Fewer People 55-And-Over Choose To Work. But Why?
This is a few weeks old, but I felt it is relevant here. Noticeably absent from the "speculation" as to the reasons fewer people in their 50's are working is the elephant in the room: Ageism. I gave up searching for work because it's painfully obvious my capability is not the issue. AARP has permanent support education for 50+ people trying to get hired.
All I hear about with respect to frustrations being unable to find a job is focused on the youngest, while it's the eldest that are being forced out at alarming rates. The worst part is we don't have any recovery path, and some of us are supporting adult children who can't find work.
We either navigated all the pratfalls life throws at us and have savings enough to "survive", or we didn't, and we become another near invisible member of the predominantly elder population of homeless standing by intersections hoping for a handout.
Next January possibly millions of over 50 people thrown out of work and unable to find any job (even minimum wage jobs) will lose their health coverage, since Medicaid begins requiring 20 hours per week of work to qualify.
We are well beyond "fearing dystopia" now. We've been living it for a decade, some would say longer.
46 replies
This is me. I have done relatively well but have been single income and as I started making better pay my wifes medical issues got to where it was a decent chunk of change. So we have always lived far below our means because of extraneous costs. Lost my job like two months before th election. Almost got one about a month in but the other guy scored half a point higher on the assessment. At that point things just dried up and stayed that way for awhile. Its recoverd some but between the lethargic pace of hiring, ageism, and worse having no tech work for going on two years. Well I know im not a sought after canidate at this point with the current attitudes. I subsitute teach but you can't get a regular amount of work out of it. I keep hoping I can finagle something but so far nothing I have tried has worked. I was kinda lucky because we were used to saving for big bills and we stay away from debt to deal with what we have. Our place is old and needs renovation and we had been saving for that specifically do get disabled things in the bathrooms but also elsewhere. That has been what we have been drawing from. I have looked up on drawing from retirement accounts without penalty. Its kinda funny because I saw many a well of boomer not retiring even when they could into their 70's and such (never understood why someone would not want to retire). Looks like we are getting the opposite.
Damn dude, that's pretty rough :/ My partner has chronic health issues and lost their job like 2 months ago. Thank god I still have work. We're only 40 but in 20 years I fear i will be in a similar situation to you.
I am not optimistic about the future :\
I do worry about those younger. It looks like everything may drop out just befor retirement for folks my age but everything seems to get worse the further on someone was born.
The phrasing of this headline is a bit infuriating. Work has never been a free choice for me, and it's less so now than ever before. I'm old and I can't ever afford to retire, but no one wants a new employee my age. So if I lose this job I am afraid I'll become homeless. I'm healthy and smart and capable and better at my work than I've ever been, but experience isn't valued and youth is. So maybe soon I'll be one of the people they count as "choosing" not to work but to beg on the street.
When I lost a promotion to a 19 year old with zero experience vs my 40 + years experience, it's just blatant ageism. Especially since I was going above and beyond the job requirements daily and 2x the seniority.
I routinely watch manufacturing plants purge high dollar/high experience workers just to save on labor. Guaranteed to cost them in overtime, downtime, oee/etc and possibly even recalls, warning letters etc.
They know the cost and they don't give a fuck. Pile it onto the consumer with higher prices.
Absolutely ageism. I recall applying for a job I was perfectly matched to. They might as well have just posted my resume for requirements. I happened to be 50 at the time. They made zero contact. One time is a fluke, but I kept getting ignored for jobs I was very well qualified to do. That happens a lot in the art field, and I'm sure many others. Young artists only want to work with young artists, even if the job itself is more production work than creative.
It's broader than ageism though, that's just a part of prejudice.
You are not the only one getting ghosted for jobs.
It takes hundreds of applications to get an interview these days. This is for most everyone regardless of qualifications.
You might not have even applied to a real job. There are literally countless "ghost jobs" out there. There is no job. They have zero intention of ever hiring anyone. See more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_job
Yup. I've been thinking it's my autistic tendencies getting in the way of me being hired, but I most often see young people being hired for the positions I'm trying for and ageism has to be playing some role.
It's weird because I'm a much better worker and person than I was in my 20s.
Yes but you are also much more expensive than you were in your 20s. Even if you took the lower wages, the cost for insurance for the company is higher.
There's also the stigma/stereotype(?) of older individuals being stubborn, outspoken, and (often( refusing to learn new processes. "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" .
I unfortunately can say I had these views when I was younger but we will all get to the other side of that coin.
That's true. Making insurance go through employers does obviously contribute to age discrimination.
And, as far as stereotypes go, yes, that is almost universally the cause of discrimination.
