More than 50% of older workers pushed out of work

[omni550]

"A new data analysis by ProPublica and the Urban Institute shows that more than half of older U.S. workers are pushed out of longtime jobs before they choose to retire, suffering financial damage that is often irreversible."

“For the majority of older Americans, working after 50 is considerably riskier and more turbulent than we previously thought.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/older-workers-united-states-pushed-out-of-work-forced-retirement

All the more reason for setting one's sights on FIRE early.

omni

 

[Spanky]

Sadly, age discrimination is widespread as the thinking is that older people are less productive and more costly. It's funny that the average age of a CEO is over 50. I guess age discrimination does not apply to public policy makers and upper management.

 

[Dtail]

Sadly, age discrimination is widespread as the thinking is that older people are less productive and more costly. It's funny that the average age of a CEO is over 50. I guess age discrimination does not apply to public policy makers and upper management.

This is true.
If one is much lower on the rung, one tends to be a little safer. If one is near the top, the same thing but for different reasons.
I reached upper middle management and was not safe, so luckily took a package.

 

[MRG]

I'd seen this, thanks for posting. It's very sad, I watched Megacorp drop thousands of people, first it was easy to cull bad performers. Then the age related stuff started popping up, they were careful not to get rid of some older folks who had health issues. The majority were over 50.

I buddy of mine is still there at 60, with an obsolete skill set. Despite 30 years of generous contributions to the profit sharing, he has nothing saved. Plans on working till he's 70 and taking SS. I sincerely hope he's ok.

 

[RunningBum]

I buddy of mine is still there at 60, with an obsolete skill set. Despite 30 years of generous contributions to the profit sharing, he has nothing saved. Plans on working till he's 70 and taking SS. I sincerely hope he's ok.

That's not discrimination if one lets their skills go obsolete. It doesn't have to happen. At my last place, we had a guy work till 70, at least, because his legacy skills were valuable AND he kept up with new technology well enough.

 

[braumeister]

That's not discrimination if one lets their skills go obsolete. It doesn't have to happen.

I think this is largely true. During my career I worked with many colleagues in their 70s, and I loved having them around. They were extremely valuable, both for the "corporate memory" aspect and also their intelligence. For them, being able to still make material contributions to the organization was a good reason to come to work every day. They were highly respected, almost universally.

 

[MRG]

That's not discrimination if one lets their skills go obsolete. It doesn't have to happen. At my last place, we had a guy work till 70, at least, because his legacy skills were valuable AND he kept up with new technology well enough.

You're right, it's really about career management. He's still doing a job I left 25 years ago to chase new technology. Guy's maintaining old S/370 assembly and there's not much left.

 

[Bamaman]

It didn't hurt my feelings when MegaCorp sent all 55 years of age or 30+ years with the company home. They were consolidating offices and factories in places that no one wanted to live in.

Best thing is they paid out the nose to get rid of us. We never made so much as between retirement day and age 62. We were the fortunate few to have the defined pension, RHSA's and other great benefits. I did hate having to sign into the State computer system weekly telling them I was seeking positions--when I got 50 weeks unemployment.

And it was great for me to hang it up at 58 1/2 and never look back.

 

[scrabbler1]

My ladyfriend was told last week that her job may be in jeopardy when the merger between her parent corporation, a large hospital system, and another large hospital system is completed. She is getting nervous about this. Her bosses in her office (she is a PA in a cardiology office) have stood up for her but she doesn't know I that will be enough. She is 56 and lives paycheck to paycheck and has some health issues, so losing her job for any extended period of time would be a financial disaster. I will, of course, help her out, as she won't go down like the Titanic on my watch. Still, she is nervous even while she has been off from work the entire week.

 

[Spanky]

That's not discrimination if one lets their skills go obsolete. It doesn't have to happen. At my last place, we had a guy work till 70, at least, because his legacy skills were valuable AND he kept up with new technology well enough.

He's fortunate that he still has the skills valued by his employer. That's rare, however. Everyone is expendable regardless of the skills and/or talents. If he wants or needs to find another position elsewhere, chances of finding another one is almost nil.

I do agree that keeping your skills current is one way of fighting age discrimination. The journey is tough, however.

 

[REWahoo]

Everyone is expandable regardless of the skills and/or talents.

Yep. Especially those of us who overeat during the holidays.

 

[JoeWras]

It didn't hurt my feelings when MegaCorp sent all 55 years of age or 30+ years with the company home. They were consolidating offices and factories in places that no one wanted to live in.

Best thing is they paid out the nose to get rid of us. We never made so much as between retirement day and age 62. We were the fortunate few to have the defined pension, RHSA's and other great benefits. I did hate having to sign into the State computer system weekly telling them I was seeking positions--when I got 50 weeks unemployment.

