Ageism, or age discrimination, is cited as the most common form of discrimination nowadays.
Ageism is most apparent in the workplace. Many older workers have been made redundant on grounds of age, or have been denied equal training opportunities that younger workers enjoy. This blatant form of discrimination is termed as overt discrimination. Indirect discrimination includes making ageist comments and treating older workers in an ageist manner.
The UK government has already acted on this problem and has taken steps to rectify this problem. Anti-ageism laws came into effect on 1 October 2006, and forbids all forms of overt discriminations. Other public acts of ageism, such as specifying an age group for a job position, is also outlawed. However, these new laws only protect workers up to the age of 65.
The problem to date is mainly the work of long-standing stereotypes about older workers.
Stereotypes by employers about older workers include notions that older workers are unable to adapt to change, lacking in creativity and flexibility, hard to train, not energetic enough and too cautious for the fast pace of modern day business.
In reality however, ageism has many negative effects. These effects can be classified as personal impacts and business impacts.
Personal impacts refer to the impact on the worker on the receiving end of the discrimination. The most immediate and recognizable effect would be a drop in self-esteem, which would translate into a drop in productivity.
Also, a worker made redundant over 45 would find it difficult finding another job, again because of the discriminating attitudes of potential employers.
Business impacts would refer to the impacts on the business the worker was fired from. Many employers do not realize that their discrimination could in fact be cost ineffective and they still might not get the best man for the job.
Ageism would also upset the balance of youth and experience that an economy needs to stay competitive. An competitive economy would need the right blend of youth and experience. By being ageist when choosing workers, an employer may discover he has too much youth and not enough experience to run the business competitively.
Although this scenario is set in the UK, we might find it all too relevant in Singapore as well. I may be wrong, but I would dare say that most of us have been at some point of time ageist. Discriminating on grounds of age would be against the basic principles of meritocracy, which is upheld in Singapore. An ageist attitude would eventually cost Singapore her sharp competitive edge. (How, I have elaborated earlier in this post.)
These are just my opinions, it may be incomplete, but I feel it gives a satisfactory introduction to the problem of ageism.
Despite all the disadvantages of ageism, I think eradicating ageism is unlikely to be a simple task. After all, ageism is based a deeply entrenched ageist attitude and to uproot such stereotypes would require time.

The post in red is my actual project. It is composed of 490 words.
All the information is taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/business/2006/ageism/default.stm

That is just the main site. But I used a little of each article.

That's all I have. Thank you!

The classic sceptical approach

When reading or commenting on a issue, one reader can take many point of views. Any fool can agree, any fool can criticize. But not many fools can criticize effectively.What do I mean by criticizing is to criticize effectively.
By criticizing effectively, I don't mean disagreeing. I mean disagreeing in a logical and rational manner.
To paraphrase, criticizing effectively is to criticize ruthlessly, taking the enemy(other) argument apart justification by justification, premise by premise, point by point.
You do not realise how important it is to criticize nowadays. Criticism improves your spiritual health, deproves others, boosts your ego and shatters other egos. Most importantly, it is fun.
Fun, as in a sadistic kind of fun.
Thus, you will need a systematic way to take the enemy argument apart.I propose scepticism for amateur users.A sceptic {skep-tick} is one who does not believe anything. He has to question. The sceptic's god is the question mark (though most sceptics are quite sceptical about this).
Sceptics come in two groups:1) The ordinary sceptic- He thrives by questioning. Question everything. Question in a disaproving way. Like this: Why do you say this? I don't think it is like this. When disproved, normal sceptics just grumble and accept the best option. Try to make a scene out of it.
2) The philosophical sceptic-This kind is more dangerous. He argues philosophically and indulges in philosophical sceptism.
The first example of scepticism will come soon.
Watch out for it.

Brain in a Vat