This just sounds like everyone? I am sure some ageism happens but the only "scientific" part of this is a quick single source comparison of total number of job hunters.
For what it's worth these days in the USA, this specifically is illegal in Colorado, Delaware, Oregon and NYC. That's in addition to protections provided by the ADEA.
Yeah no. Graduates have it the hardest with regards to applying to a job. Every employer wants experience, even for entry level jobs lol. Larping as a graduate will result in even fewer interviews lol.
There’s no job loyalty but the employers expect it for some reason and decide that someone with 5 years experience will stay around longer than 25 years - though the reality isn’t that at all.
The job loyalty thing pisses me off so bad. I enjoy staying at a single company and was at my former one for nearly 5 years. That whole time though was spent fighting tooth and nail for a promotion to a position I was already acting as and then shortly after getting it, I got laid off without any remorse. I built half of their system and knew it inside and out but apparently that meant nothing
I'm at a better company now doing much cooler stuff but I still think back to that and get angry again
Yeah... I graduated roughly ten years ago and can absolutely confirm. The cognitive dissonance corporations have is astonishing as they refuse promotions and do frequent layoffs while at the same time complaining that workers aren't loyal any more. Motherfucker I'd love to be loyal. Give me good pay, good benefits, and job security and I'll stick around until retirement*, fuck.
*And MAYBE actually offer a retirement plan. Canada (and the US surely) need a huge union comeback
I've been working for Costco for the past couple months and honestly I'm incredibly grateful to be working for them.
Even though not every location is affiliated with a union, the entire company is run as if it were a union anyway. Sundays are automatic time and a half, and after 1,000 or so hours worked you get a raise (Sundays also count towards 1.5× hours worked as well). Plus my coworkers are all extremely nice and polite; like moreso than literally anywhere I've worked before. Plus we get benefits (health, vision, hearing, etc.) even as a part-time employee.
I'm in my 30s and already have a network of ex-coworkers in a number of companies who could get me in the door where they're at currently if I needed. If a 50 year old hasn't maintained contacts for this it's kind of on them.
I've put a great deal of effort into building and keeping up relationships with these people and demonstrating my value as a coworker to them. It didn't fall into my lap. I'm also quite socially anxious by nature so I had to overcome that.
Yes privilege often comes through effort. Although never effort alone. Surely you can see that had things gone differently in your life, had a few unlucky brakes happened, that you would not enjoy this privilege you brag about. That judging someone for not having what you've obtained is foolhardy. And assuming everyone has the same resources is beyond ignorant.
I don't doubt that there are people who see old person and move on to the next candidate. I also believe that many people do not redefine themselves in their careers and have not grown since they were in their late 20s. You have to grow and adapt or get left behind.
Every year I've been alive my resume grows and getting a job becomes easier and more lucrative. While im not yet 50, I find it hard to believe that experience is just going to disappear the second I'm over 50. This article is nonsense. People under 40 have been absolutely devastated in the job market over the last 20 years and we're complaining about the most privileged generations (the current over 50's) in world history not getting 100% of the jobs they don't know how to do anyway.
The system is fucked, almost nobody can retire that young. I wish I could retire at 50. I'll be lucky to retire before I'm well into my 70s. They decoupled pay from productivity decades ago and we've been getting turbofucked by greedy assholes ever since.
We should remove the cap on social security taxes to keep the SSA solvent, and also to be fair rather than regressive, but that's still not gonna cover retirements at 50.
I agree, it's not the full answer, but It's a good start.
Maybe instead of forced retirement, forced fewer hours? Heck, maybe a debt bailout for primary residence, student loans and any other life needing debt at 50, lower the age of Medicare to... 0, and I could start living off of very little dollars.
Okay so the thing is if you take the worst example of income inequality in the west, the US, Boomers as a class own 8x more than billionaires as a class.
The people you'd be taxing are exactly the people who would be receiving social security.
