Um, I don’t think I’m going to tell my kids to target retiring by 50. (You know, a lot of people who do that are the ones who are telling their kids they are on their own if they want to go to college) Not that I won’t tell them to be financially frugal. But it is possible our kids will have even longer retirements than we will (will live longer) and have to wait until an older age before they get social security or Medicare. So… I’d rather teach them to be agile in the their careers and the marketplace, as I have been with a fair amount of success into my late 50s, than to plan to bug out of it at age 50.
I agree that both H and I have successfully had fulfilling careers in our 50s and for H through his 60s as well. I agree that being agile and a good problem solver who works well with people is a huge plus.
Our S has a full-time job and a part time job already and a useful skill set that is quite lucrative. Our D is creating her own path.
So much of this varies by the field you are in.
A career as a teacher will have a very different long-term outlook than a career as a software engineer.
Also, I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that the only reason you aren’t considered for a job is because you are older.
There is a lot of competition for higher paying jobs which require skills and smarts. Maybe the job went to someone your age that they liked better.
Younger people can also have a hard time finding a job in a tight market.
Not saying that age is not a factor, but it isn’t the only one.
I probably know about new technology just as well as my younger colleagues, but when they say let’s start using it and put it in production, I am the one who asks some hard questions because of my past experience. As an empty nester I also have more time for work. I no longer need to juggle between family and work. I think those are pluses of hiring older/experienced employees.
I was at the height of earning power in my late 40s and early 50s, but I was also doing a lot of work I didn’t particularly enjoyed. It worked out well because it afforded a lot of things for my family and my kids benefited from it. Since then I have re-tooled myself. I moved into big data analytics when it was fairly new, so now I have a certain reputation within my business. My scope of responsibility is smaller, manage a smaller team, pay is less than before, but it is of interest to me and my hours are much better. This transition worked well for me because of my personal situation. I don’t think I would have been happy to retire at 50, but I also no longer want to work 12-14 hr days.
In the last 10 years I have seen a lot of my friends being fired, myself included. The ones who couldn’t re-invent themselves or do not have relevant skills have much harder time to get another job. What I do tell my kids is make the money when they can and save as much possible so they could have more options when they get older. What is important is always keep up one’s skills in order to be relevant - don’t fall behind and that includes technology.
No. Well maybe marginally, where an additional junior person is needed due to increased volume of transactions due to increased labor force in a paticular company, but not generally. A company is going to offer the same package of benefits requiring the same tasks whether their workforce is 10,000 or 11,000. Actually, when companies go through layoffs and downsizing, there is a lot more work to do with the benefits than when a company is growing.
In any event, off-topic. But I wanted to respond.
It is not about wanting to retire at 50; it is about being able to retire at 50 (basically joining the capitalist class by then). This helps reduce the risk of major personal finance problems in case of difficulty getting employed after age 50. Joining the capitalist class will also put you on the favorable side of economic trends (accelerated by some policy decisions) which are increasing the rewards of economic growth to capital, while decreasing rewards and increasing risk to labor.
Too analytical. Raising kids is about lessening control, over time. We do the best we can to teach our kids, while we can. And this chat is among adults who get it. We’ve been downsized, we’ve regrouped, we didn’t over-mortgage ourselves, etc. We’re the products of our parents, who were products of theirs.
Been there lived through it…euphemistically called being offered an early retirement albeit not really a choice.
I was laid off from a position a few years back, and although I was only 49 at the time - I was offered 3 months severance and insurance - if I signed a form agreeing that I would not pursue legal action for age discrimination. I was more offended by that than losing the medicre job. Good riddance!
^^^< Well, you’re deemed to be in a protected class once you reach age 40. So legally you were protected from age discrimination.
I get the reasons for retiring at 50. I just think it is unrealistic for most people, and not even desirable for a lot of people.
I get that companies are looking at the bottom line. It just makes me sad that we as a society equate productivity with worth.
Well… I’m actually more productive than many younger workers at what I do. I can see the trouble spots ahead, and steer my team around them. I often end up digging out projects that a younger employee steered into the ditch because they didn’t recognize warning signs. My current client loves me for rescuing a project that was really struggling in 2018 year, and they’ve started me in on another one that keeps missing dates. The business and IT executives have a lot of confidence in me. But… it can be hard to get in the door for the first interview due to misconceptions or preconceived notions of what someone my age is like, probably even more so because I am female (with a pretty feminine first name, which might not help my resume get to the top of the pile). I’m not asking them to hire me if I’m not the best person for the job – but I AM the best person for the job an awful lot of the time.
I get your feelings. I was downsized at age 47 after 20+ years with the same company. I was offered a year’s severance in exchange for the non-litigation signature. I consulted two attorneys and both said that they could sue, but I would have to pay upfront, with no guarantees. I took the money that was promised because I had a family to support. Am I bitter? Yes. But I was not offended by the offer of money. It’s how you play the game in business. They knew that they discriminated against me and others, but they also fired people under 40 and hired people over 40 to replace some of them to dilute the impact. They had more money and more power, so I took the safe way out. It’s what these companies count on when they fire you - that you can’t fight back.
It cracks me up about this younger-people-are-more-productive myth. People in their 30s and 40s are having/raising children. That means maternity/paternity leave, doctor’s appoinments, staying home with sick kids, having to go to soccer games on Saturdays, take kiddos to and from ballet on Tuesdays and Thursdays – and picking them up from after-school care no later than 6.
Contrast that with someone in their late 50s, who can stay late on weekdays, work weekends and not have to take time off during school spring break. And on top of that is eager to work and learn because they know their age makes them vulnerable. Yes, our healthcare may cost more – but by late 50s many won’t have their kids on their insurance anymore.
If only corporate America understood this, and paid attention.
@katliamom yes, totally agree. And people in their 20s without spouses and kids are often completely distracted by dating, emotional issues, pregnancy scares and drinking culture. Really, every age group has its “stuff”.
I gave up on trying to work out a career “plan”. I’m old enough and I know enough people that if someone values my skills I will find a job. And if they don’t, I won’t. I think I am on the unfortunate side of people not valuing my skills much that demand a higher price tag but most of my peers find jobs readily through professional connections without having to ever look. I think most jobs are filled that way.
I think the problem is not that employers don’t value older workers per se, it’s more that most jobs are not all that meaningful or demanding so the workers can be virtually interchangeable. So you take the workers that degrade the health care pool the least. Even at my fairly young age (mid-40s), most of my peers are already on multiple meds and have multiple health problems including diseases of aging like Type II diabetes, arthritis, etc…
@katliamom just said it for me. 
This holiday season, I am taking on a bunch of stuff and I am currently on standby to work on a large assignment while my younger coworkers are off to their winter breaks with the kids. I don’t mind! I love my job.
I don’t think those finding jobs through professional connections are finding them “readily”. Building and maintaining a network of professional connections and knowing how to effectively use those connections are skills as well, and some people are better at it than others. Fortune favors the prepared, and this is one more area where that is true.
Going through it right now. Sucks.
Or, where employee quality does matter, the difference is not easily visible before hiring and working with the person, so those making hiring decisions fall back to cost, using the (not always correct) assumption that old = expensive.
The linkage of medical insurance to employment creates incentive for employers to practice illegal age and gender discrimination.
Even many people in their 30s complain about various “aging” problems (that are often more related to poor exercise and/or diet habits, or sometimes alcohol, nicotine, or other recreational drug use).