Davidzhu

Lately, I've noticed an interesting phenomenon: many companies explicitly state that they don't accept job applicants over 35. This phenomenon has raised a question in my mind: why are companies so resistant to employees over 35? Is it because their abilities have really declined? Or is it because companies' profit models can no longer accommodate a fully mature adult? If you take a closer look at most companies today, you'll find that they reject job applicants over 35 not because the applicants' abilities have declined, but because the companies' profit models can no longer accommodate a fully mature adult. Companies usually need young, aggressive, and overtime-willing employees, rather than mature, stable, and opinionated ones. However, this phenomenon is not just a company problem, but also a reflection of the entire society. We often hear that 'youth is capital,' but have we ever considered that youth doesn't necessarily represent ability and maturity? In fact, many employees over 35 have accumulated rich work experience and life experience, and their stability and maturity are exactly what companies need. So, why do companies still resist employees over 35? I think it's because companies are afraid that these employees' stability and maturity will bring resistance to innovation and change. Companies are afraid that these employees' opinions will affect their profit models. However, this concern is unnecessary. In fact, employees over 35 can bring more mature decision-making, more stable execution, and better team collaboration.