Dozens of Companies Are Using Facebook To Exclude Older Workers From Job Ads (propublica.org) 340
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ProPublica: Verizon is among dozens of the nation's leading employers -- including Amazon, Goldman Sachs, Target and Facebook itself -- that placed recruitment ads limited to particular age groups, an investigation by ProPublica and The New York Times has found. The ability of advertisers to deliver their message to the precise audience most likely to respond is the cornerstone of Facebook's business model. But using the system to expose job opportunities only to certain age groups has raised concerns about fairness to older workers. Several experts questioned whether the practice is in keeping with the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which prohibits bias against people 40 or older in hiring or employment. Many jurisdictions make it a crime to "aid" or "abet" age discrimination, a provision that could apply to companies like Facebook that distribute job ads.
Facebook defended the practice. "Used responsibly, age-based targeting for employment purposes is an accepted industry practice and for good reason: it helps employers recruit and people of all ages find work," said Rob Goldman, a Facebook vice president. The revelations come at a time when the unregulated power of the tech companies is under increased scrutiny, and Congress is weighing whether to limit the immunity that it granted to tech companies in 1996 for third-party content on their platforms.
Facebook defended the practice. "Used responsibly, age-based targeting for employment purposes is an accepted industry practice and for good reason: it helps employers recruit and people of all ages find work," said Rob Goldman, a Facebook vice president. The revelations come at a time when the unregulated power of the tech companies is under increased scrutiny, and Congress is weighing whether to limit the immunity that it granted to tech companies in 1996 for third-party content on their platforms.
There is a fine line here (Score:5, Insightful)
Age based ads targeting comic books to teenagers, ok. Age based ads targeting IT jobs to Millennials but excluding people aged 40 is a problem.
Re:There is a fine line here (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There is a fine line here (Score:4, Insightful)
OK. How about instead we target IT jobs to people who read comic books? - Your friendly neighborhood HR department
You'd get a lot of good IT geeks respond.
The difference is here, anyone can CHOOSE to read a certain comic book or industry magazine.
You don't get to choose your age, despite what the cosmetics industry would have you think
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hold on there, I identify as a mid 20s rockstar software engineer.
Re: (Score:3)
You're 37, Dennis.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Many boffins died to bring us this information...
Re: (Score:2)
OK. How about instead we target IT jobs to people who read comic books? - Your friendly neighborhood HR department
Do you really want people that still read comic books as an adult working for you?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
In IT? Yes, absolutely.
Re:There is a fine line here (Score:5, Insightful)
Age based ads targeting comic books to teenagers, ok. Age based ads targeting IT jobs to Millennials but excluding people aged 40 is a problem.
If Facebook is helping exclude older workers from job offers then they should be hit with the full weight of the law. I don't care if it destroys them. I half think the world would be better off without that mess anyway. We certainly would. Without Facebook, Russia would have lacked a tool to help Von Clownstick get elected. People's private lives should be private, not posted on the Internet. I'd greatly prefer that such sites die and _NOT_ be resurrected with a new name.
That all being said, we do have guaranteed Freedoms including the freedom to be stupid, so the correct thing is just to apply the law and see where it goes. In the very unlikely event Facebook were to die, something likely even more evil will no doubt sprout up to replace it. People really need to remember or learn how important that right to privacy is that is implied in the constitution though and defend it, not give it away.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes because Russia's $120k in ad spending had so much more impact on the election than Hillarys $1,180m and the blatant collusion from 90% of the US media companies army's looking for dirt on the current President. If Facebook ads have that much power over people, it should definitely be shut down.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That doesn't matter.
Also, Facebook isn't a 3rd party in this process, since their selection criteria for placing the ad allows their clients to select quite a large range of demographic markets for any and every ad that they place: age, nationality, race, gender, location (to more specific than zip code), education, favorite _____, etc. Also, they've already been charged with this type of discrimination before, so if they're still doing it, maybe we should see what happens when you imprison a corporation
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't matter.
Also, Facebook isn't a 3rd party in this process, since their selection criteria for placing the ad allows their clients to select quite a large range of demographic markets for any and every ad that they place: age, nationality, race, gender, location (to more specific than zip code), education, favorite _____, etc. Also, they've already been charged with this type of discrimination before, so if they're still doing it, maybe we should see what happens when you imprison a corporation.
