that matters. Moreover, someone who is 65 is eligible for retirement, they're more likely to die, they're unlikely to take direction as well from a boss who is likely to be younger than them. These are all true by definition or very highly correlated with age. Age has predictive power about work-related attributes.

I many industries, the additional experience is as much a liability as an asset. If an industry is trying to innovate, to overhaul processes to use new technologies to gain efficiency, someone with years of experience in an analogue workplace may find that change more challenging than someone who is used to doing everything online.

That isn't always true: since enterprise applications tend not to be as glitzy as Facebook/Google/Twitter, older workers actually tolerate them better than digital natives whose expectations are never met. It can't be said that age is all costs, and surely there are some roles where age is at least as much or more an asset than it is a liability.

Still, in a lot of cases, the benefits don't outweigh the rationally predicted costs. In a lot of cases (not all cases, of course, but most, and in any case in a larger percentage of cases than is the case with sexism or racism), ageism isn't irrational, it is actually pricing in real factors about a potential job candidate.
People can rationalize any kind of bias. #-o

By using your own arguments, one can say that sexism against women is perfectly reasonable. Women are more likely than men to leave a job to get married and have children. They are more likely to take time off to take care of the children that they already have. They are more likely to leave a job to follow their husbands when the husband changes jobs and moves. They will take time off to deal with female illness like PMS.

But one can't say it because it's not PC. :evilfun:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12120
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Ageism

Postby phyllo » Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:15 pm

The fundamental unfairness of these isms (racism, sexism, ageism) is that a group is assigned some average characteristics and then an individual is evaluated based on that average and not or his/her unique characteristics.

Even if the average is statistically correct, it does not correctly represent the individual (unless he/she is exactly average). :D

It's like if a class of 20 students takes a math test and the average score is 72/100. Looking at any particular individual, the average does not tell you if he got 30/100 or 95/100 on the test.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12120
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Ageism

Postby gib » Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:40 pm

phyllo wrote:By using your own arguments, one can say that sexism against women is perfectly reasonable. <-- I think the point is it wouldn't really be sexism. Women are more likely than men to leave a job to get married and have children. They are more likely to take time off to take care of the children that they already have. They are more likely to leave a job to follow their husbands when the husband changes jobs and moves. They will take time off to deal with female illness like PMS. <-- PMS is an illness? :lol:


What actually is the fair thing to do in this situation? I wouldn't want to put women into a bind wherein they are forced to choose either to have children or a career (or just to earn a livelihood), but is it really the right thing to do to extort the cost of this choice from the employer? It's almost like saying: look, she wants to have children but she needs a source of income to make that possible. You!!! Give her money! Why does any one person, or corporation, bear the moral burden of having to pay for that?

Like I said, I don't wish for women to be put into a situation where they have to choose between career or family--everyone should be able to have both--but neither do I wish for other people to be arbitrarily selected to pay the price for that. <-- It's a dilemma. What would be a reasonable, fair, right-wing solution to this problem?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9035
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Ageism

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:48 pm

I am aging like a fine wine myself.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Ageism

Postby phyllo » Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:58 pm

What actually is the fair thing to do in this situation? I wouldn't want to put women into a bind wherein they are forced to choose either to have children or a career (or just to earn a livelihood), but is it really the right thing to do to extort the cost of this choice from the employer? It's almost like saying: look, she wants to have children but she needs a source of income to make that possible. You!!! Give her money! Why does any one person, or corporation, bear the moral burden of having to pay for that?

Like I said, I don't wish for women to be put into a situation where they have to choose between career or family--everyone should be able to have both--but neither do I wish for other people to be arbitrarily selected to pay the price for that. <-- It's a dilemma. What would be a reasonable, fair, right-wing solution to this problem?
My main goal in this thread is to point out the absurdity of calling ageism a "made up ism" while calling sexism a problematic "real" ism.

If you are going to be fair to people, then you evaluate them purely based on their unique abilities. And if you insist on accommodating a particular group then you ought to make the same accommodation for another group. If you choose to ignore the fact that women will leave a job to have children, then you ought to ignore the fact that older people are more likely to die or retire soon. (Soon may be 10 or 15 years.)

And to say that it's okay to discriminate based on when Facebook or iPhone was created, is completely ridiculous.

Why did you ask for a "right-wing solution" instead of a solution? :wink:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12120
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Ageism

Postby Carleas » Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:17 pm

Phyllo, you make some valid points, but to push back: at some margin, you are stereotyping every person you interview for a job. You have, at most, a few hours of interaction and a few pages of information about the person before you hire them. You stereotype them based on the past work, and you say "the average person who had job X would also be good for this job, so that weighs in this applicant's favor". That's all stereotyping, it's completely legitimate, and that isn't at all at odds with the suggestion that race is illegitimate when used the same way.

It's also not at all at odds with the statement that sex is a generally illegitimate factor to weigh, to say that sometimes sex is a legitimate factor. Moreover, it's pretty easy to come up with cases where even something like employment history can be weighed in an illegitimate way: say someone applied to a job at a bank and on their resume indicated that they paid their way through college working as a garbage collector, and they were scored down because working as a garbage collector is seen as déclassé and the person is seen as tainted by it. That's illegitimate, even though past employment is obviously fair game in general.

