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.
If somebody is convinced that we're in a crisis, then any available data could be marshaled to support that conclusion. I look at the same data, and don't see any crisis. In fact, I'm surprised that the workforce participation rate isn't lower - given the rising number of retirees, rising number of college-students and potentially the rising number of people working for cash, who aren't officially counted.
A deeper problem, I think, is underemployment - where people with professional/advanced training nevertheless find themselves in non-professional roles, or tradesmen find themselves working only sporadically or part-time, when they'd prefer full-time, or 1099-employees floating from contract to contract. All of these, technically, are "employed".
If somebody is convinced that we're in a crisis, then any available data could be marshaled to support that conclusion. I look at the same data, and don't see any crisis. In fact, I'm surprised that the workforce participation rate isn't lower - given the rising number of retirees, rising number of college-students and potentially the rising number of people working for cash, who aren't officially counted.
A deeper problem, I think, is underemployment - where people with professional/advanced training nevertheless find themselves in non-professional roles, or tradesmen find themselves working only sporadically or part-time, when they'd prefer full-time, or 1099-employees floating from contract to contract. All of these, technically, are "employed".
I think that is about 5-6 million people right there.
Hiring of long term unemployed is also a huge problem.
Lots of people dropped off the roles because they simply had no other choice. Lots of older people "retired" because that was the only option open to them.
I don’t agree with the OP. Too expensive in your 30s? Your 30s and 40s are your prime earning years. Obviously you are more expensive than you were in your 20s. But you are generally seeking higher paying opportunities as you gain skills and experience. I’ve never once heard of someone in their 30s being priced out of the job market. Not once.
Thankfully that's not true in my field, partly because a Master's Degree is required - which at the YOUNGEST will be completed around age 25, but usually more like 30-35 (since it's often a second/later career). I'm 41 and got hired at my current job when I was 35, and was one of the younger employees here! So I guess it depends on the industry, as I'm sure the high tech companies are mostly hiring millennials.
Btw, have you watched the TV show "Younger?" It's about a woman around my age, who is recently divorced with a college-aged daughter, and wants to re-enter the publishing workforce. After facing rejections because of her age and "time off" (to raise her child), she decides to pretend she is 27 and gets a job - but then has to keep up the charade for the next few years! It's totally far-fetched in ways, particularly the fact that she'd never pass for 27 in reality, but is amusing nonetheless. Give it a watch if you haven't yet.
When you see a bunch of the old guard kicked out due to "restructuring" etc. , and/or forced into early retirement and their jobs replaced within a few months by a bunch of inexperienced 20 somethings, isn't enough proof?
No. That just means you were overpaid, as evident by inexperienced 20 something's able to do your same job. You're not good enough and only have the skill level of an entry level 20 something. If you were good at your job you would be in management, or at least a few promotions by your 30s.
BTW, I'm in my 30s and haven't had any issues. Most people I work with are older than me.
No. That just means you were overpaid, as evident by inexperienced 20 something's able to do your same job. You're not good enough and only have the skill level of an entry level 20 something. If you were good at your job you would be in management in your 30s.
BTW, I'm in my 30s and haven't had any issues. Most people I work with are older than me.
Well..Doesn't mean the 20 somethings can do the job to the same efficiency, speed, and with the same knowledge. etc. 30 year olds have greater experience/knowledge to those kids just coming out of school. Of course as we all know, most employers don't care about things like operational efficiency, speed, hard work, knowledge, experience and value
Well..Doesn't mean the 20 somethings can do the job to the same efficiency, speed, and with the same knowledge. etc. 30 year olds have greater experience/knowledge to those kids just coming out of school. Of course as we all know, most employers don't care about things like operational efficiency, speed, hard work, knowledge, experience and value
Well apparently they can more than SOME 30 somethings! (AKA the poster). But in most cases they don't and shouldn't. If you truly had greater experience and knowledge, you wouldn't be competing for the same job as a 20 something with little experience and knowledge. The employer takes speed, efficiency, and knowledge into account when deciding to replace a 30'something with a 20'year old. And no, we all know that Of course employers care about those things, if those things make them money. If you are being replaced, you don't have what it takes. You are lacking something, but refuse to accept it due to your stubborn ego.
I'm upskilling as we speak. For years the job market demanded only one skill for database developers: either strong ETL or strong SSRS/other BI reporting tool skills. Even today the vast majority of SQL DB devs aren't MSSQL full stack experts because there's practically no such thing as a job where you do ETL, reporting, AND cubes. (In my entire career I have encountered only one company that successfully built & maintained SSAS cubes.)
Nowadays they want you to not only be an expert in the full stack (SSIS/RS/AS) and an expert with T-SQL and the query engine, but they also want you to be a proficient DBA (a completely different discipline) as well as being an "expert" in C#, Java, JavaScript, ASP.NET, and possibly Python as well. Oh, and more companies are demanding MS Comp Sci degrees as well.
That, my friends, is a purple squirrel.
I've worked in IT for 20 years, 12 of them as a developer, and have worked with some extraordinarily talented developers and technologists. I have yet to meet this magical purple squirrel.
If one goes the BI route for a Fortune 100 employer, they just want you to point-and-click graphs mostly. There will rarely be any ETL work or even querying, especially if you work with tools like Tableau. It's dull and pays $110k+ in DFW.
It's amazing that a point-and-click job that requires no coding pays more ETL or SQL query development. I hear the same thing said for Salesforce.
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.
For years the job market demanded only one skill for database developers: either strong ETL or strong SSRS/other BI reporting tool skills. Even today the vast majority of SQL DB devs aren't MSSQL full stack experts because there's practically no such thing as a job where you do ETL, reporting, AND cubes. (In my entire career I have encountered only one company that successfully built & maintained SSAS cubes.)
