We live in an at-will state. During the second half of this year my dh’s former employer terminated/downsized or “retired” quite a few people over 50. Dh was lucky to get a nice parting gift, although its value has dropped significantly in the past few months. He also has pension benefits which most of his colleagues don’t have since no one was added to the plan after a large merger years ago.
The cuts are expected to continue in 2019 and some of his former coworkers are scared. They’ve lived high on the hog and now have children in college or due to begin college soon. Dh was sometimes razzed about our modest cars, his no-name suits and shoes and generally frugal ways. These guys expressed sympathy when he was “retired” and were stunned when he said he wouldn’t be looking for another job or a consulting gig. They anticipate having to sell their homes because they’re still mortgaged to the hilt, and are worried about how to tell their wives and children that big changes in lifestyle are coming.
But here’s the thing. Employers don’t look at age to make decisions. They look at value added. Are the getting the same value from the 50 year old as they get from the 30 year old? Many times the question is no. Many times the 50 year old is doing just enough to get by but is not learning new things as the working world changes faster and faster.
I call b.s. on this. That seems to be how my new boss feels. The thing is, though, she didn’t even bother to get to know me or what I bring to the table before she decided that the two youngest people in our office are the ones who know it all. To make a determination of worth based on a perception related to age is wrong. (Illegal, too, by the way.)
I really want to get a new job, but it has proven to be very difficult.
I think it is bs as well. I’ll agree that some older workers don’t keep their skills up to date. But I really do, and think the hit I took getting interviews was an age perception, not reality. The fact that I get the work most of the time once I interview, but struggle to get the interview to start with when my age is apparent is pretty good evidence.
Wow, @kelsmom. I assure you that CC members realize that you really “know it all”! Sorry your boss can’t see it.
As structural engineers, DH and I have been susceptible to layoffs since the first day on our first job, when I was 24. I don’t think SEs as a rule are more prone to layoffs as they get older, because experienced ones are so valuable. There are a lot of judgment calls to make every day, and younger engineers aren’t nearly as good at those.
We were both laid off several times during the 90s. Our first employer laid both of us off, along with 20 others, on the same day. Another time, DH was given a big Christmas bonus and then laid off five days before our second child was born in March. The job instability was definitely a factor in our decision to start our own firm. So we haven’t been laid off in 20 years!
“But here’s the thing. Employers don’t look at age to make decisions. They look at value added.”
We live in an ageist society and many people are totally unaware of the biases they bring to decisions. I think it is incorrect to chalk it up to older employees not providing enough “value added”.
@fendrock, I"m in the employee benefits field – medical, dental, 401(k), all of that. And to be fair I didn’t apply for the job I just got; a former [much much younger] colleague who works at this company called me in a panic. So it basically dropped in my lap.
Age discrimination is alive and well, even though it’s illegal. It’s hard to prove in a court of law, like other types of discrimination when the process is less than transparent. In some sectors, it’s hard to find people over 40, let alone people over 50. One of the factors, as mentioned in a prior post, is the cost of healthcare benefits. Until there’s universal healthcare, it’s an uneven playing field, regardless of your competitiveness in other areas.
Think about it. As you age and become more expensive to an employer you’re value add has to go up exponentially. If I pay you $100,000 plus 40% which is the cost of benefits, you cost me $140,000 all in. If I pay someone in their 30s $75,000 + 40%, they are all in at $105,000. The 50+ needs to produce $35,000 more value than the 30 YO. You can’t do this just keeping pace with the current trends. You need to outpace everyone else.
A friend of mine has been looking for work for over a year. She’s 60, with lots of experience and a degree from Wharton, but so far, no luck. Lots of interviews, but when they realize her age (her resume doesn’t have the dates of her education and early work), I’m sure they pause and look for a younger candidate. It’s frustrating because she has both wisdom and energy.
It’s hard to measure value added. Yes, many younger workers may be more current in their technology, but they don’t necessarily have the experience to offer more than an older employee could. Ideally, a healthy company will have a mix of both younger and older staff.
When I go to a doctor, I don’t want the one with the new degree and all the bells and whistles, I want the one who has treated hundreds of cases like mine and knows what is worth worrying about.
