S/O Ageism-proof professions/industries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:

1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output

As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.

There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.

Disagree as they are constantly trying to use offshore ppl. I've seen good ppl given the ax or forced into early retirement in their 40s.

That's true, but I don't think that's age-related. I've moved 40% of my team offshore for cost savings, but I'm still hiring people of all ages in multiple countries.

So depressing.

I'm not sure why it's depressing to give people in traditionally oppressed and impoverished locations a chance at a good job and life, but okay.

Keep telling yourself that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have the following professionals in my life

Estate attorney--he owns the business, he is in his 90's
Appliance repair guy--just turned 90, Asian
Electrician--he is in his 70's, African American, looks much much younger, his work crew is all in their 20's
Driver (to and from airport)--nice African American lady in her 80's, always well dressed and made up nicely
Pastors--The last two have been in their 70's

I would be ok with a pastor in their 70s and an electrician manager in their 70s. Definitely would not have someone in their 80s as a driver, an estate attorney in their 90s, or an appliance repair person who is 90. Mental and physical faculties decline substantially after 80 even for people who are you in relatively good shape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:

1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output

As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.

There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.

Disagree as they are constantly trying to use offshore ppl. I've seen good ppl given the ax or forced into early retirement in their 40s.

That's true, but I don't think that's age-related. I've moved 40% of my team offshore for cost savings, but I'm still hiring people of all ages in multiple countries.

So depressing.

I'm not sure why it's depressing to give people in traditionally oppressed and impoverished locations a chance at a good job and life, but okay.

They are taking away American jobs from American people. Clearly you sleep at night by justifying as you just did. Just own it. You are doing it to save money.

Correct. Just as I would hire cheaper in the United States if I could. But now I have access to the global talent market, making my team more effective per dollar while saving on the bottom line.

But I'm not taking any jobs away from Americans. Our unemployment rate is very low and there aren't enough people to fill all the openings in my field (cyber). So either we let our systems be insecure or we hire outside the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe surprising but I believe law is very ageist

+1 I know lots of people struggling, particularly in specialties that don't translate to other formats.Once you are "too skilled," there are fewer top jobs, so it's hard to get them. And no one wants to hire a former partner-level person for a lower level job because they know/believe they will be unhappy in it. And it is hard to switch from firm to in house because you have no in house experience, and vice versa. There are always exceptions, but the majority of 40-70yo lawyers looking for jobs are going to have a hard time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:

1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output

As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.

There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.

This is text book lawsuit evidence for age discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:

1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output

As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.

There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.

Disagree as they are constantly trying to use offshore ppl. I've seen good ppl given the ax or forced into early retirement in their 40s.

That's true, but I don't think that's age-related. I've moved 40% of my team offshore for cost savings, but I'm still hiring people of all ages in multiple countries.

So depressing.

I'm not sure why it's depressing to give people in traditionally oppressed and impoverished locations a chance at a good job and life, but okay.

They are taking away American jobs from American people. Clearly you sleep at night by justifying as you just did. Just own it. You are doing it to save money.

Seriously. Just own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:

1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output

As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.

There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.

This is text book lawsuit evidence for age discrimination.

Yeah, no it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:

1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output

As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.

There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.

Disagree as they are constantly trying to use offshore ppl. I've seen good ppl given the ax or forced into early retirement in their 40s.

That's true, but I don't think that's age-related. I've moved 40% of my team offshore for cost savings, but I'm still hiring people of all ages in multiple countries.

So depressing.

I'm not sure why it's depressing to give people in traditionally oppressed and impoverished locations a chance at a good job and life, but okay.

They are taking away American jobs from American people. Clearly you sleep at night by justifying as you just did. Just own it. You are doing it to save money.

Correct. Just as I would hire cheaper in the United States if I could. But now I have access to the global talent market, making my team more effective per dollar while saving on the bottom line.

But I'm not taking any jobs away from Americans. Our unemployment rate is very low and there aren't enough people to fill all the openings in my field (cyber). So either we let our systems be insecure or we hire outside the US.

Hopefully, our data will be secure when it's offshored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:

1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output

As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.

There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.

Disagree as they are constantly trying to use offshore ppl. I've seen good ppl given the ax or forced into early retirement in their 40s.

That's true, but I don't think that's age-related. I've moved 40% of my team offshore for cost savings, but I'm still hiring people of all ages in multiple countries.

So depressing.

I'm not sure why it's depressing to give people in traditionally oppressed and impoverished locations a chance at a good job and life, but okay.

Telescopic philanthropy.
The modern liberal sneers at their cousins in the trailer park down the street but their hearts bleed for peasants on the other side of the globe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:

1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output

As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.

There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.

This is text book lawsuit evidence for age discrimination.

Yeah, no it's not.

You are listing those qualities which do not just apply to young people. Many older people are high energy, especially with GenZ prioritizing “chill”, many older people have current skills (they are in the industry, how could they not?), and demonstrating output is something you measure AFTER hiring someone.

