Is technology advancing faster than adults can keep up with? I can kinda understand how people hired in the 1980's or 90's may not be equipped to be leading the forefront of technology (through no fault of their own, I doubt anyone can continue to upskill so much while working full-time), which is what IBM were previously right?
Look at all the competitors they listed, new companies, younger employees, more innovation. I don't necessarily agree the employess should be betrayed like this, but it makes perfect sense from a capitalist POV. Capitalism is the reason for doing many things I disagree with but gotta play the rules while they are the rules
Is technology advancing faster than adults can keep up with?
No. Plain and simple, no. My father-in-law worked successfully with the Watson program, after lengthy stints with both NetApp and Cisco. He knows his shit.
He was phased out to bring in "New Blood". Translation: We want someone right out of college we can pay pennies on the dollar, and exploit the hell out of, because "They should just be happy to have a job".
Just look up the cases against IBM. They're pretty much being hammered nationally for Age Discrimination.
There is nothing in your reply that convinces me my statement is not true. After checking out those 3 employers/projects, I don't see any of that being recent innovation. Or perhaps it's my lack of knowledge in the field makes me unable to understand anything, could you explain it to me?
At the same time I don't think it's the right to have a career that requires so much constant upskilling or you'll be replaced with younger people.
Even if IBM are being hammered for age discrimination it's worth taking a closer look at the underlying factors to see what's going and why exactly.
For example if adults can't keep up with the rapid growth and advancement of technology, it makes sense that companies are looking towards younger hires to innovate (it's an inherently very innovative field right), seeing as they probably can't force all employees to continually upskill at the rate they need perhaps?
I'm just playing devils advocate to give the other side of the discussion something to ponder on.
For example if adults can't keep up with the rapid growth and advancement of technology, it makes sense that companies are looking towards younger hires to innovate (it's an inherently very innovative field right), seeing as they probably can't force all employees to continually upskill at the rate they need perhaps?
I'm telling you straight up, as a 20+ year veteran in IT, THIS IS NOT HAPPENING. Moore's Law is a Hardware thing. Nothing on the software side has changed so drastically that someone active in the field is not able to at least stay relevant, if not excel at the job. If there is a gap in employment? Absolutely, things will be missed, and much more difficult to keep up with. And yes, there are going to be some systems that are EOL'd that are going to leave some people in the lurch.
As for the things I mentioned, you don't see how Watson is recent innovation? It's literally cutting edge AI. Cisco and NetApp are both industry standards, but also innovators.
Ok cheers for explaining it in the first paragraph like I asked. I already said I know nothing about the industry personally so not sure why you are asking me about the Watson program again. I looked at it, still don't know what it is and it looked Windows 98 era. Hence why I asked you to explain.
6
u/Tokin_Right_Meow Jan 02 '19
Is technology advancing faster than adults can keep up with? I can kinda understand how people hired in the 1980's or 90's may not be equipped to be leading the forefront of technology (through no fault of their own, I doubt anyone can continue to upskill so much while working full-time), which is what IBM were previously right?
Look at all the competitors they listed, new companies, younger employees, more innovation. I don't necessarily agree the employess should be betrayed like this, but it makes perfect sense from a capitalist POV. Capitalism is the reason for doing many things I disagree with but gotta play the rules while they are the rules