Job paths where ageism is less likely to affect you (employee, consulting)
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.
Yes, that stops employers from practicing it. They won't make up other reasons or anything. It's kind of like racism, sexism, etc. Make it "illegal" and no one will do it anymore!
Sorry, but making a personal opinion/bias "illegal" is window dressing. No landlord is going to come out and tell you the apartment is "already rented" because you're black. No employer is going to come out and tell you the job went to someone else because you're too old, or that you make less money because you're a woman. The real world doesn't work that way.
Which is why "data" are unreliable. Some things are unquantifiable.
Bingo -- this is something the other people replying to me missed, but you didn't. The data doesn't exist, and asking this question is as absurd as "job paths where racism is less likely to affect you".
Just like some people will pull the race card even though it had nothing to do with race, others will pull the age card for the same reason.
It's because of age, it couldn't possibly be due to underperforming or other reasons.
This make is seem like you don't understand what survivorship bias is. You aren't going to understand what people are saying to you if you don't understand the most basic principles of logic.
I like how you selectively removed the most important part of my post. Let me go ahead and add that back in for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by numberfive
I've ignored empty assertions, not data. Show me where the survivorship bias exists in the BLS data. If you check the links I've provided earlier, they show the employment rates as a function of employed to unemployed workers by age cohort.
By all means though, if you think there's a decay rate that skews the results (e.g. forced retirement removing workers from the job pool), normalize the data to minimize the survivorship bias. Please include your assumptions you used to normalize the trends by age cohort.
Bingo -- this is something the other people replying to me missed, but you didn't. The data doesn't exist, and asking this question is as absurd as "job paths where racism is less likely to affect you".
Just like some people will pull the race card even though it had nothing to do with race, others will pull the age card for the same reason.
It's because of age, it couldn't possibly be due to underperforming or other reasons.
When you are perfectly qualified for a job, but you attend the interview and find the hiring manager and everyone else in the office is half your age, they're playing ping-pong and videogames at work and wearing jeans/sneakers while you're in a suit... YES, it's likely because of age that you will not be hired. "Underperforming" isn't an issue unless you're already employed, or you fail some kind of test.
"The race card" and "the age card" are not fictional. You only think they are because you've never been on the receiving end of their disadvantages.
@numberfive, your mistake is in assuming that because something hasn't affected you, it doesn't exist. The fact remains that older people who are out of work for more than 6 months are unlikely to be hired over younger people unless they are at C-level. Age matters much less up there. Your average white-collar professional over 50 is not a hot property on today's job market. Especially if that person does not have a degree. Many of us began our full-time work careers right out of high school in a different time... when you didn't need a degree to be hired or keep your job. So we just kept going. But trying to find a well-paying job THESE days without a degree is hard enough for young people. It's nearly impossible for older people.
For the most part the "data" can only be anecdotal, because employers don't report statistics of who they didn't hire and why, nor do they usually disclose to the unsuccessful applicant why they were not chosen--the majority of the time, the older applicant (especially with no degree) won't even make it past the ATS to begin with, and so won't get an interview/chance to be formally rejected. However, some things are blatantly evident even without concrete data. This is one of them.
@numberfive, your mistake is in assuming that because something hasn't affected you, it doesn't exist.
I already addressed this in Post 71. See the earthquake part. You actually agree with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel2032
The fact remains that older people who are out of work for more than 6 months are unlikely to be hired over younger people unless they are at C-level. Age matters much less up there. Your average white-collar professional over 50 is not a hot property on today's job market. Especially if that person does not have a degree. Many of us began our full-time work careers right out of high school in a different time... when you didn't need a degree to be hired or keep your job. So we just kept going. But trying to find a well-paying job THESE days without a degree is hard enough for young people. It's nearly impossible for older people.
This is hyperbole. If it were nearly impossible for older people, the unemployment rates for older workers would be sky high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel2032
For the most part the "data" can only be anecdotal, because employers don't report statistics of who they didn't hire and why, nor do they usually disclose to the unsuccessful applicant why they were not chosen
This is not true. "The EEOC collects workforce data from employers with more than 100 employees (lower thresholds apply to federal contractors). Employers meeting the reporting thresholds have a legal obligation to provide the data; it is not voluntary" Source
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel2032
the majority of the time, the older applicant (especially with no degree) won't even make it past the ATS to begin with, and so won't get an interview/chance to be formally rejected. However, some things are blatantly evident even without concrete data. This is one of them.
If this were blatantly evident, we would have plenty of data showing the median age of employees is in the 20's and 30's. And yet, it's 40's, meaning there is a distribution betweens 20's to 60's.
Can you please provide a list of companies where the vast majority of non-manager workers are below 40? I'm excluding management and C-suite types, since you don't seem to be as concerned with them.
The military is facing the same problem these days. They are required to cut their numbers and so, the easiest way for them to accomplish this is to go after the older and more experienced people. And, at the same time, they are reducing the number of promotions available and therefore are making it much more difficult to be promoted.
Attaining promotions in the military is very important because of imposed time/rank constraints. Fail to meet them, you are out. And in some fields it is mathematically impossible to meet them. So, they are losing a lot of very good experienced people whose only fault is being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Luck of the draw so to speak.
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 wanted to rep you for this but wasn't allowed.
