• DeepRoots@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    This just sounds like everyone? I am sure some ageism happens but the only “scientific” part of this is a quick single source comparison of total number of job hunters.

    Its awful out there.

    • ramble81@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      You can hide it on the resume, but a lot of sites that make you fill in all of the info on their applications make the date a mandatory field.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 days ago

      Or–and stay with me here–get some graduate certificate and make that the only thing that appears on your education.

      • blackberry28@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yeah no. Graduates have it the hardest with regards to applying to a job. Every employer wants experience, even for entry level jobs lol. Larping as a graduate will result in even fewer interviews lol.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 days ago

          A degree is a reset button on your career and shows growth. It sets you apart from all the other 50 year olds.

  • heartSagan5@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    5 days ago

    A handful of interviews? Man, they’re getting better responses than me, and I’ve been looking for over 6 years because I wanted to leave my last job.

  • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Sounds like the job market as a whole.

    There’s no job loyalty but the employers expect it for some reason and decide that someone with 5 years experience will stay around longer than 25 years - though the reality isn’t that at all.

    • Son_of_Macha@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      43
      ·
      6 days ago

      Take a whole 2 seconds to consider how much worse it would be if you were over 50, before crying about it.

      • Talcosis@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        Yeah, and you should take two whole second to realize how much worse it would be in you were over 50 and in Gaza. Checkmate.

      • boonhet@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        At 50 you’re bound to have more connections than 30 though. That’s way more people to ask for a job.

          • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            5 days ago

            I’m in my 30s and already have a network of ex-coworkers in a number of companies who could get me in the door where they’re at currently if I needed. If a 50 year old hasn’t maintained contacts for this it’s kind of on them.

              • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                5 days ago

                I’ve put a great deal of effort into building and keeping up relationships with these people and demonstrating my value as a coworker to them. It didn’t fall into my lap. I’m also quite socially anxious by nature so I had to overcome that.

                • Sharkticon@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  Yes privilege often comes through effort. Although never effort alone. Surely you can see that had things gone differently in your life, had a few unlucky brakes happened, that you would not enjoy this privilege you brag about. That judging someone for not having what you’ve obtained is foolhardy. And assuming everyone has the same resources is beyond ignorant.

  • scytale@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    6 days ago

    Most of the people around that age at my work who were laid off were basically forced to retire.

  • myyass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    5 days ago

    Having to do online cr’application’s and taking modified MMPI tests doesn’t help.

  • stoly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    I don’t doubt that there are people who see old person and move on to the next candidate. I also believe that many people do not redefine themselves in their careers and have not grown since they were in their late 20s. You have to grow and adapt or get left behind.

  • MonkRome@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Every year I’ve been alive my resume grows and getting a job becomes easier and more lucrative. While im not yet 50, I find it hard to believe that experience is just going to disappear the second I’m over 50. This article is nonsense. People under 40 have been absolutely devastated in the job market over the last 20 years and we’re complaining about the most privileged generations (the current over 50’s) in world history not getting 100% of the jobs they don’t know how to do anyway.

  • Fishnoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    6 days ago

    At 50 you should be retiring to make way for new workers. That’s how you keep a healthy job market

    • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      The system is fucked, almost nobody can retire that young. I wish I could retire at 50. I’ll be lucky to retire before I’m well into my 70s. They decoupled pay from productivity decades ago and we’ve been getting turbofucked by greedy assholes ever since.

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      6 days ago

      Let’s start negotiating for this then: mandatory retirement at 50, paid for by social security taxes on remaining workers. Deal?

        • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          6 days ago

          We should remove the cap on social security taxes to keep the SSA solvent, and also to be fair rather than regressive, but that’s still not gonna cover retirements at 50.

          • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 days ago

            I agree, it’s not the full answer, but It’s a good start.

            Maybe instead of forced retirement, forced fewer hours? Heck, maybe a debt bailout for primary residence, student loans and any other life needing debt at 50, lower the age of Medicare to… 0, and I could start living off of very little dollars.

        • boonhet@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Okay so the thing is if you take the worst example of income inequality in the west, the US, Boomers as a class own 8x more than billionaires as a class.

          The people you’d be taxing are exactly the people who would be receiving social security.

    • FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      6 days ago

      At fifty?

      How the fuck are people going to retire at fifty?

      I’m in a fairly good position, but I would have no chance of any sort of life if I had to live for thirty years without working

      Are you trolling, or are you stupid?

        • BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          When you’re in your 50s unless you suffering a neurological disorder, you’re still sharp and aware. Just the body is starting to wear down more so they need accommodations at times. Why hire them when they can just not hire anyone and force the rest of us to worker harder for longer?

      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        possible if you are a doctor, a tech worker that has worked 10+years, a NURSE who did travelling. they have enough income and other investments to do that. but its usually 55.

      • Fishnoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Being able to retire at 50 means that you’ve contributed at least 25 years of labor. In my case about 35 years.

        People get shorter prison sentences for committing murder.

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      6 days ago

      Yah!
      It’s not like the penalties on withdrawing from your retirement accounts early actually matters?
      Who isn’t a billionaire at 50? You aren’t? You need to get a better job looser!

    • Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      6 days ago

      A lot of people are having kids later in life. It’s tough to feel secure enough to retire at 50 when you have 2 preteens and a mortgage.

      Even without kids, the math is tough - work 30 years (20-50) and then retire ~30 (50-80?). We’d need massive safety nets in place to make retiring at 50 tenable. I’m going to hit the labor market next year and am terrified by what I’m seeing out there

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 days ago

      50yo dont retire in any country lol. 55 is the earliest people consider retiring, and its mostly people who earn 200k+year with investments.

    • RBWells@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Right, because people not working for 35-40 years is good for the economy somehow? Work for 30 years then retire for more than that? This makes no sense, it’s not a zero sum thing but you can’t have the population idle for more years than they work.

      I have a 401k - told the “planner” app to assume I will work to 70 & I might live to 90 and it says my plan has “longevity risk” . Basically that any woman who gets to my age may well get older than that.

      I know that people don’t like retirement age going up and up, and it would be lovely to not have to work, but on the other hand all my kids are finally adults, so these are my available prime earning years.

    • boonhet@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Yes because the workers aren’t paying enough tax to support the owner class (people over 50)