Not on facebook, but back when monster.com used to be a thing and people looked for jobs there- I remember lots of companies would have written down something along the lines of "must be born in the US to apply". This directly goes against the amendment that states that you can't discriminate against based on nation of origin.
I'd usually send them an email pointing this out, after which they would apologise and invite me to apply. Naturally, I wouldn't. I knew I wouldn't stand a chance after complaining
go home 1hb's are killing US workers that have loa (Score:2)
go home 1hb's are killing US workers that have big student loans to pay off.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't matter.
Also, Facebook isn't a 3rd party in this process, since their selection criteria for placing the ad allows their clients to select quite a large range of demographic markets for any and every ad that they place: age, nationality, race, gender, location (to more specific than zip code), education, favorite _____, etc. Also, they've already been charged with this type of discrimination before, so if they're still doing it, maybe we should see what happens when you imprison a corporation.
Not on facebook, but back when monster.com used to be a thing and people looked for jobs there- I remember lots of companies would have written down something along the lines of "must be born in the US to apply". This directly goes against the amendment that states that you can't discriminate against based on nation of origin.
I'd usually send them an email pointing this out, after which they would apologise and invite me to apply. Naturally, I wouldn't. I knew I wouldn't stand a chance after complaining about that... and wouldn't want to work for such a company anyway.
Ok, how about, must be eligible for a US Gov security clearance. The Government discriminates about non citizen constantly.
Re: (Score:2)
The government *may not* discriminate against any citizen (natural born or naturalized) wrt security clearance. See this for a ruling from 1988 reaffirming that a citizen is a citizen is a citizen [nytimes.com]. We even have a naturalized US citizen serving in the US senate [wikipedia.org].
As far as I know the only exception is the position of commander in chief.
Re: There is a fine line here (Score:4, Insightful)
"must be born in the US to apply"
This is better expressed as "will not sponsor visa applications or visa transfers".
Which is pretty common language nowadays.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention people born out of the country to US citizen parents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These aren't job offers, they're ads. Usually for shit positions at the bottom of the food chain.
Still wrong ethically, morally, and legally.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but if a private company placed an advertisement where, in the advertisement, they said "No one over the age of 40 need apply.", they'd potentially be breaking the law.
Now, to be fair, there are some jobs where, if you're over a certain age, you're probably not going to be hired. I don't believe the major airlines are looking to fill the ranks of their pilots with people in their 70s, for instance.
But when it's not the advertisement explicitly stating it, but it's the algorithm behind showing the digit
Re: (Score:2)
The company that placed the ad broke the law. The only reason to blame Facebook is the size of their pockets.
Re:There is a fine line here (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not that Facebook allows companies to place ads that illegally discriminate, but that Facebook serves employment ads to younger people only. Facebook is taking action that results in illegal discrimination.
Re: (Score:3)
You can attempt to live in a reality where aiding and abetting aren't things. But that reality does not exist, so, um, good luck there.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone can pick up a newspaper and look in the Help Wanted section.
I'd be very surprised if I learned that my current position had been listed in the paper. I was recruited through Indeed, which I'm assuming has the same age dilemma as FB. However, after a little digging I see nothing there that would enable screening on age for employer or prospect. I'm assuming they decided it was a bad practice since job availability is all they advertise. FB has that screening already built in as a standard metric for advertising, so the only decision is whether to ignore it.
A lot of d
Re: (Score:2)
Are you interested in bridges? I have a very fine one I'm selling.
Re:There is a fine line here (Score:4, Informative)
True, but it still doesn't do you any good to apply to a job where they'll look at your resume and discard it because you have too much experience. Or if you trim the resume they'll figure it out in the interview.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but it still doesn't do you any good to apply to a job where they'll look at your resume and discard it because you have too much experience. Or if you trim the resume they'll figure it out in the interview.
Why doesn't it? If you trim your resume to land a lower level job and reach a salary agreement with the employer... who cares? More importantly, where are these lower level jobs you're seeing that DON'T ask for everything and kitchen sink?