Pay levels do not show an exponential rise by age. https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-age-calculator/ suggests that they tend to rise more rapidly until around 40, then level off until around the mid-60s. Note that average rises slightly after 40, while median does not (perhaps a slight fall), which could suggest that pay levels become more unequal after 40 (i.e. those few at the top end do have exponential pay growth, pulling up the average, but most have level or slightly falling pay levels, keeping the median flat).
Not all benefits cost strictly a percentage of pay. Paid time off (vacation and sick) and 401k matching (or defined benefit pension, if any employer still offers that) do cost a percentage of pay, but most other benefits do not. They may vary in other ways, such as benefits which may be extended to employee spouse and family that the employer subsidizes, or medical insurance benefits whose costs vary by age and gender (see below*). Employer provided medical insurance does create incentive for employers to practice illegal discrimination by age and gender, since that cost (which is often hidden from the employee) can vary significantly between employees with equal pay.
However, the assumption that a 50 year old will be more expensive pay-and-benefit-wise than a 40 year old or 30 year old means that many 50 year old job seekers will not even be looked at, even if a particular 50 year old job seeker individually would not be as expensive as assumed by employers.
https://www.healthcostinstitute.org/images/easyblog_articles/134/Age-Curve-Study_0.pdf shows medical care cost by age and gender. The cost curves show 20/30/40/50/60 year old men as having costs of 0.6/0.6/1.0/1.6/2.7, and 20/30/40/50/60 year old women as having costs of 0.8/1.5/1.6/2.0/2.7. Now multiply those numbers by the $6,000 to $14,000 cost per person for medical insurance (depending on coverage levels) to see how costs to employers vary by age and gender of employees.
^^^ That’s great but it focuses on the wrong side of the equation. Older workers need to focus on the value added (revenue, production) side of the equation. If you’re 50+ and still only adding the same value as when you where 30, you’re toast. Employers are in business to make money. They will not get rid of high level producers regardless of their age.
Many of the older workers I know are much more valuable than the 30 year olds, honestly. But methinks some on this thread have convinced themselves otherwise.
Higher value added may be obvious to those whom you have worked with for a while, but not to someone else determining who goes on the layoff list based primarily on cost reduction. It is also less obvious when comparing job seekers’ resumes, so those making decisions of whom to interview may default to choosing by cost with the assumption that older = more expensive (whether or not actually true for particular applicants). And it is less obvious in an interview than on the job.
Don’t discount institutional knowledge and experience in different market environments and economic cycles. Those, plus other skills, come with age, something a 30 year old lacks.
Wouldn’t employee benefits work be a very cyclical field, where your chance of employment is strongly correlated to overall employment? If so, then it is no surprise that someone is begging you to come when unemployment is low, but in a downturn, you will be the one turning off the lights being laid off yourself after telling laid off employees about their COBRA and other post-employment benefits.
Not just revenue production. Also revenue retention.
Ucb, we get that we’re in a precarious position. From my perspective, it doesn’t need to be proven to us.
Personally. I find intparent’s earlier post to offer more ideas. We don’t need to only hammer this idea we’re freaking at risk. More, er, productive is how to counteract.
For those just now entering the work force in their 20s, making and following a financial plan to be able to retire at age 50, or being able to live on a much reduced income from age 50 until being able to retire at a later planned age, would be the effective means of counteracting.
@Silpat 's reply #20 gives contrasting examples their own situation of the involuntarily retired worker not having to look for another job after years of “generally frugal ways” versus some others who “anticipate having to sell their homes because they’re still mortgaged to the hilt, and are worried about how to tell their wives and children that big changes in lifestyle are coming” with future anticipated layoffs.
We do have kids and do talk to them, they do see our experiences. You’ve garned a crowd here that isn’t in their 20’s. More parents on CC, in general, are concerned with the potential for first jobs. Each lesson in its time.
Counteracting IS about being invaluable, keeping up, protecting and promoting the company’s goals. Unfortunately, also working against ageism and its stereotypes. Not proofs we older employees cost more and not a focus on those who don’t keep up.
