Unfortunately, I screwed up the question. As downvotes will have me in the penalty box until sometime later tonight, I made a new username in hopes of salvaging some value from my incomplete original asking of the question as I feel it is an important topic.
A hopefully improved asking of the same question:
Two employees, one 22 years old, one 50 years old. The younger employee makes $46k, the older employee makes $127k.
While the older employee has slightly better useful to the company experience, an omniscient (this is an sincere attempt to stop people from avoiding the question being asked) being would judge the younger employee to have objectively superior cost/benefits to the company. In other words, for the context of this particular question only, the older work does NOT offer experience-based value superior to the younger worker.
In some countries, such as the USA, the older employee would be protected by age discrimination legislation. However, not all global companies are limited by the type of worker's rights legislation noted in the article.
While this survival of the fittest, hyper-capitalism approach will optimize return on investment and technological innovation, I suspect it is also ~destroying the careers of many high achievers who would likely have outperformed in other fields without having their careers derailed.
As well, in a globalized free trade world, this would limit the competitiveness of countries who have passed such legislation. (Once again, our omniscient being above has confirmed this assertion.)
Does anyone see a way to reconcile this? Or in other words, how might one explain how this is "no problem, at all"?
A hopefully improved asking of the same question:
Two employees, one 22 years old, one 50 years old. The younger employee makes $46k, the older employee makes $127k.
While the older employee has slightly better useful to the company experience, an omniscient (this is an sincere attempt to stop people from avoiding the question being asked) being would judge the younger employee to have objectively superior cost/benefits to the company. In other words, for the context of this particular question only, the older work does NOT offer experience-based value superior to the younger worker.
In some countries, such as the USA, the older employee would be protected by age discrimination legislation. However, not all global companies are limited by the type of worker's rights legislation noted in the article.
While this survival of the fittest, hyper-capitalism approach will optimize return on investment and technological innovation, I suspect it is also ~destroying the careers of many high achievers who would likely have outperformed in other fields without having their careers derailed.
As well, in a globalized free trade world, this would limit the competitiveness of countries who have passed such legislation. (Once again, our omniscient being above has confirmed this assertion.)
Does anyone see a way to reconcile this? Or in other words, how might one explain how this is "no problem, at all"?