Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no age discrimination in corporate America.

However it is the Triangle approach to staffing.
Take a small two hundred person company.
One each CEO, COO, CFO, CIO, CTO, CAE and CHRO.
Now around 3-5 VPs or SVPs running business,

Maybe 10-20 Managers or VPs directors below that.

Now you are at maybe 40 roles suitable for experience people over 50.

Which means 160 of roles are staff more suitable people less experience or younger. That is 80 percent of company.

Which means if you don’t have skills to do top 20 percent of jobs by 50 you will be in trouble.

This is a good explanation.

Yes, this. If you are at the top of your field in a leadership role, you may be able to find an equivalent position but most people won't be able to. I'm actually ok with this. I'm 56 and I think if I lost my job, I'd happily take a smaller job on my way to my fun retirement part-time gig.

If you worked at my company, I'd lay you off now. You are obviously wasting your time trolling at work, making up stories, and have already downshifted.

and what are you doing on DCUM? working?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every person over 50 who has been laid off or fired at my company (not is not lot number wise, but it has been EVERY person) tries to claim ageism. It's never been ageism. We have documented the reasons, and employ people well into their 70s in some cases.

We've also fired off plenty of young people. We follow the same procedure no matter the age, and comply with all laws.

Unless you literally work in HR, you are full of crap and just being nasty. As someone who actually knows what happens in RIF, I can say that layoffs of older workers are justified because they often garner higher salaries but if you think that is the end of it, you are ignorant. The unemployment stats cited above do not include the many older workers who were not able to find other jobs once laid off and so are ‘retired’ or remain underemployed. Educate yourself. And btw you will be there soon enough.

I’m a hiring mgr, age 60. I don’t like to hire anyone above 48. It’s smart business.

You're not a hiring mgr.

You are 100% incorrect

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no age discrimination in corporate America.

However it is the Triangle approach to staffing.
Take a small two hundred person company.
One each CEO, COO, CFO, CIO, CTO, CAE and CHRO.
Now around 3-5 VPs or SVPs running business,

Maybe 10-20 Managers or VPs directors below that.

Now you are at maybe 40 roles suitable for experience people over 50.

Which means 160 of roles are staff more suitable people less experience or younger. That is 80 percent of company.

Which means if you don’t have skills to do top 20 percent of jobs by 50 you will be in trouble.

This is a good explanation.

Yes, this. If you are at the top of your field in a leadership role, you may be able to find an equivalent position but most people won't be able to. I'm actually ok with this. I'm 56 and I think if I lost my job, I'd happily take a smaller job on my way to my fun retirement part-time gig.

If you worked at my company, I'd lay you off now. You are obviously wasting your time trolling at work, making up stories, and have already downshifted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no age discrimination in corporate America.

However it is the Triangle approach to staffing.
Take a small two hundred person company.
One each CEO, COO, CFO, CIO, CTO, CAE and CHRO.
Now around 3-5 VPs or SVPs running business,

Maybe 10-20 Managers or VPs directors below that.

Now you are at maybe 40 roles suitable for experience people over 50.

Which means 160 of roles are staff more suitable people less experience or younger. That is 80 percent of company.

Which means if you don’t have skills to do top 20 percent of jobs by 50 you will be in trouble.

This is a good explanation.

Yes, this. If you are at the top of your field in a leadership role, you may be able to find an equivalent position but most people won't be able to. I'm actually ok with this. I'm 56 and I think if I lost my job, I'd happily take a smaller job on my way to my fun retirement part-time gig.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think older workers need to consider moving to easier jobs and lower salaries. It’s not always a continuous upward path of improvement for a worker. Sometimes you’re not as good as you were twenty years ago.

Also your health costs rise sharply as you get older. A lot.

Exactly this, and what I am preparing for. I am 47 and assuming at some point I will have to downshift. Holding on as long as I can, but at least debt free and on track to be mortgage-free (or able to be if I need to) within 5 years. Hopefully can hold out for 6-7 more years to get my kids all the way through college debt-free.
I actually love doing work like building, repairs, and carpentry. Maybe I’ll become a low-cost handyman.

Why not high cost? If you can get the job done right you’ll be in demand and can charge a good price

Maybe they do not want to rip people off on small jobs. I’ve been on the receiving end of absurd estimates for routine stuff and it’s horrible.

One man's rip off is another man's living wage.

As a house owner, we all want some poor guy who loads up his tools in the trailer park and comes over in his 20 year old pickup to do high end work for $20/hr. His wife is a teacher's aid, so he doesn't have to cover health insurance. He's a simple man on partial disability. Had some bad luck. Grateful for the work.

In other words, exploited.

Stop trying to rip off blue collar people. I told the young man remodeling my bathroom that he needed to charge me more, that his estimate was too low, and we did a quick crash course in rule of thumb multipliers in project management. In the end, he charged me more and we were both happy.

I work for a F500. It can seem like there is ageism but it's more complicated than that. The PP above who showed the pyramid structure nailed it well. There's fewer roles the higher you go but people treat careers as perpetual advancement. Therein lies the conflict.