"Wanted: IT Intern. Must have five years' experience, especially in this two-year-old technology."
Re:There is a fine line here (Score:5, Insightful)
The hiring manager cares. You go in and everybody you talk to is delighted to have someone with such great resume. Then you met the person you'd be reporting to and he's a lot younger than you. You get a very different vibe; he's cautious, because he's afraid what you're really after is his job. Or at the very least you think you know more than he does, which you probably do.
Re: (Score:3)
I never really understood why that happens in the US. Around here they will just offer a low salary and if you take it then good for them, they got both a bargain and an excuse to pay less for experience the next time because of "market conditions".
The only time I've ever heard "too much experience" is when they really just don't want older people for some other reason.
Re:There is a fine line here (Score:5, Informative)
I have heard "too much experience" translating to "as soon as the economy picks up, I know you will be ditching us for greener pastures." Saw that in 2008.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that the case for everyone now? In my experience the younger ones move on quickly too, they see changing job as the primary way to get a rise and they are not really wrong...
Re: (Score:2)
The nastiest plot is to offer you contract-to-hire, let you start, get the most pressing work done, and in the meantime coerce your agency to disclose your age. Very hard to prove, very hard to prosecute. And they never have to give a reason for not extending the contract. Nor is it a violation to be unable to keep scrum masters when your dev team is behaving like psychopaths.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've seen both ways. I have seen Scrum masters have 4-6 hour long standup meetings and demand an accounting from each team member (even having other divisions like IT attend) because of a permanent sprint. With an environment where each dev had to point the finger at someone, or actually risk being fired, it was an extremely hostile environment.
I have found it definitely the case for all but very few companies/organizations where if you want a raise or promotion, you jump ship. Especially for people star
Re: (Score:3)
What it really means is "We won't pay you what you're worth." Companies that treat their employees like assets and not like consumable, interchangeable components tend to have much less turnover.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but it still doesn't do you any good to apply to a job where they'll look at your resume and discard it because you have too much experience. Or if you trim the resume they'll figure it out in the interview.
Meh, hasn't been my experience. I've got close to 40 years of software development experience, but I only list the last ten on my resume, because that's all that's relevant (nobody's hiring VMS C developers around here). Nobody cares if you've got experience with VB4 or Borland Paradox, they just want to see that you've got 2+ years with AngularJS or Java 7. Having 10+ years of experience in development AND staying current with relevant technology is probably the best position to be in.
Re: (Score:2)
I took two years off because one of my kids was sick. Killed my career.
Re: There is a fine line here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if there's been as challenge to a non-student attending a college-sponsored job fair, and that would be interesting.
Maybe, maybe not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no mechanism to enforce that, so someone raised a concern. On the other hand, it's ProPublica, who like to manufacture outrage by flawed reasoning. They routinely get a hold of lesson's learned documentation from the Red Cross and publish an article about ARC "covering up" and "ignoring" severe systemic problems, for example (if you're not a PM, you might not know that everything you do should generate LL).
A method to ensure an ad campaign is running certain types of ads targeting all age group
Re: (Score:2)
"pretty good proof that they don't deserve to be sued"
No, the law doesn't allow such a defense. In fact, that argument is pretty much only used by those companies caught red-handed.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really a fine line at all. It's about equality of opportunity, so if you are trying to deny someone the opportunity to hear about and apply for a job then it's a problem.
Show the ads to recent grads. I'm 41, just graduat (Score:2)
If the job is appropriate for recent college grads, show it to recent grads. I'm 41 and just got my degree, and significant portion of students at my school are similarly not in their 20s.
Re: (Score:3)
Age based ads targeting comic books to teenagers, ok. Age based ads targeting IT jobs to Millennials but excluding people aged 40 is a problem.
That isn't a fine line.
Comic book == optional.
Job == mandatory.