But, in this case, as other people have pointed out, a big part of it could just be social exclusion--that is younger people want to work with younger people. I think some countries and cultures do this better than others, but in the United States there is a very strong generational segregation.
There is a strong segregation. I'd argue it isn't just generational though. And it's not new
Look at literally the hiring habits of every Indian manager, or eastern European?
Literally all it took was 1 Indian to be promoted to director of my department,and we have not had a single promotion, or out of cycle raise for anyone that was not a man with strong Indian roots. Not once in almost a decade. If you want up, you must move sideways - which I thankfully did.
My friends employer hired a VIP that was from Belarus, and within 6 months. My buddy found he was the only American still in his entire department.
Yup, that is more explicit discrimination. And before you retire, consider suing that place. Right wing outlets will eat it up.
There is a separate softer and amorphous "team culture" bias that is particularly difficult if you're substantially older (or younger) than everyone else.
I once was on a job interview and was asked, "It's important that everyone gets along, so what are your hobbies?" Obviously, if people get along and what their hobbies SHOULD ideally be two different questions, but if everyone is talking about Pokemon and you're just wondering who is going to win the International Chopin Competition, you're probably not going to gel.
Guys..... Just because there is a decline in people choosing to work, it does not mean more people are doing so because of ageism. First of all 50 and over have historically shared a disproportionately large chunk of the job market. Younger baby boomers and older genx just held onto their positions longer than prior generations. Now that they are getting older and their stock portfolios now represent a huge portion of middle and upper class wealth, they are finally choosing to retire.
If you look at the date people 45 and over have the lowest unemployment levels on the market, and they are being unemployed at the same pace as everyone else.
I think you guys are just experiencing the same issues everyone else is in a market where people are hiring less frequently and employees are staying in positions longer. You probably just aren't used to it compared to the younger generations where this has been a norm for their entire careers.
Someone else already got to it before me to show that ageism is really a thing. However, I still want to comment.
The dirty little secret about unemployment statistics in the United States of America is that it only counts people who are considered searching for work.
Searching for work means they're receiving unemployment benefits. My benefits ran out six to eight months ago. I am not considered unemployed.
Consistently, month after month, the percentage of the population that is in the workforce is decreasing. I believe that statistic is called the workforce participation rate. This is why the unemployment rate is so low. Everybody who can't find a job and finally gives up drops off the list.
I saw a figure that I can't get the source for at the moment that states we have about a 14% rate of people who are unemployed who want to work.
The department of labour defines it as anyone receiving benefits or still seeking employment. Seeking employment is defined as making specific efforts to find a job in the last 4 weeks. So no, that is not correct.
The labour participation rate keeps track of the percentage of the civilian non-institutional population (ages 16 and older) that is either working or actively looking for a job
It has been in decline since the year 2000 largely due to the baby boomers reaching retirement age.
Perhaps the higher employment rate of 50+ is just based on them already having a job and keeping it.
What you want to look at is at people who are looking for a job.
Are 50+ year olds getting hired at lower rates than younger cohorts?
Edit: Hate to break it to you, but it looks like age discrimination against older workers is actually a thing:
https://www.eeoc.gov/chart-data-older-american-worker-age-discrimination-employment
Not saying you can't still have your little generational warfare thing if you want.
Yes, that is one of the things I spoke about. That age bracket has experienced the most stable economy America has ever had and has thus experienced relatively low levels of unemployment.
That is the unemployment rate. Which they are the lowest bracket in.
I haven't seen any evidence to support that?
Let's actually examine the statistics they are utilizing.
Makes sense, they have the lowest unemployment rate, meaning they are searching for jobs less often.
Also makes sense..... Older generations did not have to achieve as high of an education to remain competitive.
That's how pensions work....? Most people at age 55 and older are going to rollover their 401k into a IRA as most 401k require a set amount of time until they become vetted.
Yeah, makes sense. Older more experienced workers are able to hold out longer to find a job that matches their experience levels and pay expectations.
None of these statistics substantiate the claim that older people are being discriminated against.
Okedoke. Try dodging this one, Neo.
https://jhr.uwpress.org/content/59/1/1
I would have to actually have access to the methodology of the experiment and their sample population and size to make an educated critique. There are a lot of different variables that could be at play.
I'm not trying to claim that age discrimination does not happen, just that whatever discrimination exists is not reflected by the available unemployment data.
It's enough of an issue that there's a law against it and a lot of people say it happens. Either there's a very complex situation that leads researchers, legislators and job seekers to say that ageism exists even though it doesn't, or, you know, it just does actually exist.
Occam's Razor would tend to point to the latter.
I suggest if you are going to go against the prevailing winds of evidence, you find some studies that shows that age discrimination in employment does NOT exist.
stop engging. he's not interested in it. he is just arguing to get a rise. we have dropped enough evidence here for other people to see the truth if they care to look.