And as someone who's 46 going on 47, it's undeniable that peak energy seems to be 30 to 45. Maybe 50. That's the energy to work long hours, be super proactive, to grind out work, to eagery network. After 50 most people want to slow down and ride it out till retirement. There are exceptions, yes.

Tenure = increasing costs. The longer you stay in a role the more expensive you become for that role. Most of the time it's fine, you can be valued for institutional knowledge. But if you are average for your role and there's a RIF, which always happens at some point, you're at risk over a cheaper person. Many people in their 50s get reorged out this way.

For people wanting to survive, don't stop learning, don't slow down, don't stay in a role for too long. Even in the same company. It's worth it to move roles every 4-5 years so you avoid starting to appear as a dead end deadweight. Or find that team with a bunch of 20-30 year careerists and get on it, as that's a sign it's under someone who proactively keeps long term employees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think older workers need to consider moving to easier jobs and lower salaries. It’s not always a continuous upward path of improvement for a worker. Sometimes you’re not as good as you were twenty years ago.

Also your health costs rise sharply as you get older. A lot.

Exactly this, and what I am preparing for. I am 47 and assuming at some point I will have to downshift. Holding on as long as I can, but at least debt free and on track to be mortgage-free (or able to be if I need to) within 5 years. Hopefully can hold out for 6-7 more years to get my kids all the way through college debt-free.
I actually love doing work like building, repairs, and carpentry. Maybe I’ll become a low-cost handyman.

Why not high cost? If you can get the job done right you’ll be in demand and can charge a good price

Maybe they do not want to rip people off on small jobs. I’ve been on the receiving end of absurd estimates for routine stuff and it’s horrible.

Anonymous wrote:There is no age discrimination in corporate America.

However it is the Triangle approach to staffing.
Take a small two hundred person company.
One each CEO, COO, CFO, CIO, CTO, CAE and CHRO.
Now around 3-5 VPs or SVPs running business,

Maybe 10-20 Managers or VPs directors below that.

Now you are at maybe 40 roles suitable for experience people over 50.

Which means 160 of roles are staff more suitable people less experience or younger. That is 80 percent of company.

Which means if you don’t have skills to do top 20 percent of jobs by 50 you will be in trouble.

This is a good explanation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For some reason situations like this make me think about an elderly lady I know who lives in San Francisco in senior housing, gets snap and Medicaid and works as a nanny under the table, bringing in 5k monthly, paying like $300 for her apartment.

If she's elderly she'd get medicare and social security so she wouldn't get $300 a month.

Sounds like she’s getting rent control or low income housing since her income is under the table.

It’s well past time to catch these cheaters. No reason that kind of thing should be continuing in this day and age.

Anonymous wrote:The younger workers calling for the olds to beat and step down it are making it easy to not want to back maternity/paternity leave, working from home, and other family friendly policies that primarily benefit younger workers with younger families. Suck it up losers, right?

This isn’t a thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every person over 50 who has been laid off or fired at my company (not is not lot number wise, but it has been EVERY person) tries to claim ageism. It's never been ageism. We have documented the reasons, and employ people well into their 70s in some cases.

We've also fired off plenty of young people. We follow the same procedure no matter the age, and comply with all laws.

Unless you literally work in HR, you are full of crap and just being nasty. As someone who actually knows what happens in RIF, I can say that layoffs of older workers are justified because they often garner higher salaries but if you think that is the end of it, you are ignorant. The unemployment stats cited above do not include the many older workers who were not able to find other jobs once laid off and so are ‘retired’ or remain underemployed. Educate yourself. And btw you will be there soon enough.

I’m a hiring mgr, age 60. I don’t like to hire anyone above 48. It’s smart business.

You're not a hiring mgr.

There is no age discrimination in corporate America.

However it is the Triangle approach to staffing.
Take a small two hundred person company.
One each CEO, COO, CFO, CIO, CTO, CAE and CHRO.
Now around 3-5 VPs or SVPs running business,

Maybe 10-20 Managers or VPs directors below that.

Now you are at maybe 40 roles suitable for experience people over 50.

Which means 160 of roles are staff more suitable people less experience or younger. That is 80 percent of company.

Which means if you don’t have skills to do top 20 percent of jobs by 50 you will be in trouble.

Anonymous wrote:OP, it’s time to reskill and move if needed, just like the coal miners in WVA.

This is your retirement plan right? Just asking because I'm sure you would be holding yourself to the same standard.

Anonymous wrote:OP, it’s time to reskill and move if needed, just like the coal miners in WVA.

Interestingly, the safest jobs after 50 are nannying, eldercare, house management, things like that. People who didn’t care for a career or are wise enough to let go of the notion come out ahead. It’s uncanny,

Anonymous wrote:For some reason situations like this make me think about an elderly lady I know who lives in San Francisco in senior housing, gets snap and Medicaid and works as a nanny under the table, bringing in 5k monthly, paying like $300 for her apartment.

If she's elderly she'd get medicare and social security so she wouldn't get $300 a month.