When you're in your 50s unless you suffering a neurological disorder, you're still sharp and aware. Just the body is starting to wear down more so they need accommodations at times. Why hire them when they can just not hire anyone and force the rest of us to worker harder for longer?
possible if you are a doctor, a tech worker that has worked 10+years, a NURSE who did travelling. they have enough income and other investments to do that. but its usually 55.
A lot of people are having kids later in life.
It's tough to feel secure enough to retire at 50 when you have 2 preteens and a mortgage.
Even without kids, the math is tough - work 30 years (20-50) and then retire ~30 (50-80?). We'd need massive safety nets in place to make retiring at 50 tenable. I'm going to hit the labor market next year and am terrified by what I'm seeing out there
Yah!
It's not like the penalties on withdrawing from your retirement accounts early actually matters?
Who isn't a billionaire at 50?
You aren't? You need to get a better job looser!
Right, because people not working for 35-40 years is good for the economy somehow? Work for 30 years then retire for more than that? This makes no sense, it's not a zero sum thing but you can't have the population idle for more years than they work.
I have a 401k - told the "planner" app to assume I will work to 70 & I might live to 90 and it says my plan has "longevity risk" . Basically that any woman who gets to my age may well get older than that.
I know that people don't like retirement age going up and up, and it would be lovely to not have to work, but on the other hand all my kids are finally adults, so these are my available prime earning years.
69 Comments
DeepRoots@lemmy.world · 98 pts · 2d
This just sounds like everyone? I am sure some ageism happens but the only "scientific" part of this is a quick single source comparison of total number of job hunters.
Its awful out there.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 31 pts · 2d
Yeah, I’m nowhere near 50 and I’m coming up on two years of Unemployment.
Tikiporch@lemmy.world · 64 pts · 2d
Never put dates on the education part of your resume.
ramble81@lemmy.zip · 43 pts · 2d
You can hide it on the resume, but a lot of sites that make you fill in all of the info on their applications make the date a mandatory field.
Tikiporch@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 2d
For what it's worth these days in the USA, this specifically is illegal in Colorado, Delaware, Oregon and NYC. That's in addition to protections provided by the ADEA.
gastroglizzy@piefed.social · 15 pts · 2d
Easy fix. Just do like everyone else and lie. The truth doesn't matter anymore.
SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip · 13 pts · 2d
If they call you on it, just say you're ambitious and may run for President one day.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 2d
Date? Half the jobs I apply for require a transcript!
stoly@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2d
Or--and stay with me here--get some graduate certificate and make that the only thing that appears on your education.
blackberry28@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 1d
Yeah no. Graduates have it the hardest with regards to applying to a job. Every employer wants experience, even for entry level jobs lol. Larping as a graduate will result in even fewer interviews lol.
stoly@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
A degree is a reset button on your career and shows growth. It sets you apart from all the other 50 year olds.
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de · 40 pts · 2d
Sounds like the job market as a whole.
There’s no job loyalty but the employers expect it for some reason and decide that someone with 5 years experience will stay around longer than 25 years - though the reality isn’t that at all.
NotSteve_@lemmy.ca · 29 pts · 2d
The job loyalty thing pisses me off so bad. I enjoy staying at a single company and was at my former one for nearly 5 years. That whole time though was spent fighting tooth and nail for a promotion to a position I was already acting as and then shortly after getting it, I got laid off without any remorse. I built half of their system and knew it inside and out but apparently that meant nothing
I'm at a better company now doing much cooler stuff but I still think back to that and get angry again
W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 2d
Let the lesson to the younger generation be that if you have to fight for a promotion, go elsewhere and get it.
NotSteve_@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 2d
Yeah... I graduated roughly ten years ago and can absolutely confirm. The cognitive dissonance corporations have is astonishing as they refuse promotions and do frequent layoffs while at the same time complaining that workers aren't loyal any more. Motherfucker I'd love to be loyal. Give me good pay, good benefits, and job security and I'll stick around until retirement*, fuck.
*And MAYBE actually offer a retirement plan. Canada (and the US surely) need a huge union comeback
Zahille7@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
I've been working for Costco for the past couple months and honestly I'm incredibly grateful to be working for them.
