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.
This is a myth. Most companies don't like to hire older workers because they think it will jack up healthcare costs, they think the older employee will not want to "climb" the ladder, they think the older employee will not be physically able to keep up.
I am low-income, mid-fifties and no stranger to experiencing age discrimination while job searching (although, have never been fired due to age).
If anyone thinks it is hard job searching in the age of Coronavirus, try doing it over the age of 50. IMO, it is not due to salary. Many middle and lower income older workers experience age discrimination.
You're agreeing with me, you just don't see the whole picture..
What I said and what you said are part of the same cycle.
You're expected to be 'this' at age 55 and if not you're put out to pasture.
That needs to be broken, and the first way to break it is what I mentioned...
Obviously we all know of these things, but nothing we can really do about it.
The one saving grace for me is that my company has never tried to get rid of older workers and in fact in my department we have multiple people in their 50's and even 60's (and a lot of younger and middle of the pack people as well, very diverse). So long as we have work to do, my company values 'loyalty' and will keep you as long as you want to stay.
Too bad I couldn't say the same for many other companies it appears.
If we were willing to allow a progressively earlier age entry into Medicare 90% would be gone already.
The higher earning employee's especially will stay put for group medical insurance. Fix it.
2008 @ age 62 = those born 1946 (the earliest of all boomers)
2012 @ age 59 = born 1953
2016 @ age 55 = born 1961 (the youngest of al boomers)
As with everything, it depends what you do and what your level of expertise is - e.g., A 50 year old assembly line worker is easy to replace, while a 50 year old, seasoned engineer is generally not. I can assure you that many of the 50-somethings in my company are borderline irreplaceable. It would take 3, 30 year olds to do one of their jobs and take them 2-3 years to get up to speed. In the end, everyone is replaceable. It all depends on how much pain the replacer is willing to endure. A smart 50 year old has put his or herself in a position where they would be difficult to do without and, moreover, where a competitor would be happy to have them on board.
Exactly. Gen X missed out on all the Boomer bennies.
Not all of us. I slipped in the door in the early 90's when my employer was still offering pensions. They stopped doing this 4 years after I hired on. Now I get to retire in 2 yrs. at 56 and get a small monthly stipend, but the best part is I will get affordable healthcare, around $300 a month for my insurance. Not great, but cheaper than many alternatives. And I'm lucky to be in a union, they can't just lay me off, they can get rid of my job, but due to my seniority, they have to move me to another one and those being laid off have less seniority than me. They'd have to close the whole place down before they get to me in layoffs, cause few people would be left here by then.
So in your mind, there is no reason for anyone to ever improve themselves, by going back to school and improving their skills.
OK folks, let's close down all those colleges, universities, and schools.
Making more $ does not equal improving yourself ... though that's the big fallacy of society.
It takes roughly 5-10 years to learn how to do most careers, after that it's a running game of trying to lobby for higher paid management and business development, and consulting positions. Not everywhere mind you, but a lot of job places.
You think fancy titles like Senior Vice President mean that somebody is better than you?
And I'll tell you something else. Many, if not most people in those senior positions truly believe they've 'earned' the right to sit back and watch others work. And some will admit it unabashedly...
Going back to school and learning something NEW or to improve your skillset at age 55 is a great idea...
I've been through several layoffs and recessions (I always made it through, thank goodness). But getting rid of older workers is par for the course. Partly because they get paid more, and partly because they have more benefits (like more vacation days), and partly because they have more health problems (this raises the ins. premiums, and causes more time off).
Let's face it...experience is worth keeping around. An experienced employee is valuable. But in bad times, it makes sense to some companies to get rid of someone making $80,000 and getting 20 days vacation & 10 personal days, and has some medical conditions, and give that work to someone 10 yrs younger making $70,000 who gets 10 days vacation & 8 personal days and no medical conditions.
They also get rid of younger employees with issues, like health issues, personal problems, doesn't get along with co-workers. They work from the bottom up, getting rid of the least desirable first.
One thing that matters, that I've seen, that workers don't think of, is being a team player, helpful to coworkers, well liked. That carries a lot of weight. It's very desirable to keep someone around, if s/he is ready willing & able to help anyone do anything, has a good attitude, is fun and pleasant to have around, is good at performing the work.... Such employees are not that common, so I've seen them kept in layoffs, presumably for those reasons. They're valuable.
Schmoozers always make it through. They bring gifts to the boss, laugh at his jokes, etc. We've all seen the schmoozers at work. It works. They're kept around, usually.
It's a little sad, but honestly, that's how it should be.
The primary concern for 90% of people is to make a salary commensurate with the amount of experience they have, sometimes when that experience varies from old, to tangential, to downright inapplicable.
I mean, there's people who work in the position above me who have to ask me questions about things.
Basically, if another person below you can do your job, you should get paid roughly the same. Maybe you should get thrown a bone for being several years older, but the system gives superfluous salary to people who bring nothing more to the table but age.
And don't even get me into overpaid executive roles.
But that's the way of the (at least American) system. People want to be 35 years old and making 100K so they can buy a house, they want to be 50 years old and making 150K so they can send their kid to college, and they want to be 65 years old and making 200K a year so they can pad their retirement travels.
Not efficient to companies or society (but makes some people a lot of $...)
Maybe this really will happen and it will wake people up to find jobs that fit them better or bring them more purpose than just slogging along at an inflated mid six figure job looking at retirement.
There's nothing wrong with being 55 years old and being paid the same thing as a 25 year old.
You should save this to your pc & look at it when you're 58 years old.
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.
