Age discrimination is well-known. It’s an article of faith among seekers and soon-to-be seekers (i.e., old employees).
Akin to the ERISA laws that put a crimp in the aerospace companies that dumped old engineers before they had a chance to earn a pension. Young engineers were cheaper salary-wise, more productive in a dollars sense, and could be induced to work harder (i.e., to pay their dues). ERISA put an end to that pension scam. Once the tactic was exposed, baby engineers weren’t applying at the aerospace firms as a first or second choice.
As the demographics change, and the “social security ponzi scheme” age is ratchets up, we are going to come a time when more “Human Resources” are unemployable and yet unable to collect retirement benefits. It’s the “too old to work” “to young to retire” gap. As a nation, we are losing their contributions to the common wealth. (Not socialistic, but their productivity is lost to the GDP.)
Clearly, “at will” employment has to go.
As well as psuedo “performance reviews”, that are used to cover folks being forced out.
So as a society, what can we construct to fix this problem.
As a little L libertarian, I’m not a fan of gooferment action. But, large corporations are a product of the gooferment, and as such are fair game for regulation.
We see that after 40 the discrimination starts and after 50 it’s rampant and forget after 60.
So we need a way of changing the “cost” of pre-40 and post-40 employment.
“Employment Insurance”?
A company, who hires or continues employing a old person, gets a tax credit?
So the way I would construct it would be a tax and credit scheme.,
20 years @ 5% of a 1$ = $.37
The under 40 payroll would be taxed at $.0037 per dollar of comp. The over 40 payroll would be credited at the same rate.
It would put the gooferment’s thumb on the employment equation just slightly.
Thoughts?
# # # # #
Posted by reinkefj 
You must be logged in to post a comment.