Yet you offer it up a to why younger employees are “better suited”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe surprising but I believe law is very ageist

Yes, unless one either has a personal large book of business and/or regularly brings in new business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:

1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output

As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.

There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.

This is text book lawsuit evidence for age discrimination.

Yeah, no it's not.

You are listing those qualities which do not just apply to young people. Many older people are high energy, especially with GenZ prioritizing “chill”, many older people have current skills (they are in the industry, how could they not?), and demonstrating output is something you measure AFTER hiring someone.

Yet you offer it up a to why younger employees are “better suited”

Nope. The tech industry hires for those qualities. I'm simply recognizing the reality that those qualities tend to fade as workers age. Exceptions exist and they are the ones who keep their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:

1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output

As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.

There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.

This is text book lawsuit evidence for age discrimination.

Yeah, no it's not.

You are listing those qualities which do not just apply to young people. Many older people are high energy, especially with GenZ prioritizing “chill”, many older people have current skills (they are in the industry, how could they not?), and demonstrating output is something you measure AFTER hiring someone.

Yet you offer it up a to why younger employees are “better suited”

Nope. The tech industry hires for those qualities. I'm simply recognizing the reality that those qualities tend to fade as workers age. Exceptions exist and they are the ones who keep their jobs.

How do our even measure those qualities in your hiring process? The only remotely measurable one would be current skills, and that is pretty common for current employees to be trained on the current technologies and skills; if anything programming and technology has so much more automation and abstraction that most of it is much less complicated to learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:

1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output

As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.

There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.

This is text book lawsuit evidence for age discrimination.

Yeah, no it's not.

You are listing those qualities which do not just apply to young people. Many older people are high energy, especially with GenZ prioritizing “chill”, many older people have current skills (they are in the industry, how could they not?), and demonstrating output is something you measure AFTER hiring someone.

Yet you offer it up a to why younger employees are “better suited”

Nope. The tech industry hires for those qualities. I'm simply recognizing the reality that those qualities tend to fade as workers age. Exceptions exist and they are the ones who keep their jobs.

How do our even measure those qualities in your hiring process? The only remotely measurable one would be current skills, and that is pretty common for current employees to be trained on the current technologies and skills; if anything programming and technology has so much more automation and abstraction that most of it is much less complicated to learn.

You can often get a sense for how fast somebody can run during an interview, but the current skills is the easiest as you said. It's post hiring where all these characteristics really come to light. For people who can't keep up (regardless of age, obviously) or doesn't produce at an appropriate pace, we give them support and coaching as much as we can, but they often eventually guided to the door.

Again, I think the industry is actually age agnostic. If you can meet the demands of the role, it's all yours. The "greybeards" (which highlights the probably bigger issue of sexism in tech) are revered and respected. But my point is that the reality of life is that most of us slow down as we age, either because we're physically tired, distracted by the demands of life, or (appropriately) decide that there's more to this existence than being at the top of our professional game. And that has an impact on employability.

I should note that this is hardly exclusive to tech. It's less that tech is ageist and more than there are only a few industries that aren't (to the OP's point). Find an industry that's knowledge based and doesn't change much or quickly. Law, accounting, engineering... there aren't many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:

1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output

As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.

There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.

This is text book lawsuit evidence for age discrimination.

Yeah, no it's not.

You are listing those qualities which do not just apply to young people. Many older people are high energy, especially with GenZ prioritizing “chill”, many older people have current skills (they are in the industry, how could they not?), and demonstrating output is something you measure AFTER hiring someone.

Yet you offer it up a to why younger employees are “better suited”

Nope. The tech industry hires for those qualities. I'm simply recognizing the reality that those qualities tend to fade as workers age. Exceptions exist and they are the ones who keep their jobs.

How do our even measure those qualities in your hiring process? The only remotely measurable one would be current skills, and that is pretty common for current employees to be trained on the current technologies and skills; if anything programming and technology has so much more automation and abstraction that most of it is much less complicated to learn.

You can often get a sense for how fast somebody can run during an interview, but the current skills is the easiest as you said. It's post hiring where all these characteristics really come to light. For people who can't keep up (regardless of age, obviously) or doesn't produce at an appropriate pace, we give them support and coaching as much as we can, but they often eventually guided to the door.

Again, I think the industry is actually age agnostic. If you can meet the demands of the role, it's all yours. The "greybeards" (which highlights the probably bigger issue of sexism in tech) are revered and respected. But my point is that the reality of life is that most of us slow down as we age, either because we're physically tired, distracted by the demands of life, or (appropriately) decide that there's more to this existence than being at the top of our professional game. And that has an impact on employability.

I should note that this is hardly exclusive to tech. It's less that tech is ageist and more than there are only a few industries that aren't (to the OP's point). Find an industry that's knowledge based and doesn't change much or quickly. Law, accounting, engineering... there aren't many.

You are spot on. I don’t know why PP can’t understand it.