A law that was passed in 1967.... When the largest voting block in history was starting to reach the age they wanted to protect.
I don't doubt that it happens, I'm sure older people face a lot of challenges in the work place. I just don't think that the data we currently have substantiates the claim that they are less hireable. Even if there was evidence to support that it would be hard to prove if they were discriminated against because of their actual age, or if it is because companies want to exploit young workers for less pay than a more experienced candidate would require.
Or...... There are biases and alterior motivations that lead them to make those claims.
Ah yes, Prove something doesnt exist. I'll do that right after I prove God doesn't exist.......that's not how science works my guy.
yeah... you are not seriously engging in search of truth. you are trolling. you will continue to find fault with every study, statistic or fact finding while holding fast to your own conclusions with a vice grip.
I'll leave these here in case you decide to read them. i won't wait. bye!
https://generations.asaging.org/older-workers-50-year-high-unemployment-gap/
https://crr.bc.edu/unemployed-and-over-50-need-help/
Just because I don't agree with you means I am trolling?
The statistics you have posted to support your argument were very easy to criticize. Are my rebuttals incorrect, am I trying to be dishonest, or do you just not agree with me?
Again, this is a study conducted by a lobbying group for older people. Besides that this is an extremely short term study that's evaluating a 6 month period after a pandemic, and there has since been a recovery to the unemployment of older workers. They were dismissed more often because they were the largest earners and the companies were scrambling to cut cost.
Again.... A lobbying group for retirement aged workers. One that at least leaves the question open and doesn't make an absolute claim that ageism is the reason. "Some of the explanation for the difference is that older people are less malleable – they are fully formed human beings with a specific skill set – and more difficult to fit into existing slots. Another part of the explanation may be age discrimination. Employers worry whether older people can learn new skills and they are not sure how long they will stay. Age discrimination laws may also work against older job seekers; it is illegal to lay off on the basis of age, so employers may just avoid hiring older workers in the first place."
The oldest Gen X cohort is 60 years old now. we're not holding on to anything past retirement age... yet.
Note that there are many boomers who are poor and are working because they have no choice. Contrary to popular belief, most jobs were not that cushy over the last 50 to 60 years. pensions were steadily whacked, jobs were sent offshore. Maybe consider listening to the Billy Joel song called "Allentown".
Gen X is cynical and never believed they were going to get retirement anyway precisely because they watched what happened to the generation before them.
I included genx because some consider starting in 1960 or 1961, which would make them eligible for retirement.
Yes, but compared to other generations they are doing much better.
Lol, what? They watched their parents sell a home they bought for 10k for 400k and they lost all hope?
that straw man you set on fire is nice and warm.
Only a moron or a dishonest debater would look back and not acknowledge the destruction of millions of steel, coal, manufacturing, furniture making, and textile industry jobs, the decline of unions, the shifting of tax burdens, or the elimination of public support. oh, lets not forget the drug addiction all over manufacturing towns throughout the industrialized states.
bravo!
Which they at least got to take part in before they voted for the people who destroyed it. They also benefited from the largest growth in wealth in American history. "Baby boomers hold approximately 51.6% of total U.S. household wealth, controlling over $85 trillion. Despite making up roughly 20% of the population, they possess an outsize share of assets compared to younger generations"
younger genx is just getting to where they can get social security. don't see how that is hanging on to the jobs. In another decade we might see.
Which is why I said older gen-x? Though generational classes are pretty vague.
I read younger but figured you meant the one close to boomer. what im saying is they are just hitting retirement age. Im mid X and Im supposed to be working for 10 more years. heck now is supposed to be when Im putting in most for retirement. I would totally retire early now if I could. Thats why I was saying you might see in 10 years but honestly im not sure how older X is doing. I mean I know I was unemployed for over a year in 2010/2011 and was kinda lucky I had a job that held out for so long from that crises. similarly I was lucky to enter a government grant based position back with the first tech crash just after 2000. I mean I know boomers who could of retired with a nice enough setup and did not but given X is just at retirement age and that im not sure how prevalent a decent setup is its kinda a different story. I don't many have pension plans they are part of.
This worries me a bit because I have never been diagnosed but I am that person that has always been "odd". Tech was great in not caring about that stuff.
Yup, the few places I really got along with people seemed to be at jobs autistic people gravitated to.
Job interviews are an absolutely brutal filter. Not only are you expected to lie shamelessly, your first job is to placate the interviewer and make them comfortable with you. NT's do the first one more easily and the second instinctively.
If you look at un- and underemployment rates for people who aren't even ON the spectrum (Broad Autism Phenotype), it's pretty stark.