Even though not every location is affiliated with a union, the entire company is run as if it were a union anyway. Sundays are automatic time and a half, and after 1,000 or so hours worked you get a raise (Sundays also count towards 1.5× hours worked as well). Plus my coworkers are all extremely nice and polite; like moreso than literally anywhere I've worked before. Plus we get benefits (health, vision, hearing, etc.) even as a part-time employee.
bowsertattoo@piefed.social · 27 pts · 2d
in my 30s, having the same experience. completely invisible.
Son_of_Macha@lemmy.cafe · -36 pts · 2d
Take a whole 2 seconds to consider how much worse it would be if you were over 50, before crying about it.
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip · 20 pts · 2d
Yeah, and you should take two whole second to realize how much worse it would be in you were over 50 and in Gaza. Checkmate.
bowsertattoo@piefed.social · 17 pts · 2d
so assuming i'm 80% transparent, a 50 year old might be 95% transparent? very low opacity
boonhet@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 1d
At 50 you're bound to have more connections than 30 though. That's way more people to ask for a job.
Sharkticon@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 1d
Wildly optimistic
lightnsfw@reddthat.com · -7 pts · 1d
I'm in my 30s and already have a network of ex-coworkers in a number of companies who could get me in the door where they're at currently if I needed. If a 50 year old hasn't maintained contacts for this it's kind of on them.
Sharkticon@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 1d
How privileged you are.
lightnsfw@reddthat.com · -2 pts · 1d
I've put a great deal of effort into building and keeping up relationships with these people and demonstrating my value as a coworker to them. It didn't fall into my lap. I'm also quite socially anxious by nature so I had to overcome that.
Sharkticon@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 1d
Yes privilege often comes through effort. Although never effort alone. Surely you can see that had things gone differently in your life, had a few unlucky brakes happened, that you would not enjoy this privilege you brag about. That judging someone for not having what you've obtained is foolhardy. And assuming everyone has the same resources is beyond ignorant.
Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 23 pts · 2d
Have you tried getting into US politics?
JustPlainDave@lemmy.zip · 14 pts · 2d
Not old enough.
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 1d
Have you tried burning everything to the ground, starting with the people and things most responsible for society's problems and most benefiting?
scytale@piefed.zip · 22 pts · 2d
Most of the people around that age at my work who were laid off were basically forced to retire.
heartSagan5@lemmy.zip · 20 pts · 1d
A handful of interviews? Man, they're getting better responses than me, and I've been looking for over 6 years because I wanted to leave my last job.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 12 pts · 2d
Same in the us but really I don't think jobs are falling into younger folks laps.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club · 10 pts · 2d
I'm not surprised. I've seen it, even in industries which value experience.
myyass@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
Having to do online cr'application's and taking modified MMPI tests doesn't help.
stoly@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2d
I don't doubt that there are people who see old person and move on to the next candidate. I also believe that many people do not redefine themselves in their careers and have not grown since they were in their late 20s. You have to grow and adapt or get left behind.
Phantom_Feline17@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 1d
I've tried editing my CV according to ATS but still havent had luck.
pyr0ball@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 1d
I'm building some self-hostable software that will tune resumes and cover letters to each job posting: https://docs.circuitforge.tech/peregrine/
There's also a free online version hosted at the main site
Phantom_Feline17@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 21h
Thanks. Will check jt out
pyr0ball@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 2h
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 1d
If only anybody could identify what the problem was..
I guess it'll remain a forever mystery.
MonkRome@lemmy.world · -13 pts · 2d
Every year I've been alive my resume grows and getting a job becomes easier and more lucrative. While im not yet 50, I find it hard to believe that experience is just going to disappear the second I'm over 50. This article is nonsense. People under 40 have been absolutely devastated in the job market over the last 20 years and we're complaining about the most privileged generations (the current over 50's) in world history not getting 100% of the jobs they don't know how to do anyway.
natecox@programming.dev · 6 pts · 2d
Fishnoodle@lemmy.world · -35 pts · 2d
At 50 you should be retiring to make way for new workers. That's how you keep a healthy job market
nexguy@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 2d
Nono one retires at 50
_haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works · 33 pts · 2d
The system is fucked, almost nobody can retire that young. I wish I could retire at 50. I'll be lucky to retire before I'm well into my 70s. They decoupled pay from productivity decades ago and we've been getting turbofucked by greedy assholes ever since.
BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 2d
Wages haven't kept up with expenses, and less people are able to retire early because of it.
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works · 25 pts · 2d
Let's start negotiating for this then: mandatory retirement at 50, paid for by social security taxes on remaining workers. Deal?
Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de · 24 pts · 2d
Paid for by social security taxes on millionaires and up.
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 2d
We should remove the cap on social security taxes to keep the SSA solvent, and also to be fair rather than regressive, but that's still not gonna cover retirements at 50.
Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 2d
I agree, it's not the full answer, but It's a good start.
Maybe instead of forced retirement, forced fewer hours? Heck, maybe a debt bailout for primary residence, student loans and any other life needing debt at 50, lower the age of Medicare to... 0, and I could start living off of very little dollars.
boonhet@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 1d
Okay so the thing is if you take the worst example of income inequality in the west, the US, Boomers as a class own 8x more than billionaires as a class.
The people you'd be taxing are exactly the people who would be receiving social security.
FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 2d
At fifty?
How the fuck are people going to retire at fifty?
I'm in a fairly good position, but I would have no chance of any sort of life if I had to live for thirty years without working
Are you trolling, or are you stupid?
ramble81@lemmy.zip · 19 pts · 2d
They’re young most likely and think that 40yos are “old timers”
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 2d
When you're in your 50s unless you suffering a neurological disorder, you're still sharp and aware. Just the body is starting to wear down more so they need accommodations at times. Why hire them when they can just not hire anyone and force the rest of us to worker harder for longer?
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 1d
possible if you are a doctor, a tech worker that has worked 10+years, a NURSE who did travelling. they have enough income and other investments to do that. but its usually 55.
Fishnoodle@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1d
Being able to retire at 50 means that you've contributed at least 25 years of labor. In my case about 35 years.
People get shorter prison sentences for committing murder.
Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 2d
A lot of people are having kids later in life. It's tough to feel secure enough to retire at 50 when you have 2 preteens and a mortgage.
Even without kids, the math is tough - work 30 years (20-50) and then retire ~30 (50-80?). We'd need massive safety nets in place to make retiring at 50 tenable. I'm going to hit the labor market next year and am terrified by what I'm seeing out there
boonhet@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 1d
Yeah, retiring at 50 works if everyone under 50 is a slave.
Steve@communick.news · 17 pts · 2d
Yah!
It's not like the penalties on withdrawing from your retirement accounts early actually matters?
Who isn't a billionaire at 50? You aren't? You need to get a better job looser!
jade52@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 2d
What world do you live in where the average person can retire at 50!?!
Fishnoodle@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
I'm saying, that SHOULD be the standard, not that it is
jade52@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 1d
Ok agreed. It should be the standard for sure.
Taleya@aussie.zone · 9 pts · 2d
You gonna support me? Pay my mortgage? Damned fool
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 1d
50yo dont retire in any country lol. 55 is the earliest people consider retiring, and its mostly people who earn 200k+year with investments.
RBWells@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Right, because people not working for 35-40 years is good for the economy somehow? Work for 30 years then retire for more than that? This makes no sense, it's not a zero sum thing but you can't have the population idle for more years than they work.
I have a 401k - told the "planner" app to assume I will work to 70 & I might live to 90 and it says my plan has "longevity risk" . Basically that any woman who gets to my age may well get older than that.
I know that people don't like retirement age going up and up, and it would be lovely to not have to work, but on the other hand all my kids are finally adults, so these are my available prime earning years.
boonhet@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
Yes because the workers aren't paying enough tax to support the owner class (people over 50)