Is Age Discrimination running rampant?

[Slacker]

ok whatever, you don't seem to want to stand solid on a position and debate things.

I don't debate, but I've felt the same way the whole time. I hate it when people assume I have a position I don't have, which is why the first thing I said is, "you're making a lot of assumptions."

[Creepy-Snaps]

tcaudilllg,

Just read the original article on your link.

I think age discrimination is a reality, as others have attested to by personal account. However, I think it's not something which can be done away with easily, I think there are macro-elements affecting employer's decision-making.

Unemployment is still very high. The economy favors employers. They have the advantage, getting to pick the 'right' candidate. Sometimes having 5-10 *qualified* people applying for one position, if not more. When this is the case, employers can be choosy: and can discriminate on almost any basis they want, be it age, gender, religion, the fact that you walked into the interview without your face completely shaven, etc. Why not pick the best candidate?

There are laws which try to reduce discrimination, but of course that's a formality. How can you really regulate something that's subjective? As subjective as making a decision? Sometimes no concrete proof of discrimination.

In better economies, employees have the edge. There may be 4-5 job offers for each person, where demand in the economy is so high, employers just need people to fill the jobs! In better times, people have the advantage, in being choosy of where they want to work, what type of work they want to do, how much to get paid, etc. etc. When unemployment is low.

Before this goes into a completely rant of how the government in Bush's administration didn't regulate the money supply well enough, or how too much money in the economy caused the subprime mortgage mess, or the good/bad things Obama has done in his administration to help/hurt the economy, I'll just give this practical advice:

STAY ACTIVE. Work part-time work if you must, but stay busy. That guy in the article is doing an amazing thing by at least being a barista. Pay sucks, but it's a LOT better than nothing. And it's more than just about pay, it's about mindset, experience, staying positive, etc. Don't sit for months doing nothing.

APPLY FOR HIGH-PAYING POSITIONS. Think big! It's amazing how little people actually want to *work* in this economy, but how quickly people are demoralized about financial news. There are lots of jobs out there! It's still pretty easy to get a job, if you look for one!

You control your activity. Wayne Gretzky once said, 'You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.' How many job offers do you think you'll get, if you apply to zero places? I'll say apply to 50-100 positions if you must, if not more, but it probably won't even take that many. I'd say it's still fairly easy to get an interview with 10-30 applications yet. Which, if you're focused, you could spend a few hours and do in just one night, tailoring your cover letter, etc. etc.

I feel very fortunate to have gotten a professional finance position in this economy. But part of me wishes someone had told me to just keep applying and not lose hope, sooner. I could have been working sooner too. Anyway, enough of my rant. This pep talk has been provided courtesy of Mountain Dew.

[tcaudilllg]

One high-profile case is all that's needed. A wave of fear and you'll see a new level of support by employers for academic research pointing out how to avoid age discrimination.

Mountain Dew I think what is required is for the national emotional atmosphere to become so antagonistic that it's just about to blow. That will permit the ESFJs to take control of the atmosphere and take it where they want it to be, where money doesn't necessarily reach. But yeah I think things are too placid and smoothed over when what people really need is an environment where employers are strongly questioning their safety at night.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Mountain Dew I think what is required is for the national emotional atmosphere to become so antagonistic that it's just about to blow. That will permit the ESFJs to take control of the atmosphere and take it where they want it to be, where money doesn't necessarily reach. But yeah I think things are too placid and smoothed over when what people really need is an environment where employers are strongly questioning their safety at night.

True, but I think that environment is needed for politicians moreso than employers. The employers are just the pawns.

[marooned]

I have a lot of issues with the age/experience correlation. First I think it's lame to assume that because someone is older they "have more experience" (although understandably they've had longer to gain work experience, but still some people have way more life experience at a younger age than others at an older age). Secondly the experience they do and don't have for jobs should be listed on their resumes/applications so it should then just be hiring based on who is most qualified by their experience/education (not their age). Thirdly I have experienced the issue of starting working and having problems getting started because of my "lack of experience" when I actually pick up things really quickly and imo do a better job than a lot of people with a lot more experience than me (I don't believe experience is necessarily a portent to how good of a job someone will do, although it can be). Also I find it amusing how for a lot of really crappy jobs that anyone can basically do they want to use experience as a significant criteria in hiring... I mean are they bored or something?

[Slacker]

It also happens where someone who is 22 and someone who is 32 both have the same amount of experience, but people assume the 32-year-old must be a slacker to only have the same amount of experience as the 22-year-old, so they choose the 22-year-old. Or they could assume the 22-year-old must be a go-getter to get so much experience so quickly and choose the 22-year-old. Or of course they could assume teh 32-year-old has more life experience and wisdom and choose the 32-year-old. Too many variables to assume it would always go one way though.

[marooned]

Too many variables to assume it would always go one way though.

If you're addressing me, I'm not really assuming it only goes one way. I just posted about the part of it that's more personal to me.

[Slacker]

If you're addressing me, I'm not really assuming it only goes one way. I just posted about the part of it that's more personal to me.

No, just speaking in general.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Also I find it amusing how for a lot of really crappy jobs that anyone can basically do they want to use experience as a significant criteria in hiring... I mean are they bored or something?

Showing the 'experience' you have is important to show you were busy and doing something, rather than doing nothing. Always trying to grow in a positive direction, to what you want to accomplish in life.

Too many variables to assume it would always go one way though.

Exactly, that's why it depends on the interview. For the person to explain their age, experience, and how the job fits in with their life goals.

[marooned]

Showing the 'experience' you have is important to show you were busy and doing something, rather than doing nothing. Always trying to grow in a positive direction, to what you want to accomplish in life.

I reject the idea that people have to show they were busy and doing something. And whether or not they're growing in a "positive direction" is their business. I mean the only thing that matters is can they do the job and (albeit speculation about) will they do it well enough... and if it's a crappy job with high turnover rates anyway then the criteria should be pretty low to match the job (mainly as long as they can perform simple tasks, aren't going to smoke pot in the bathroom, steal things or be a total behavioral problem, then fine).

Also it's horrible to assume people are lazy because there are gaps in their work experience or they have less work experience.

[Slacker]

The tricky thing is that, at least when looking at resumes, people have to make some assumptions when choosing whom they should call in for an interview. They don't have that much information to draw from and make inferences. So when do those assumptions become discrimination. It's at least a bit less muddled in cases people are talking about where it's a job promotion and one person is chosen over another among a pool of current employees, because those people are known and fewer assumptions need to be made. But even then, as with any kind of discrimination suit, you might not know all the decisions that were involved. I helped an employee sort resumes and I know of one case where he wanted to overlook someone specifically because she was black, but then on the other hand I know of a case where someone was not chosen for a really legitimate issue and the person assumed it was because he was black. It's a tricky thing, figuring out where job discrimination is and isn't.