Dozens of Companies Are Using Facebook to Exclude Older Workers From Job Ads

It really was! I believe they were doing well, growing at a steady pace. Another part of the puzzle was that client relationships were long, over years, so if we wrote bad code it was us that would have to deal with it later. The clients were typically larger, which helped to that end.

We did take on a rushed project at one point, so there is a good comparison in that project. It shipped, but everyone was unhappy, some key people left and had to be re-hired for. It triggered a very transparent discussion roughly titled "let's figure out how to never do that again" and to that end they curated the clients more carefully, and put in some checks to see if projects are a good fit.

But I understand that is probably unique, and at previous jobs the "good enough to make money" mantra has worked out okay.

I think when your software domain is complex and rapid, it pays to have sound architecture. When it is simple, or slow to change, it doesn't matter quite as much.

I'm rapidly approaching 50 myself, and while I get that what they're doing is wrong, I'm also not that upset about this either. At my age, I'm not interested in wasting my time with meat grinders that don't value work-life balance.

It sounds like you'd burn out in any profession. Perfect is the enemy of the good. If you're holding your work, and that of others', to a perfectionist's standard, then you're just causing yourself unnecessary stress and anxiety.

Most of those bugs and failures you listed are really inconsequential in their contexts.

Car won't play your phone's music? Use the radio. Game has bugs? Play another game until it's patched, or find inventive ways to use the bug. Can't see your CC? You can still charge on it and pay its balance. Experian and Equifax don't report same credit score? Your creditors aren't reporting to every credit bureau.

Ashamed that someone else's system doesn't work? I can't help you there. That's some deep psychological issue.

About 10 years ago I came to understand that mediocre runs the world. All these people, who are your bosses, who are getting raises and promotions, they're the B/C students from college. They don't care about perfect. They really only care about finishing what they're assigned and going on with their outside life.

If you want perfect, do it on your own time.

> The Demo they were targeting is the age group (25 to 36 years old ) is when most people have their first child. No very many people start a family when they are over 40, sure it happens but it is rare. If parental leave was a concern than hiring people over 40 should be your priority as most people over 40 will have old children and not be taking parental leave. People over 50 will likely have Collage aged or old children and need every very little time off for child related events (school events, illness, etc) So discriminating against older workers because of children seems illogical

I hadnt seen the exact age group and you are correct: in terms of parental leave 25-36 are more dangerous. All what follows your argumentation supports that there are reasons to want people from one age group or another. Which is what the person I answered to was asking: examples of legitimate reasons to (literally, not 'negatively')discriminate by age.

> Just so you know, there is an entire world outside of SF and Mountain View... I know it is shocking but...

Im not american, you don't need to tell me about that. But to this day, SF suffers from very low diversity in the work environment, maybe because families leave the city.

> Why would you want to? I am in my mid 30;s now, even when I was in my early 20's I refused to have more than 1 roommate. I would much rather make 50-75K in an area where I can afford a 3 bedroom home on my own than make 100-150K and have to live in 100 square feet and "cram into a room for a decade" Each to their own I guess, but count me out of that life style

The more energy you put behind your preferences, the more you justify that is logical for employers to target different groups. Its not about what you think, its about what whatever employer thinks employees think. And if they think 25 year olds are more likely to move , to start working for them, to live in SF or MV for 10 years,and are more likely to be swayed by social media ads for a job, then they have an absolutely legitimate reason to target.

For discrimination in america, I think Adam Smith made one of the best arguments: because it is illegal to have that preference, it makes people accusative. If it weren't illegal, it would barely be a topic at all, as it is that so many job positions show these biases but because they are legal people dont even care.

"The law which put an end to all prosecutions against witchcraft, which put it out of any man’s power to gratify his own malice by accusing his neighbour of that imaginary crime, seems effectually to have put an end to those fears and suspicions by taking away the great cause which encouraged and supported them."

Right, so why do you think they have editorial control? For that same reason, shouldn't Facebook?