So, is age more like sex or more like past employment? I'd say it's close enough to the latter. You dismiss the role of age-at-first-use of a technology, but that matters; people learn differently as they age, their thought processes solidify and consolidate and streamline, and they become very good at the things they've always done, and very bad at learning new things. While there's some variation, it's much more like claims about "the average person who had job X" than it is like claims about "the average person of race X". And it applies to all technology, Facebook was just one I knew the timeline for. Google, Excel, Word, and Outlook are all essential in a modern workplace, and if you started using them in your late 40s you're unlikely to get beyond rudimentary proficiency. Sure, it's a probability, but then there are some people who have been cashiers for 20 years who would make great middle managers, but there's no bias in betting on safe odds.

Look, there aren't clean lines here. Age can absolutely be misused as a factor, and I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But where with race and sex the odds that it will be used illegitimately make it safest to have a strong presumption that a particular use is illegitimate, that isn't the case with age. Age tells you something meaningful about a person, and as often as not it's rational and fair to factor it in.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Ageism

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:22 pm

The reason sex doesn't appear to be a factor is because when you get woman lumberjacks, you get tomboys, girls who are obsessed with lumberjacking and do their best whereas men don't really give a fuck. The girl is a try-hard, and so appears to be on par with the males.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Ageism

Postby gib » Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:48 pm

HaHaHa wrote:I am aging like a fine wine myself.


More discrimination coming your way then. :evilfun:

phyllo wrote:Why did you ask for a "right-wing solution" instead of a solution? :wink:


Because the left think that the way things are setup now--where maternity pay is mandatory and that employers can't legally discriminate when hiring on the basis of potential maternity leave--is the solution. In other words, they don't even see it as problem.

The issue here is that when there is a problem affecting some group--women, other races, different age groups, etc.--the left take it as a forgone conclusion that the source of the problem is another group--an oppressive dominant class who, on purpose, are making life difficult for the victim group on the basis of some prejudice--and so to extort a toll on the oppressive group, or to legally force them to cater to the victim group, is an acceptable solution because, well, they deserve it.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9035
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Ageism

Postby Uccisore » Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:49 pm

Pandora wrote:I just see that nobody really cares about the older population in the West.


No you don't. You made that up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Ageism

Postby Uccisore » Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:52 pm

Carleas wrote:Ageism is one of those made up -isms. When someone discriminates on the basis of race or sex, it is frequently irrational. Unless you're hiring for a sunscreen commercial, race just doesn't tell you much about how good someone is for the job.

Age, on the other hand, tells you a lot. A person who is 65 now was 55 when Facebook was started. They were 45 when cell phones hit the market. In a lot of roles, that matters. Moreover, someone who is 65 is eligible for retirement, they're more likely to die, they're unlikely to take direction as well from a boss who is likely to be younger than them. These are all true by definition or very highly correlated with age. Age has predictive power about work-related attributes.

I many industries, the additional experience is as much a liability as an asset. If an industry is trying to innovate, to overhaul processes to use new technologies to gain efficiency, someone with years of experience in an analogue workplace may find that change more challenging than someone who is used to doing everything online.

That isn't always true: since enterprise applications tend not to be as glitzy as Facebook/Google/Twitter, older workers actually tolerate them better than digital natives whose expectations are never met. It can't be said that age is all costs, and surely there are some roles where age is at least as much or more an asset than it is a liability.

Still, in a lot of cases, the benefits don't outweigh the rationally predicted costs. In a lot of cases (not all cases, of course, but most, and in any case in a larger percentage of cases than is the case with sexism or racism), ageism isn't irrational, it is actually pricing in real factors about a potential job candidate.


You aren't wrong, but rationality is not the standard by which we judge discrimination in this society. If it's discrimination of a demographic on a particular list, it's bad. It doesn't matter how rational it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Ageism

Postby Carleas » Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:56 pm

Uccisore wrote:You aren't wrong, but rationality is not the standard by which we judge discrimination in this society. If it's discrimination of a demographic on a particular list, it's bad. It doesn't matter how rational it is.

I think this is right, though I think our current system doesn't have too many misfires. I would prefer a system of rebuttable presumptions of impropriety for listed attributes.

Even more than that, I'd prefer a honest disclosure of the standard we're using for impropriety. As I said, I think I mostly agree with the classification (and I also think we should rationally tolerate some misclassification if that's what minimizes impropriety, i.e. I think it's right to err on the side of false positives than false negatives). But being honest about it makes it a lot easier to follow.

People accept reasons when they're given. I think liberalism has accepted its own conclusions to such an extent that it sees a request for reasons as tantamount to a rejection of the conclusions. That's a terrible way to convince people, and worse, it means eventually most liberals don't have good reasons to believe what they believe, and you get nonsense like the notion that saying certain sets of ideas are more dangerous than others is bigoted. That's a silly misunderstanding of liberalism's own ideas.