The reason we have anti-discrimination laws are to prevent workers from being excluded because of an attribute that an employer may find undesirable but has no bearing on competency or work quality... such as being old enough to know how to demand to be paid what we're worth.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that targeting comic book ads to teenagers is maximizing sales opportunity, while targeting IT jobs to exclude workers based on age doesn't actually maximize the opportunity to obtain the best or most productive talent, right? There is not a lot of obvious harm in denying older customers the early opportunity to collect another comic, but if you're applying for H1B slots because you got no responses to the ad seeking experienced IT help when you limited that ad to 20 year olds and under, y
Re: (Score:2)
it's funny though, the younger crowd will accept lower wages than the 40+ oldsters, but in terms of total cost for the employer, the older guys are almost certainly cheaper. For the same reason outsourcing dev work to india is more expensive in the long run.
HR goons and MBA's are the worst thing to happen to the US economy since ... I don't know, get off my lawn.
Why? (Score:2)
junior pay level for jobs that are not junior (Score:2)
I have seen "junior jobs" that want years of experience for a long list of skills.
Re: (Score:2)
And we all just know older workers don't retrain or change roles.
Yeah. Sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that.
But my office is well populated by workers of all races - even a Navajo. And not just tokens either.
Lies, lies and statistics (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument is really a very bold lie, with absolutely no evidence to support.
Re:Lies, lies and statistics (Score:5, Informative)
What does this have to do with statistics? It says right in TFS that they are targeting based on age. There is zero statistical evidence, they are simply telling Facebook to only show the ads to younger people. Facebook doesn't even deny it, they just say "it's normal in recruitment and somehow good for older people".
What is this weird, Pavlovian "all discrimination is a lie" response?
Re: (Score:2)
That's par for ProPublica (I am their biggest detractor, as far as I can tell). Still, I think it would be nice to have policy and mechanism to ensure that certain kinds of ads are part of an ad group targeting all ages, races, or whatever requirement. It's a legitimate concern, even if this is more manufactured outrage.
Re: (Score:2)
"certain kinds of ads"
Like ads for housing, insurance, mortgages, credit, you know, certain types of well whatever.
You're not doing well with this argument. It's not discriminatory to target clothing ads based on age. Housing, credit, insurance, yeah, fairness is an issue in those categories.
No Shit. (Score:2, Funny)
Verizon: We target younger people because older people won't take our shit.
Re: (Score:2)
you have that backwards, he's verizon's shit.
Very clear defense by Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Very clear defense by Facebook (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That was an informative link, thank you. It brings up an important point:
Ad enforcement should not be Facebook's responsibility. We need to stop blaming the providers of infrastructure and tools for how companies abuse them. The companies need to be held liable.
ISPs are not responsible for what people post. Knife manufacturers are not responsible for what people cut with them. Book distributors are not responsible for what is written in the books, or who buys them. Shipping companies are not responsib
Re: (Score:3)
Ad enforcement should not be Facebook's responsibility. We need to stop blaming the providers of infrastructure and tools for how companies abuse them. The companies need to be held liable.
Tools which are only useful for discrimination on some types of listings shouldn't be available on those types of listings. Problem solved. The features can be retained in the platform, and used where they are legal.
Re: (Score:2)
When you use the word *should* you are making an implicit value judgement.
Well, no. This is about compliance with law. In general, tools are illegal if their purpose is illegal. I also happen to think that what they are doing is wrong, but I'm just talking here about what they ought to expect to be legally obligated to do. They already backed down on a similar issue; expect them to back down here, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Permitting age discrimination in employment ad placement is a violation of the law. Ask the newspaper industry.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. I'm cool with that. It has nothing to do with the case at hand.
The problem is not that Facebook serves illegal ads, it's that they serve ads illegally. They are delivering employment ads only to people of specified ages. This is nothing even vaguely like what a common carrier would do.
Just limiting ads to Facebook is enough (Score:5, Interesting)
I would never see an ad on Facebook, since I'm security and privacy conscious and Facebook is a way to surrender both of those things.
I suppose the day may come when it's important enough I can't avoid it, in which case I will hire a PR company to produce a managed online presence for me, designed to appeal to the idiots in HR who think shit like this is a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd never see an want ad on Facebook either, because I use an ad blocker.
Funny... it seems that that using Facebook ads for finding workers basically guarantees that you'll get people with less concerns for privacy and security. Isn't that the exact opposite of what you want if you're hiring for a tech company?
