In this contemporary era, some countries have legislated against age restrictions on recruitment. I contend that it is favourable to the workforce ranging in diverse ages.
First and foremost, this development can benefit both the young workforce and society. In the modern context, many employers prioritise experience and professional skills, inadvertently disadvantaging younger candidates who usually lack these attributes. However, these expected qualities, paradoxically, are only gained from employment, impairing chances of enhancing job experiences for the young. This failure to enrich experiences can force future workers into unmet recruiting requirements, increasing social issues such as unemployment. Against this backdrop, by enforcing laws against age-related job rejection, the youth can gain equitable access to employment, fostering both personal and societal growth.
Furthermore, the phenomenon also allows the aged to contribute to society and families. By remaining in the workforce, older people not only provide invaluable expertise but also generate more personal income taxes, bolstering national budgets. With more monetary resources, governments can increase social welfare for the poor and invest in more developmental strategies, thereby fostering a better society. In tandem, continuation in work, especially after retiring, also helps older generations pay the bills once their families have monetary difficulties. This support may help other family members feel less burdened and overwhelmed by financial pressure. These benefits brought by older generations make it advisable and sensible to enforce laws to avoid rejecting job-seekers based on their age.
In conclusion, the laws against age discrimination in recruitment not only promote social development by undermining social issues such as joblessness and poverty but also facilitate the young and old’s lives.