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.
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.
There have been and are many ongoing threads here about ageism. It's real, and it sucks big wet rocks.
The tendency to keep hiring 30yos and ignoring advantages of experience and skill is... well, if not quite universal, then pretty damn widespread. As someone who's worked for MW and run good-sized companies, it's counterproductive in too many ways to count. Youth and pliability only fill so much of a TO.
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.
Before anyone claims age discrimination, I'd like to see their resume first. Just because one has worked for a certain number of years doesn't mean they've built a marketable career.
Before anyone claims age discrimination, I'd like to see their resume first. Just because one has worked for a certain number of years doesn't mean they've built a marketable career.
You're going to bring this empty argument to yet another thread?
You're going to bring this empty argument to yet another thread?
Oh, yeah, I forgot. Darwin.
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?
Before anyone claims age discrimination, I'd like to see their resume first. Just because one has worked for a certain number of years doesn't mean they've built a marketable career.
Something like ageism is impossible to prove to someone who damn well doesn't want to hear about it. So, what you're trying to say is that there are all of these very experienced and knowledgeable people out there who just failed to build a marketable career, as opposed to the swarms of intelligent, yet inexperienced young people who HAVE built a marketable career.
Think about what you're saying before you type it. Arrogance doesn't look well on anyone.
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?
Uh....did I say I couldn't get interviews? Also, do you really think that recruiters don't make every attempt to find out your age before they would contact you? They do. Ask them.
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?
The discussions here, alone, show that there's a high proportion of older applicants who can't get a phone interview; that's not my only data nor is it that of many of the more knowledgeable posters.
Sure, I guess you could be 55 and have a worthless work history. But as someone whose full c.v. runs to five or six pages, includes national book award nominations, experience from production work through running (very successful) 100-person companies and has a portfolio of work in a wide range that reflects my extensive skill set...
Quote:
Also, how is age being determined from a resume with unnecessary dates removed?
...and can't get a callback even with a very stripped and polished resume intended to hide my age...
...I am a little irritated at your persistence with this argument.
Age discrimination is definitely a "thing" here in the US. While my resume doesn't contain my age or DOB, a 25 years work history DOES effectively "give away" my age - but that is deliberate on my part, as I only want to hear from HR depts that still are interested in me *after* figuring out I'm no youngin'. Saves time and energy for both parties, the way I see it.
Generally companies used to be managed properly and they valued their experienced veterans so they didn’t have to worry about getting laid off once they got “expensive and old” and kicked out to the street corner like next weeks trash only so a few months later they’ll bring in a know nothing 20 year old who will work for a fraction of the price
Companies used to realize that experience/talent/work ethic don’t exactly grow on trees. Now they just don’t care. It’s all about this financial quarters numbers. I’m covinced most companies don’t even look beyond the current financial quarter
What they don’t understand (or choose to ignore) you’re wrecking yourself long term for a quick short term gain
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.