Re: (Score:2)
An ad blocker? Sponsored content and regular content come from the same servers in the same data feed on Facebook. It would take a very sophisticated algorithm to pick out ads to hide.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention they would probably have their face stuck in their cell phone on facebook all day everyday. Perhaps they are targeting people in that age group on facebook so they know which ones not to hire.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to wonder what type of security consultant would be hired through a Facebook ad.
Companies do this all the time (Score:2, Insightful)
Leading? (Score:4, Insightful)
Verizon is among dozens of the nation's leading employers
They can't be leading very much if they're only recruiting a subsection of the qualified populous. Why not just call them what they are - a big, shit employer.
Re: (Score:2)
It works both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
If the idea is to exclude older workers for one or more of the various reasons employers always cite, then similar reasons can be given to exclude people in their 20s.
Such as, irresponsibility, checking their phones rather than doing work, checking Facebook rather than doing work, more willing to request time off, raising a family, the list goes on.
It's always hilarious to hear employers whine they can't find people with experience, who then go out of their way to exclude people with experience.
Re:It works both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
What is left unsaid, however, is they're hiring experienced individuals who don't expect compensation commensurate with that experience.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Don't worry. Those tax cuts coming down the pipe will trickle down to the workers in the form of higher wages.
OK Google, translate (Score:5, Insightful)
"Used responsibly, age-based targeting for employment purposes is an accepted industry practice and for good reason: it helps employers recruit and people of all ages find work"
Google translate (source: weaslese (PR dialect; not Lawyer dialect); destination: commoner's English) ->
"Used responsibly (theoretically, and at the discretion of whomever is paying us to target ads), age-based targeting for employment purposes is an accepted industry practice (but we won't tell you whom it's accepted by) and for good reason (at least for us): it helps employers who wish to discriminate based on age to recruit, and people of all ages except for the discriminated age ranges, find work."
Wow, I never knew that translation technology could make it so easy to understand executives!
Changing my age on Facebook to 150... (Score:2)
Maybe I'll see no ads after changing my Facebook age to something ridiculous? Why does anybody put their real age/birthday into Facebook?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'll see no ads after changing my Facebook age to something ridiculous? Why does anybody put their real age/birthday into Facebook?
HAHAHAHA! That's awesome. Do let us know what happens. Although I expect you'll see a lot of medicine ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends!
LinkedIn promotes ageism as well (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about advertising, but LinkedIn requires you to include a year on employment history--another way employers filter by age, since it is universal practice nowdays (at least in tech) to review somebody's linkedin profile as part of screening. It is an easy way to determine somebody's age.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about advertising, but LinkedIn requires you to include a year on employment history--another way employers filter by age, since it is universal practice nowdays (at least in tech) to review somebody's linkedin profile as part of screening. It is an easy way to determine somebody's age.
True. In response, I just drop my first few jobs from it.
Angry! (Score:2)
Just Do It! (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm over 40, nearing 50 when I will be "dead", but please let them continue to age discriminate before I come for an interview.
Because the alternative is that I and the company waste a lot of time, and they will just hire someone younger anyway giving me some lame excuse which isn't true.
I'd rather focus on the companies which don't discriminate.
Dilemma (Score:2)
But that opens a really interesting question:
If targeting a an ad to a certain age group is age discrimination, shouldn't that be independent from the media the ad is placed in?
But, on the other hand, wouldn't placing an add in a context targeted at young audience vs. an older audience be the same kind of discrimination?
So, for every job ad placed in a "Walking Dead"* episode, has a company to place an identical ad in a "Matlock" rerun?
* or whatever these youngsters are watching today
I like to put a fake age into online sites just to (Score:2)
I like to put a fake age into online sites just to mess with them and they do not need to know my real age or some of that other info they want.
Advertising is a tool (Score:2)
Interesting test of Facebook's status (Score:2)
Facebook has been sort of acknowledging its status as a primary source of news rather than a pure entertainment property lately. Issues like this test this status -- and other media outlets don't really have the ability to laser-focus ads. I've seen similar stories about Facebook allowing apartment owners to get around discrimination laws by using Facebook's targeting options when placing ads. A lot of people will argue that Facebook is just providing the tools and the companies are misusing them, but this
LOLWUT? (Score:2)
Used responsibly, age-based targeting for employment purposes is an accepted industry practice and for good reason: it helps employers recruit and people of all ages find work
As long as those are the ages they're targeting...which aren't all of them...because that would be kind of the opposite of targeting.
