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.
It's a deliberate attempt to create controversy when they say "older workers" are being hired more over "younger workers" A more accurate description would be "experienced workers" are being hire more over "inexperienced workers". But that wouldn’t get as much attention, would it?
Well it is possible to be under 55 with experience, isn't it? If you look at the chart it shows the majority of jobs going to the people in the age bracket of 55-69 versus people in the 16-55 bracket. It's pretty astonishing considering the latter is a much larger group of people, plenty with experience to boot.
Well it is possible to be under 55 with experience, isn't it? If you look at the chart it shows the majority of jobs going to the people in the age bracket of 55-69 versus people in the 16-55 bracket. It's pretty astonishing considering the latter is a much larger group of people, plenty with experience to boot.
The data appears to be false. If you use the official Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers and do your own adding, it doesn’t work. The best I come up with is the chart reflects all workers 55 plus but only those identified as males, white, with a degree, for the 16 - 55 group. If you include all 16-55 it just doesn’t support the chart.
Yeah, I can tell everyone from sad experience that the chart is incorrect. I don't know why someone would want to put it out there and start up some sort of war of old versus young. If a person needs to work, they just need to work. Believe me, I'm not out there looking for employment because I think it would be fun to take a job away from some 25 year-old kid. What we need is an economic recovery that will make more jobs available to all of us and not be resenting one another because the other person happens to be 25 or 55.
Do you think a 40 year old earning a salary similar to what he earned 20 years ago feels lucky?
Is that what you hope for when you turn 40? I sure don't want that in my future.
They hired him because he had more experience. if you were hired over him, it would simply be because you were younger... that would be 100% age discrimination.
Would it be fair if a high school dropout with less experience than you were hired instead? Or how about if someone with less experience were hired because they looked younger and more attractive than you?
If I had to work at fast food or as a grocery stockboy... I would want to do it in my early 20's rather than having to do those type jobs if I am in my 40's. In fact, those were the jobs I had in my teens & early 20's.
I don't know why you're getting so worked up. I didn't say these people were "lucky" or that it was right or wrong. I was just giving my experience and you decided to read too much into it. Anyway, these were entry-level, professional jobs that pay $30-40k. Employers can and do avoid people with too much experience and education. It's called being "overqualified" and not likely to stay once something better comes along. It's just that, in this economy, employers know they can get more for less. I did have someone with less experience and education get a job over me. The hiring manager who interviewed me basically told me I was overqualified. It is true that I would have left as soon as a better paying job came along. The likelihood of the person with just a high school diploma getting a better offer was a lot lower. That leaves people like me stuck without many options. We're too overqualified for fast food and retail and we're not experienced enough to compete with the older workers who are desperate enough to take entry-level, professional jobs. We have bills to pay too. Do you think we're "lucky?" Do you think someone in his or her mid to late twenties with several years of experience and a college degree is "lucky" to have a job as a grocery store stocker?
As an employer, all I can say is that there seems to be different work ethic among older and younger employees; better among older workers. Certainly more years of age generally, but not always, correlates with more experience. Regardless of age, experience is the major factor in making hiring decisions. That said, if the younger, less experienced worker shows more enthusiasm and aptitude to learn and improve, he/she may have the better chance because he/she is likely to be here much longer and not need to be replaced as soon, due simply to the remaining work life expectancy. On the other hand, an older person may be more reliable and loyal because of the risk of not finding re-employment easily. Also, the younger workers bring a higher risk of turnover- marriage, changing objectives, kids, impatience, self-importance, etc. These have been problems that I have observed many times over. However, an intelligent, grounded, enthusiastic, reliable (i.e., promising) younger worker with a bit less experience can beat out an older, more experienced worker for the job, but there just doesn't seem to be the same sized pool of such applicants as there once was.
It's a deliberate attempt to create controversy when they say "older workers" are being hired more over "younger workers" A more accurate description would be "experienced workers" are being hire more over "inexperienced workers". But that wouldn’t get as much attention, would it?
Exactly what I thought when I read the article linked and considered it's authorship. It's really not even worth discussing.
The way some want to cut entitlements, push the age for Social Security higher,maybe it is a good idea to support hiring over-55's. I know Japan is facing an aging population. And much as us geezers would love to sit in the rocking chair, watching the busy world, it could be countries need us more than ever. One huge problem for new workers: The disastrous pattern of borrowing huge amounts to take training the economy doesn't want. I came out with education nobody wanted. Made life tough, but I had nearly no debt at all. Sure couldnt have paid for the expense of kids. Didn't get a house till 48 years old. People have expectations now, but the economy just doesn't support them.
I've lost out on a lot of what were supposed to be entry-level jobs because I had to compete with older and more qualified applicants. It's not like I have no experience. I have almost always held full-time employment since I graduated from high school and I have a few years of supervisory experience. However, that is nothing compared to a 40 year old who has been working twice as long as me.
Many of these older people have been laid off or their retirement egg wasn't as much as they thought they would have so they have to re-enter the workforce. I don't blame them, but goodness it is making my look for an entry-level position in my field difficult. Oh and I am hardworking; I have been working since I was 15 and worked throughout college.
I am that generation. I don't see them lining up for manual labor/ditch digging/break a sweat work. The 55 YO simply has a better grasp on how the world functions, and how you don't always get what you want. That can include place of employment. In many cases, you do have to struggle for awhile and prove yourself before you can really start going places. It's the struggle that makes you appreciate the rewards of your efforts that much more down the road.
As previously mentioned, the older worker is hired over the younger worker for his/her experience. For any job that can lead to a career, a younger worker may be hired for his/her potential. That requires a certain hunger or desire to prove something, as well as an above and beyond effort. I'm sorry, but many of my cohorts expect something, and that's about where it ends.
Not all, but enough. But you're right, every generation has the deadbeats, losers, what have you... But at the end of the day, at least some of them should look in the mirror instead of blaming the world for their woes. We all have areas we can improve on, but few are willing to admit it anymore.
For many positions, employers do seek candidates with a little less potential to go places in life. You wouldn't hire a PhD to flip burgers, at least not if your expect to keep him there very long. In many cases, an older, more experienced worker won't be hired for a low paying, entry level job for that reason alone.
No you don't -- but that's because you didn't see them when they did do all that kind of work.
Of course the over 55 types are getting the jobs because they are the last ones with any kind of work ethic, they did the ditch digging when they needed to do that, laying around collecting unemployment handouts indefinitely wasn't how things were done in the past. Many older people worked their way through college instead of racking up $100,000+ debts or having parents mortgage away the family home.
The data appears to be false. If you use the official Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers and do your own adding, it doesn’t work. The best I come up with is the chart reflects all workers 55 plus but only those identified as males, white, with a degree, for the 16 - 55 group. If you include all 16-55 it just doesn’t support the chart.
The info is from the BLS, I don't see any mention of race or college degree's. And I don't think the point of article is to create division between age groups, but that older workers can't retire because they can't afford to.
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.
Same here
