Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, certainly among IT professionals, young folks are often starting at a much higher relative rate than I started at (as an IT professional) - and sometimes at a higher rate than folks currently working and with much experience, so I get what you're saying. I've been in IT for nearly 25 years now and make a pretty good living. My son (who's 30) is new to IT (been doing it for about 18 months) and just took a job making even more than I do - of course his skill set is slightly different from mine, including more knowledge of the newer technologies. He also has less outside (family) commitments and is more willing to work longer hours (as you get older, you realize there is more to life than just working and making money). All in all (since he's my son) I'm extremely happy for him.
Lots of businesses are just waking up to the fact that a whole wave of baby boomer retirees are going to be retiring more or less all at once (not technically true, but over a relatively short time frame) and the relative sudden brain drain of knowlegable and experienced folks is going to be huge. Companies that tend to go through repeated boom or bust cycles of mass hirings and mass layoffs (such as aerospace) have suddenly realized that in all those layoff cycles they've dumped the younger folks (who have had less seniority) and now have a workforce that is almost all older folks - so when they start to go out the door (more or less all at once) there's going to be no one left with the knowledge necessary to keep the business up and running. Hence there is a sudden panic to get replacement people in ASAP (it does afterall take a long time for a newby to learn all the many details of their job and become as knowledgable as the older, more experienced folks (what they call "tribal knowledge").
Anyway, I think that's what's driving the very high starting salaries in It (at least).
Apologies for taking this off on a tangent, but in coming years as the older folks retire and younger ones take their place, companies might rue the day they started pushing the older workers out
Reading the blog, one might think "one soured writer and his misanthropic views" but the 100s of comments that follow validate some of his feelings.
My own recent experience somewhat proves that. Two positions came open in my department (information technology). We figured they'd be filled with a couple of Indian or Asian contractors; that's the trend in this industry; only to see two late 40s men (one black/one white) come on board. Being on plain speaking terms with one of the bosses, I asked what's up with that? Well, foreign contract workers weren't hired because of the disgruntlement over so many non-Americans taking jobs, so that option wasn't exercised. Okayyy, but why not a couple of youngsters; probably right out of college and needing work experience? At that question I got a sour look and a grunt of an answer "Damned kids would be too much trouble. Runts come in here demanding to be paid as much as me. ME! With 30 years of experience over those wet-behind-the-ears kids! And you should have seen their resumes and cover letters! Crap the likes of which I wrote better when I was in third grade! And I know I would catch hell from you people on the floor who would have had to train them, spoiled and ignorant as they sounded when all I had to do was talk to them. Nope, we decided to hire a couple of older guys with experience; ones we knew would be willing to work for pay, not jack off".
Whoa. I prudently left him to cool down. He looked like he was about to burst from apoplexy I've also kept the notion my mate and I have: to retire early, under wraps. My mate wants to retire in a few years, when he hits the magic '62'. I'm younger but support him fully. He left home at 17 to join the Air Force (that or be drafted and sent to Vietnam) and has not had a non-working year since. He'll be able to collect SS, but we foresee that as the supplement, not the income to live on. We've saved. I know that the management we each work with day-to-day won't be happy to see us go. We've been thoroughly dependable, able to work without supervision (giving our managers a chance to have a life with their families, secure that everything at work is flowing smoothly with us at the helm), and well worth our salaries. Turn our jobs over to younger people, just to make less money? In the long run, given the up-and-coming work force, it won't really be cost effective.
You would have been entering the workforce in the 60's....I wonder what people in their 60's etc. would have said about your generation at that time?
Probably drugs, immoral, lazy, stupid.....am I even close?
My DH was a senior v.p. with a major banking concern who was given his walking papers last October. Four days after he turned sixty-five. He sent our resumes and received.... one interview. They took one look at his sixty-five-year old self, with his distinguished career, star-spangled resume and bottomless years of expertise and said, 'Gee, thanks for coming, but....' So, yeah, we filed for social security.
Until George Will and Friends discuss the issue of early retirement with employers, those over sixty-two will continue to be dumped to make room for younger, cheaper workers. If he doesn't like it, he should make a lotta noise; at them not at the retirees.
p.s. DH's resume is still out there but nobody hires anyone at age 66, so he's home to stay.