Facebook's going to get in trouble for this.
Umm, just no. (Score:2)
I'm pushing 40. I'm in the IT world. I'd love to know that no one will discriminate against me. And that's all fine and dandy.
But there's a big difference between not hiring me because I'm 40, and being forced to spend money to advertise to me.
I also run a business. Damned if anyone's going to tell me how to spend my advertising budget. If I can (or believe that I can) get better bang for my buck by targeting what I believe is better value, then you ain't a'gonna stop me.
Besides, I'd argue that any 40
idc (Score:2)
LinkedIn is surely disclosing age in some ways as well, nevertheless, I get more job offers then ever. I'm currently over 50.
Good companies, select people based on past performance, as it is the only reliable predictor for future performance. Hip Young Startups, that do age discrimination are being silly for no reason, and it will hurt them.
Not me.
Re:GOD YES - make someone responsible (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to libel, perhaps sites should be required to take down libellous material when notified, they needn't be held accountable for its first original posting? In other words, that something libellous is posted doesn't make the site responsible right there. But if they are properly notified through proper channels and then refuse to take it down after a reasonable number of days, only then can they be held liable?
Only if you don't believe in the basic protections of your rights like being innocent until proven guilty. That would be like a DMCA takedown notice except with no recourse for the person whose free speech is being violated.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be confused by the DMCA takedown process. If you run a site, and a user posts something, and you receive a DMCA takedown request, you are not legally required to take that thing down. However, if it is in violation of copyright, you then are liable along with the user posting it. If you know it's clearly not a copyright violation, leave it up. Companies that host a lot of third-party content normally don't pay careful attention to the copyrights, so they follow the DMCA safe harbor process.
Re: (Score:3)
If you run a site, and a user posts something, and you receive a DMCA takedown request, you are not legally required to take that thing down.
To maintain your safe harbor, you must. If the user then still claims its not a violation, you can repost it and still maintain safe harbor.
In the case of this libel idea, it would need the same protection.
Re:Older workers don't want those jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow young people have young people jobs and older people have older people jobs. I wonder what might it be that makes the difference?
Sorry AC but that is just crap. There is no such thing as young people jobs and old people jobs. There are just jobs. And in America, where we use money to barter for food, clothing, and shelter, jobs are necessary.
Re:Older workers don't want those jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
Somehow young people have young people jobs and older people have older people jobs. I wonder what might it be that makes the difference?
Over half the people I have worked with during my career have been over 40. I've always been "the young guy" at every place I've been (until my current job) - here I'm average age... and not too far off 40 myself. To be honest, I'm not sure why there is so much age discrimination against older IT staff. Younger staff know how to do things; older staff know how AND WHY to do things. Your 50 year old may make twice as much as your 25 year old IT worker- but they'll make far less than half the mistakes and cause far fewer project delays.
Re: (Score:2)
Your 50 year old may make twice as much as your 25 year old IT worker- but they'll make far less than half the mistakes and cause far fewer project delays.
I think that's your reason right there.
Re: (Score:2)
If they advertised on Fox News, they'd reach only older white males who think President Hillary's to blame for their sharply rising health insurance cost.
But, a young black female who loves Hillary isn't specifically excluded. You can advertise on Fox, and although you hit a different demographic than if you advertised on say "Buzzfeed", you're not specifically excluding them. There is nothing wrong with advertising on Fox News because they don't categorically exclude people. Heck, I bet they'd love nothing more than to have liberals watching so that they could have a chance to convert them. They'd love nothing more than to get young black females voting
Re:Surprising? Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
So here's a different perspective, which I hope you'll consider, rather than lumping all older workers into the same stereotype. I would like you to consider an alternative viewpoint to the points you raised:
So, I'm not going to defend the points one by one, but thought you should know how such statements are perceived by those with more experience. It is these people - with more experience - who will be evaluating whether you would be a good fit for their company.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously thou, with technology being in c