I have a tough time with these stories. Although I don’t dispute that this bias exists, I feel like the subject matter is also damaging.

First of all, these articles are sensational and divisive. Folks over (or nearing) middle age are sensitive. They worry about being outmoded and removed/downsized. My hunch is that they read these articles out of fear. For younger folks, I suspect it’s reassuring to know that you have something to offer that older folks might not. So, for the publisher, these produce clicks/views.

However, when you get past the personal examples of exclusion, and some of the reductive arguments (e.g. “Younger people are just smarter.”) little of this is as simple as it first seems.

Fact is, for a long time, older workers were less technically competent than their younger counterparts. That said, for a generation that grew up with technology, this isn’t so much the case any longer. This became painfully obvious to me, while sitting with an Apple “Genius” one day. He was very hip; however, I needed to explain to him how to use the Find function in his browser. (Seriously.)

Young and older people both have something to contribute. Young ones often bring new ideas and perspectives because they’ve grown up differently. They lend enthusiasm and energy that older staff sometimes don’t. Frankly, older ones often don’t want to work marathon hours (this isn’t always the case, but tends to be). That said, older workers typically bring more knowledge and experience to the table.

I suspect that part of the bias in favor of younger workers comes from younger business owners (common in startups). I ran into this when we started our design studio. I was 26. At the time, it was scary to hire a 50-year-old to come in, because I didn’t feel comfortable directing someone that much older than me (I probably wouldn’t have admitted this at the time).

Additionally, those people typically wanted to earn more—and we didn’t think we could afford them. So, we hired younger folks who worked at a lower hourly rate, but often needed an inordinate amount of training and support.

Were I to start that company all over again, I’d do the opposite. I’d hire more skilled people and pay more than market rate. I’d then gauge their performance, and retain/dismiss solely based on that. In my experience, a skilled person at a higher rate of pay was always more valuable/profitable for our company than a less-skilled worker at a lower rate of pay.

My point is that the companies which use age as a barometer of value are approaching HR in a flawed way. The contribution of a staff member is more important than the date on his/her birth certificate. Meanwhile, the garment choices and pop-culture references one uses shouldn’t have any bearing on the value of the individual (unless we’re talking about a company who traffics in such matter).

That said, I think the real problem is the employee mindset. So long as your livelihood depends on one single organization, you put yourself at risk.

This is doubly-so for those who remain loyal to a company for a decade or more. HR departments are notoriously short-sighted when it comes to assessing skills. They like seeing candidates who fulfill the specific requirements of a job. Meanwhile, they often don’t understand which skills are transferrable (because they typically don’t actually understand the work/technology).

So, if you’ve worked in print publishing for the past 20 years, an HR person might not hire you to work in a digital content shop. However, web technologies aren’t that hard to master. Knowing a good story, understanding what attracts an audience, and having strong people skills are all much more valuable (and difficult to learn skills). But, still, those hiring often won’t see this—which puts such a person at a disadvantage.

There are many reasons why running your own startup, studio, consultancy are difficult. That said, all of these pursuits force you to be nimble. Most of them also allow you to distribute your income sources among multiple groups—which builds resilience.

And, after you’ve done any of these things, you tend to be more employable—because you have a stronger sense of what companies need. (Additionally, those who’ve “done it on their own” often exhibit characteristics that are attractive to management—especially those whose current staff is comprised primarily of box fillers.)

My point here (and I know I’ve carried on) is that the age discussion is a red herring. The real matter is how one remains relevant/valuable—regardless of age. Continual learning is a part of that. Another is one’s ability to adapt to less familiar roles (e.g., planning, sales, management, guidance). More importantly, though, no one should treat their employer as the gatekeeper to their future.

We’re all free agents. Some of us are mostly independent. Others play for teams. Those who play for teams should always know—and build—their value, so they don’t end up marooned.