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 false belief that younger workers are cheap. Many young people make six figure salaries. Most places aren't hiring using actuarial data.
Your ability to combine nonsense in a single paragraph always amazes me. Just because some "young people" make six figures and most smaller companies don't watch their insurance pool data like a stock ticker doesn't contradict the general fact that yes, younger workers are almost always cheaper than older ones.
Quote:
The point is that many claims of age discrimination from a resume submission are false.
You know those oval things horses leave in the street? That.
* No date on degree, so older worker trying to hide graduation date
* only 9 years experience listed.
* two senior roles listed as experience - yah right, kid graduated college and was made a PM.
So I think this was a age 40+ person trying to avoid the massive age discrimination in Silicon Valley.
It's a false belief that younger workers are cheap. Many young people make six figure salaries.
You forgot the fact that health insurance is EXPENSIVE for older workers. A 55 year old is paying 15-20K a year. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act they get dinged an extra 40% tax on top of that.
The ACA has just legalized age discrimination. And nobody talks about that.
You forgot the fact that health insurance is EXPENSIVE for older workers. A 55 year old is paying 15-20K a year. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act they get dinged an extra 40% tax on top of that.
The ACA has just legalized age discrimination. And nobody talks about that.
You've made exactly this point several times. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think you'd have trouble naming companies of any size who have not always provided health coverage on some basis, whether being bound to or not, often with significant employee sharing. It's pretty much the definition of "benefits" and has been for decades.
AFAIK, companies are only bound to offer coverage to all qualified employees on the same terms - which could be 100% employer paid or even 100% employee paid. A split is usual. I think it's hard to make much of a case that ACA changed all that much in this respect. It is easier to say costlier insurance is a factor against older employees, but nothing much is stopping companies from adjusting compensation around that cost.
You forgot the fact that health insurance is EXPENSIVE for older workers. A 55 year old is paying 15-20K a year. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act they get dinged an extra 40% tax on top of that.
The ACA has just legalized age discrimination. And nobody talks about that.
This makes no sense. I've never seen any employer plan that charges based on age. What are you talking about? Insurance companies are not charging based on the age of employees.
This makes no sense. I've never seen any employer plan that charges based on age. What are you talking about? Insurance companies are not charging based on the age of employees.
This is 100% unsubstantiated.
And (not for the first time) you are 100% wrong.
I'm beginning to think you don't know anything but prejudices you learned some long time ago.
You are correct, age should not matter. But it does. Ever hear of age discrimination? It is alive and well. Younger job candidates usually command lower salaries. It is cheaper to hire them. It's all about money and saving a buck. In addition younger candidates are more inexperienced in the workforce and are more "moldable", whereas older candidates have experience, "have been there and done that", and know better how to look out for themselves. Older candidates that are past 40 tend to be looked at as set in their ways and unable to properly learn new things. So age matters. It matters a lot.
But we're talking about a resume. First pass through HR or key hiring personnel. Every hiring decision I've been involved in, I look at the experience first, granted I'm not in HR. If they are in senior positions and/or have high-level experience, I already know they will command a higher salary. Some older people actually do keep themselves sharp and fresh, but I work in the Bay Area, so probably not the case for the rest of the country. The point is, when I'm looking over a resume and a portfolio of work, their age is the last thing on my mind when I'm considering whether I want to do an interview with them, it's strictly -are they or are they not qualified and right for the role?
But we're talking about a resume. First pass through HR or key hiring personnel. Every hiring decision I've been involved in, I look at the experience first, granted I'm not in HR. If they are in senior positions and/or have high-level experience, I already know they will command a higher salary. Some older people actually do keep themselves sharp and fresh, but I work in the Bay Area, so probably not the case for the rest of the country. The point is, when I'm looking over a resume and a portfolio of work, their age is the last thing on my mind when I'm considering whether I want to do an interview with them, it's strictly -are they or are they not qualified and right for the role?
Yes, for first pass, it is important to determine if the job candidate is qualified for the position. No need to check the ages of people at this point. That will come later as a list of eligible candidates is formed.
I'm beginning to think you don't know anything but prejudices you learned some long time ago.
This is the employment forum. If people think there are companies hiring people based off of health insurance concerns, you are mistaken.
Let's ask the hiring managers. Do any of you contact HR or the benefits department to get a breakdown out the costs the insurance companies are charging your company? Then, are you using that info in your individual hiring decisions?
Last edited by charlygal; 05-04-2019 at 04:20 AM..
This is the employment forum. If people think there are companies hiring people based off of health insurance concerns, you are mistaken.
Just boggling.
Quote:
Let's ask the hiring managers. Do any of you contact HR or the benefits department to get a breakdown out the costs the insurance companies are charging your company? Then, are you using that info in your individual hiring decisions?
You may have something of a point in very large companies, one with insurance pools so large that a percentage of older employees don't really matter. Something about your posts make me think you've never worked below the Fortune 500 level.
But I assure you, from direct information, and from having run a smaller company during the insurance skyrocket, the issue of older employee health care coverage costs is a very big deal when you have only 20 or 30 employees, or less.
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.