To bring this tangent back on topic, I think ageism is a similar example. We take a thing that actually strongly affects how people behave, and deem it a trait we can't consider when we're asked to predict a person's behavior. Ism-ification proceeds by ruling out a discussion of how that thing being ism-ified actually bears on the question at hand. It's treated as though the -ism is enough argument. It isn't.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Ageism

Postby Uccisore » Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:18 pm

Carleas wrote:I think this is right, though I think our current system doesn't have too many misfires. I would prefer a system of rebuttable presumptions of impropriety for listed attributes.


I think a lot of the lack of perceieved misfires is familiarity. It's been forever since race-based hiring was a thing; very few people who come here were even alive when it was a thing (if youd don't count affirmative action, I mean). So any sort of fair business practice or concept that would have needed that to exist doesn't even enter our thoughs and we don't see a misfire.

But on the other hand, consider the restaurant Hooters as it once was. If a short, fat man applies as a waiter at Hooters, the answer should be 'no', and sex discrimination is the reason- the entire point of the restaurant is "You go here to look at the waitresses' tits". So is it rational that such a restaurant applies sex discrimination in it's hiring? Or, is that the sort of business that is inherently discriminatory and shouldn't exist in the United States? I would consider disallowing such a business to be a major misfire of the system, but in a few decades maybe people will be aghast that such a thing was allowed, and Hooters will be mentioned in the same breath as negro drinking fountains.

I think liberalism has accepted its own conclusions to such an extent that it sees a request for reasons as tantamount to a rejection of the conclusions.


Even that doesn't go far enough. One could read this sentence as an implicit agreement that rejection of the conclusions is an evil, and that questioning is only permitted in a 'devil's advocate' context. I'm sure that's reading far more into your statement than you intend, but my point is to agree with you about how far liberalism has gotten from its roots in rational inquiry.

That's a terrible way to convince people, and worse, it means eventually most liberals don't have good reasons to believe what they believe, and you get nonsense like the notion that saying certain sets of ideas are more dangerous than others is bigoted. That's a silly misunderstanding of liberalism's own ideas.


I don't think understanding enters into it most of the time. I've written a lot here about the intellectual dishonesty of the left. I think the sort of pheneomenon you describe above isn't an attempt at understanding anything. I think it's a tactical word game that has been proven as an effective strategy in silencing opponents in a far more efficient manner than rational engagement. If I can find a way to call you a bigot, no matter how convoluted, there is a sense in which I win and you lose. I a lot of superficially academic work and discussion is actually a veneer for that sort of base interaction. That's what I was referring to in my first post in this thread to you- rationality doesn't enter into it. Discrimination-talk has been completely or nearly-completely co-opted by this word game.

To bring this tangent back on topic, I think ageism is a similar example. We take a thing that actually strongly affects how people behave, and deem it a trait we can't consider when we're asked to predict a person's behavior.


I agree with this as far as it goes, but I can't accept that age affects a person's behavior more strongly than sex; they seem about the same to me. Race seems much less of an influence than either of those to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Ageism

Postby Arminius » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:18 am

Pandora wrote:Why is everyone concerned about giving sexual and religious minorities when both Europe and US are experiencing an increase of aging population? Why not give older people equal rights by eliminating discrimination in employment and media representation? Old people have years of experience and expertise in the workplace and life, in general, so why are they being pushed aside in our society?

The younger group (born after the 1960s) wants to become more wealthy by getting money and other things from the older group (so-called "baby-boomers" - born before the 1970s). The reason for that is the greed! Greed is supported by greedy politicians and greedy lobbyists, if they benefit from it, and they do, because the younger group elects those politicians and lobbyists who promise them everything by benefitting from them and the promised "everything". By this "Robin-Hood-politics", the younger group, their "Robin-Hood"-lobbyists and their "Robin-Hood"-politicians benefit, because the older group is averagely wealthier than the younger group.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Ageism

Postby James S Saint » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:33 am

Arminius wrote:
Pandora wrote:Why is everyone concerned about giving sexual and religious minorities when both Europe and US are experiencing an increase of aging population? Why not give older people equal rights by eliminating discrimination in employment and media representation? Old people have years of experience and expertise in the workplace and life, in general, so why are they being pushed aside in our society?

The younger group (born after the 1960s) wants to become more wealthy by getting money and other things from the older group (so-called "baby-boomers" - born before the 1970s). The reason for that is the greed! Greed is supported by greedy politicians and greedy lobbyists, if they benefit from it, and they do, because the younger group elects those politicians and lobbyists who promise them everything by benefitting from them and the promised "everything". By this "Robin-Hood-politics", the younger group, their "Robin-Hood"-lobbyists and their "Robin-Hood"-politicians benefit, because the older group is averagely wealthier than the younger group.

It is the "spoiling" of fruit - too much sugar, not enough drought.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Ageism

Postby Kriswest » Sat Dec 10, 2016 1:19 am

Early 1960's and married to an early 1950's man. We and most of our friends just want basic comfort not wealth. Power and wealth leads to betrayal and pain. I work for a family that takes care of those that are helpful, above and beyond law. They started off dirt poor.
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20554
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Next

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users