I am not there yet but we both plan to draw our S.S. at 62. I mean people like my husband will have been putting money into S.S. for more than 40 years. Isn't that enough? No I won't feel guilty at all.
Really the comment about being able to work for 20 more years is not realistic. That would make someone 82 years old.
Who is George Will anyway?
lol, who cares what George Will thinks. He panders to corporate interests.
lol, who cares what George Will thinks. He panders to corporate interests.
In defense of George Will, he is one of the few "pundits" on either the left or the right that actually makes logical arguments. You may not agree with the philosophy but at least it's not the usual garbage that you get from hacks like Molly Ivins, Anne Coulter etc.
I don't agree with Will on the article he wrote (linked above) but he at least explains himself.
What part of the article he wrote did you not agree with, what part was pandering to corporate interests?
That people should listen to him and not retire early if they want to.
I will do what I want, and live they way I deserve, the media does not control how thinking Americans with a brain will spend their retirement. If American business suffers because of all the boomers retiring, and they have to deal with unskilled labor, that is their problem. Lets see how great companies will be doing in 15 years when alot of us retire.
That people should listen to him and not retire early if they want to.
I will do what I want, and live they way I deserve, the media does not control how thinking Americans with a brain will spend their retirement. If American business suffers because of all the boomers retiring, and they have to deal with unskilled labor, that is their problem. Lets see how great companies will be doing in 15 years when alot of us retire.
Do you forsee any possible problem for retirees in your "hah take that you evil companies" scenario? I can think of a lot of potentially bad fallout for retirees....and certainly their kids etc.
My father worked 38 years for GE...right out of highschool. They paid for my food, clothes, part of my college and my dad has a decent pension from them too.
Frankly, since all the older people own most of the stock....they ARE the large companies owners....aren't they?
Frankly, since all the older people own most of the stock....they ARE the large companies owners....aren't they?
Pensions own over 25% of corporate equities.
With the move to defined contribution retirement plans many people own stock... 'Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders.'
You will find more people (of all ages) own stock in public corporations than do not.
I was watching George Will talking about Social Security on "This Week" on ABC. He was angry that most Americans are actually taking social security at age 62. He has talked about this many times over the years. He does not believe there should be an "early retirement option at age 62" with social security. He thinks most people should wait until they are 70 for retirement and the early option should be eliminated.
This thinking is quite common in the media, academic and government circles. They think it is crazy for someone to retire when they are in good health and have potentially another 20 years they should be working full time. Of course this is a better option for people like George Will who have the option to do interesting work for years past the typical retirement age.
Those of you who have retired on social security at age 62, do you feel guilty like George Will and others would like you to feel? And do you think the elites will eliminate early retirement at age 62 in the near future?
even if we do feel guilty most of us are going to cowboy up and endure it and walk as early as possible. the stats dont lie, early retirement is the only way to go. i regret that giant sucking sound will kick in any minute when they realize a sunami of experienced seasons workers (most of em nice too) are walking. there must be 50 ways to leave your lover, just jump on the bus guz, make a little plan sam (sing it)
even if we do feel guilty most of us are going to cowboy up and endure it and walk as early as possible. the stats dont lie, early retirement is the only way to go. i regret that giant sucking sound will kick in any minute when they realize a sunami of experienced seasons workers (most of em nice too) are walking. there must be 50 ways to leave your lover, just jump on the bus guz, make a little plan sam (sing it)
Geeze, I never thought of my job as a lover....
I won't be sorry to leave it. But when I look around me, there's not only no one who can fill my shoes, there's no one at all. The threw away the practice of growing talent years ago and when we baby boomers leave, they'll wonder where the people are who know the job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've also kept the notion my mate and I have: to retire early, under wraps. My mate wants to retire in a few years, when he hits the magic '62'. I'm younger but support him fully. He left home at 17 to join the Air Force (that or be drafted and sent to Vietnam) and has not had a non-working year since. He'll be able to collect SS, but we foresee that as the supplement, not the income to live on. We've saved. I know that the management we each work with day-to-day won't be happy to see us go. We've been thoroughly dependable, able to work without supervision (giving our managers a chance to have a life with their families, secure that everything at work is flowing smoothly with us at the helm), and well worth our salaries. Turn our jobs over to younger people, just to make less money? In the long run, given the up-and-coming work force, it won't really be cost effective. 
