But you're really just protecting the shareholders. It only takes a small fraction of the market to not be "incorrectly" prejudiced to scoop up all these underpriced assets and outcompete everyone else.

If you want to make legislation which subsidizes an older, generally wealthier group of people because you feel it's just, then just say so. If you are doing it because you think it's what's best for the shareholders then say that. Any argument that says it's better for companies to keep the experienced workers is just an argument to maximize the benefit of the shareholders. No legislation is needed there.

As far as I can see, the arguments about the legality of age-discrimination is precisely about what is just. And everyone has been saying that.

It may or may not be a nice side effect that companies end up doing better, but that is not the gist of most arguments around this, and even absent that effect, most proponents would still argue that the unjustness of such discrimination is the primary driver of such legislation.

If you want to say that we are protecting a class that doesn't deserve protection because they are (on average) more wealthy than others, feel free to make that argument on the merits.

This is the content of the GP to the post you're responding to:

>"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." -- Schilling.

>And when that irrationality is not just stupid, but also unjust, then we should not put the burden of such stupidity on the victims of the injustice.

In other words the poster believes that age based discrimination is both economically irrational and unjust.

I'm pointing out that it's unknown whether age discrimination is economically rational, but that proponents of age based discrimination laws must believe that it is. Whether it's rational matters, because if it's more economically efficient to put a young person in a worker slot there may be better ways to help the older worker than punishing the employer for not skirting equal employment opportunity regulations.

"But you're really just protecting the shareholders."

And the people who need to take care of their families. You keep forgetting that letting these people go has a very severe negative impact on that.

You're back to making the moral argument that we should subsidize older workers who are generally relatively wealthy compared to the rest of the labor force. There's good arguments to be made there. But you can't come in and make economic arguments about how it's better for the employer because you don't know that.

No, no one is saying anything about subsidies. You are making that up.

"But you can't come in and make economic arguments about how it's better for the employer because you don't know that."

I'm sure the people who found themselves unable to provide for their families will rest easier knowing the "economics" of it are sound.

>No, no one is saying anything about subsidies.

If you are worth less in the market but employers are forced to keep you and pay you the same, that is a subsidy.

>I'm sure the people who found themselves unable to provide for their families will rest easier knowing the "economics" of it are sound.

I'm sure the family of the worker who was denied the job they'd be better at than you is not resting easy either.

The argument does not work. Small corner of the market can only absorb a small number of workers profitably.

Their relative success will demonstrate to everyone else the types of behaviors to replicate.