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.
Do you really believe there is no age discrimination in the workplace and/or hiring practices of many companies?
Because statistic after statistic tells us there is although I applaud your views - it seems many do not share them.
For professionals, it is minimal. For things like working at the Gap or a pub or some physical job, there is.
You (and those studies) are confusing the causality. It's not age discrimination, it's money. Namely, organizations get rid of older people because younger people will accept less money. It's all about management principles.
Start with a loose application of the Pareto Principal and get rid of 80% of those over 50, keep the other 20% who have a very good handle on what they're doing, put them in management (they may already be in mgmt) and set them up a good stock option program so they don't leave and and bonus so production and value remains at an acceptable level. Then hire people who will accept a lesser salary (i.e. mostly younger people) as the staff. Voila! You just reduced costs while keeping value at an ok state. Although admittedly, what usually happens is that value will decrease somewhat but not nearly enough to forego the tremendous savings.
This usually doesn't happen overnight. It's a slower process that can present itself as age discrimination but is really about money. Be more thoughtful about causation and don't take studies at such a face value surface type level. Think more deeply about the interpretation.
Science and studies are great but be your own person, use your mind, and interpret things for yourself rather than being fed. Understanding what's really going on will help you plan and make smart decisions so you are less likely to be caught off guard.
Even though you are 26-you are now competing with 21 year old's fresh out of college willing to make less than you...and even 18 year old's willing to go way down in wage...no matter what age you are...you are always competing with someone younger willing to make the bare minimum.
Even though you are 26-you are now competing with 21 year old's fresh out of college willing to make less than you...and even 18 year old's willing to go way down in wage...no matter what age you are...you are always competing with someone younger willing to make the bare minimum.
That's true, but it only applies to unskilled jobs.
I can do in 30 minutes what takes those cheaper college grads 3+ hours to do, if they can do it at all. Entry level is more expensive due to their lack of experience.
Hiring managers that think they can save money that way are penny wise and pound foolish.
So that reduces down to how long does it take to become both mature and experienced. For some jobs, experience builds up year after year after year. However, for many technical jobs (perhaps extending into things like HVAC repair and such), now, experience is perishable. Furthermore, maturity builds up to a certain point, and then the benefit of additional worker maturity to the enterprise is hard to substantiate. For some jobs, there are still advantages of age, well into one's 40s and 50s... Surgeons and ministers comes to mind. However, for most jobs, it reaches a point where additional age simply translates to the business into additional cost (because older employees have had longer to climb up the salary ladders) and eventually additional risk that health problems will have an impact on the job.
Put those together and change the ages in jenniferashley's scenario and you have a different conclusion. There's a big different to most companies between hiring an 18 year old and a 21 year old, but the difference between hiring a 40 year old and a 43 year old is insignificant. Ageism begins at age 40; the law has recognized that. It gets severe starting around age 50, and it is a foregone conclusion by age 60.
So that reduces down to how long does it take to become both mature and experienced. For some jobs, experience builds up year after year after year. However, for many technical jobs (perhaps extending into things like HVAC repair and such), now, experience is perishable. Furthermore, maturity builds up to a certain point, and then the benefit of additional worker maturity to the enterprise is hard to substantiate. For some jobs, there are still advantages of age, well into one's 40s and 50s... Surgeons and ministers comes to mind. However, for most jobs, it reaches a point where additional age simply translates to the business into additional cost (because older employees have had longer to climb up the salary ladders) and eventually additional risk that health problems will have an impact on the job.
Put those together and change the ages in jenniferashley's scenario and you have a different conclusion. There's a big different to most companies between hiring an 18 year old and a 21 year old, but the difference between hiring a 40 year old and a 43 year old is insignificant. Ageism begins at age 40; the law has recognized that. It gets severe starting around age 50, and it is a foregone conclusion by age 60.
Good post. It's not easily substantiated that a 60-year-old programmer can do a better job than a 40-year-old programmer, which is why I said earlier that the 40-year-old programmer should be looking at being in management or running his own company by 60...not still doing the job they're hiring 40-year-olds to do.
So that reduces down to how long does it take to become both mature and experienced. For some jobs, experience builds up year after year after year. However, for many technical jobs (perhaps extending into things like HVAC repair and such), now, experience is perishable. Furthermore, maturity builds up to a certain point, and then the benefit of additional worker maturity to the enterprise is hard to substantiate. For some jobs, there are still advantages of age, well into one's 40s and 50s... Surgeons and ministers comes to mind. However, for most jobs, it reaches a point where additional age simply translates to the business into additional cost (because older employees have had longer to climb up the salary ladders) and eventually additional risk that health problems will have an impact on the job.
Put those together and change the ages in jenniferashley's scenario and you have a different conclusion. There's a big different to most companies between hiring an 18 year old and a 21 year old, but the difference between hiring a 40 year old and a 43 year old is insignificant. Ageism begins at age 40; the law has recognized that. It gets severe starting around age 50, and it is a foregone conclusion by age 60.
I agree with everything you wrote except for the bolded part... I could be mistaken, but don't the numbers show that the older folks have lower unemployment rates? Just wondering where the other data is showing ageism is real.
I could see the law recognizing that it could be an issue, hence putting safeguards in place to avoid it.
Many older workers are more than willing to work for less salary, but that's never enough for the hiring committee.
As soon as they see someone is old, looks old, doesn't matter if that old person is willing to work for peanuts and is healthier than an 18 year old. Their application and resume goes in the trash. Because they simply don't like older people, period.
Many older workers are more than willing to work for less salary, but that's never enough for the hiring committee.
As soon as they see someone is old, looks old, doesn't matter if that old person is willing to work for peanuts and is healthier than an 18 year old. Their application and resume goes in the trash. Because they simply don't like older people, period.
If this was true, why aren't the unemployment rates sky high for older workers? Older workers currently have the lowest unemployment rates out of all age ranges.
In my research, it looks like the average time to find a new job increases as a worker ages, but the employment rates are higher for the older workforce.
If this was true, why aren't the unemployment rates sky high for older workers? Older workers currently have the lowest unemployment rates out of all age ranges.
In my research, it looks like the average time to find a new job increases as a worker ages, but the employment rates are higher for the older workforce.
Ageism is most reflected in the average time it takes to find a job at that age.
The current unemployment rates merely show that adequate workers already employed manage to stay employed (unless the company's employment picture tanks wholesale).
Ageism is most reflected in the average time it takes to find a job at that age.
The current unemployment rates merely show that adequate workers already employed manage to stay employed (unless the company's employment picture tanks wholesale).
That makes sense to me, and highlights another interesting trend: if the older workers have lower unemployment even though it takes them longer to find a job, they must -- by definition -- be more adequate than their younger counterparts!
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.
