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 I didn't get into the tech field until I was in my early 40's, so until that time with experience as a bad check collector, credit analyst, technical writer and auditor, I only got accepted by two companies, before getting into the tech field, over a 20 year period in my 20's 30's and early 40's. I had a liberal arts degree from UCLA and eventually also got an MBA from Long Island University. Until my early 40's I was habitually scanning the want ads and submitting resumes. Didn't get a bite in decades. By the way, when I first arrived in NYC the employment agencies told me no one was hiring and I should go back to LA. The two jobs I did get were by answering blind want ads in the Times.
Another factor is I briefly lived in Denver, couldn't get a job to save my life there, had to move back to LA, where I also couldn't get a decent job to save my life. So I got on a Greyhound bus with a bag of groceries and canned sodas and took the 66 hour ride to NYC where my father set up a cot for me in his living room. I paid him $20 a week for room and board. I got my first job on the swing shift, after arguing with the HR rep for 20 minutes (no way I was leaving without that job) and moved out on my own 6 weeks after I arrived.
All this is just to say I experienced years of doing whatever it took to get by. I didn't sit around waiting for work to come to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude
It has been well and thoroughly established that tech, especially IT/CS tech, is in a class of its own in this regard and that the fields are regularly harvested for warm bodies to fill the endless need.
The rest of us who are not in tech fields thank and excuse you from further discussion.
This is so true -- do not be afraid to give yourself a little help. Whether it's professional hair coloring, modest botox, trendier clothes (this is really obvious in my industry -- tech -- t-shirt with blazer and designer sneakers rather than dress shirt and khakis and lace-ups)
You don't need to try to look 25 (no skinny jeggings please), just taking off 10 years accomplishes the goal.
It's a treat for myself to get professional hair coloring, it's expensive, but worth it. I used to do it at home, but it was damaging my hair and affecting my overall 'savvy' attempt of physically shaving a precious 8-10 years off my face. Prior to moving to the LA area, I did a facial at a spa once a year, as a splurge. NOW, it's every 4 weeks and my face thanks me.
I work out at LA fitness, do my pilates and yoga at home, and hike.
Hell, I even went to Coachella a few weeks ago for the first time, loved it!
I see a lot of people here at work who are within 10 years of my age, younger and older, and they look like hell. I'm 52, I don't look 25, but I sure don't look 42 either.
Was it always like this? I remember starting out in my career and there were people of all age groups. Experience was respected and sought after, not something to disdain. Now you see a much better cross section along racial and gender lines in the workplace, but those over 40 are consistently being pushed out. It's especially difficult trying to find new employment. What's crazy is that a lot of the people making the hiring decisions are themselves over 40. Yet they still choose to opt for the younger, less experienced, and in most cases less trainable candidates. Those candidates either flame out or move on quickly, and the company is back out there looking to fill the position again. And once again they will go with the shiny object, rather than reliable knowledge and experience. This isn't because they don't want to pay more. The salary is the salary no matter who they hire in most cases. If you're younger and you're offended by my post, some of you should be offended and some shouldn't. You'll know which category you fall into.
I include a rolling 10 years of work history and regularly drop entries off the trailing end. 2 employers over 10 years gets me a lot of callbacks.
You're going to bring this empty argument to yet another thread?
Oh, yeah, I forgot. Darwin.
She believes in the dogma of employer infallibility. She will not question the employers and always places the blame on candidates/employees.
Back to the discussion at hand.
Age discrimination definitely exists. Silicon Valley is notorious for it as is most of tech (including STEM) - that's why I recommend people stay out of the STEM fields. Ageism is one explanation why 75% of STEM degree holders (11 million) are working outside of STEM.
How is it empty? While all forms of discrimination exist, I've yet to see (on CD ) a super strong candidate who had trouble finding employment because of age only. We are subjected to unsubstantiated anecdotal claims. Can we really parse out that the claimant truly was the best candidate?
Also, how is age being determined from a resume with unnecessary dates removed?
"I graduated from college in 203 BC." I don't know of any dates on a resume that are considered unnecessary.
Positive relations are good. But that does not imply that anyone in that relationship is in a position to get you a job. Just for example, vendors and customers. Neither would have jobs for people in my field. Customers come to us precisely because they can't do what we do. There are perhaps a half dozen or fewer places in the country and every one of them has the same age issues. Most of the management has been replaced over the last few years with young non technical managers.
You can never be certain that any one or even group of connections can get you a job. All you can do is try and move the needle in your favor the best you can. Relationships can do that.
Was it always like this? I remember starting out in my career and there were people of all age groups. Experience was respected and sought after, not something to disdain. Now you see a much better cross section along racial and gender lines in the workplace, but those over 40 are consistently being pushed out. It's especially difficult trying to find new employment. What's crazy is that a lot of the people making the hiring decisions are themselves over 40. Yet they still choose to opt for the younger, less experienced, and in most cases less trainable candidates. Those candidates either flame out or move on quickly, and the company is back out there looking to fill the position again. And once again they will go with the shiny object, rather than reliable knowledge and experience. This isn't because they don't want to pay more. The salary is the salary no matter who they hire in most cases. If you're younger and you're offended by my post, some of you should be offended and some shouldn't. You'll know which category you fall into.
I'm wondering if those who have great experience, vast knowledge of the market and have an intuitive ability might not be better off going contract work instead of applying for the jobs available.
This would give the company a chance to bring them in, but with no "Employment" tangle of benefits and such, then when done, the contract can be extended or ended...
I'm wondering if those who have great experience, vast knowledge of the market and have an intuitive ability might not be better off going contract work instead of applying for the jobs available.
...
Or is it a "Easier said than done" scenario?
Contract work brings no benefits. Unless you have spousal health coverage and are no longer building your retirement pile, even a fairly high (but fixed-term) contract rate isn't enough.
You can screw around with contract and temp work if you're a 20-something who doesn't care about benefits, or at a stage where any income is good income (no need for employer benefits).
Universal healthcare, or at least breaking the bond between employment and affordable insurance, would completely change the age-hiring scenario.
The contractor I worked for had benefits you could purchase at a group rate, health insurance, life insurance, 401K, etc. I didn't need them because I had retiree benefits, but the younger guys used them.
As another poster said, this is a risk free option for the employer, so there's no need for ageism. If you work out it's a win win. No politics, no games, no benefits or sick days, no employee rights, just performance is all that matters. Maybe that's the way it should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude
Contract work brings no benefits. Unless you have spousal health coverage and are no longer building your retirement pile, even a fairly high (but fixed-term) contract rate isn't enough.
You can screw around with contract and temp work if you're a 20-something who doesn't care about benefits, or at a stage where any income is good income (no need for employer benefits).
Universal healthcare, or at least breaking the bond between employment and affordable insurance, would completely change the age-hiring scenario.
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.