And it was great for me to hang it up at 58 1/2 and never look back.

But your experience is becoming rarer and rarer. Megacorps won't pay through any noses if they don't have to, and many are not.

 

[Spanky]

Yep. Especially those of us who overeat during the holidays.

Good catch. I changed it.

 

[Retiree_Having_Fun]

The average age of the Senate Judiciary committee ranking members is over 80; the Supreme Court before the last resignation was averaging about 69 years old.

 

[Chuckanut]

Sadly, age discrimination is widespread as the thinking is that older people are less productive and more costly. It's funny that the average age of a CEO is over 50. I guess age discrimination does not apply to public policy makers and upper management.

FWIW, Congress has in interesting history of exempting itself from certain Civil Rights laws. Look it up.

Also, take a look at the last two candidates for President. Or the ages of the current crop of leaders in the House and Senate. They make our group of retirees look like Spring chickens.

I thought with President Obama we were done with aging baby boomers and would turn the country over to 'young folks' from 45-60. I guess I was wrong.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

It didn't hurt my feelings when MegaCorp sent all 55 years of age or 30+ years with the company home. They were consolidating offices and factories in places that no one wanted to live in.

Best thing is they paid out the nose to get rid of us. We never made so much as between retirement day and age 62. We were the fortunate few to have the defined pension, RHSA's and other great benefits. I did hate having to sign into the State computer system weekly telling them I was seeking positions--when I got 50 weeks unemployment.

And it was great for me to hang it up at 58 1/2 and never look back.

So you told the state you were looking for work when, in fact, you weren't?

Up here they take a dim view of that, regardless of what the former employer says. I know some former colleagues who were threatened with prosecution if they didn't return their unemployment pay.

 

[Sunset]

So you told the state you were looking for work when, in fact, you weren't?

Up here they take a dim view of that, regardless of what the former employer says. I know some former colleagues who were threatened with prosecution if they didn't return their unemployment pay.

Maybe he was willing to take a job which paid equally to what he was paid when employed.
There is nothing that says you have to take the first $10/hr job that comes along.

It would be a waste of human resources if a State ended up with lots of doctors working at McDonalds because they had to take the first job offer.

 

[RAE]

Age discrimination is indeed widespread. I've seen lots of folks over 50 get basically forced out of their jobs to make way for younger, lower-cost employees. The smart ones realized that this could happen some day, and prepared by saving/investing, and living frugally so that they could get as close to FI as possible in case the hatchet did fall someday. But many others were unprepared. And trying to find a new job (that pays anywhere close to what you were making before) after age 50 is very difficult, especially after the 08 Recession, but even now in many career fields.

I retired from our agency at age 54.5. I had always planned to retire at age 55 anyway, so I was financially prepared for retirement when the time came. As it turned out, we got a new supervisor when I was about 53 who clearly had orders from above to reorganize the place to achieve cost savings. And it was crystal clear that many of the the older folks, who typically earned a higher salary, were on the chopping block (including me). So they basically changed my job duties to things they knew I would not like, and made other not-so-subtle changes that made it very clear that it would be best for me to retire soon. So, I retired, and it was not much of a sacrifice for me, since I was going to retire anyway within another 6 months. But I had I not been prepared to retire then (both financially and psychologically), it could have been very difficult. Some of my older co-workers unfortunately left with a very bitter taste in their mouths, as they had planned to work longer but got squeezed out also. And these were very competent folks who had always received great performance reviews (as I did also). The whole exercise was about the cost savings they could achieve, nothing else. As others have said, management generally considers everyone to be expendable, when it comes down to it.

 

[Lakewood90712]

So you told the state you were looking for work when, in fact, you weren't?

Up here they take a dim view of that, regardless of what the former employer says. I know some former colleagues who were threatened with prosecution if they didn't return their unemployment pay.

I can't speak for other states, but most large California employers are in an arrangement with the EDD ( state unemployment dept ) that they pay no UI tax, but are billed for the benefits paid plus administration fees for an employee laid off. So it's megacorp's money, not the state's money being paid out. Many large employers find this cheaper than paying the state UI tax.

As to age discrimination, got a taste of it on my last RIF at age 40, almost 20 years ago. Was a little shocked of how blatant it was, when looking for work.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

Maybe he was willing to take a job which paid equally to what he was paid when employed.
There is nothing that says you have to take the first $10/hr job that comes along.

It would be a waste of human resources if a State ended up with lots of doctors working at McDonalds because they had to take the first job offer.

Well, whatever. Who am I to judge? In fact, DW claimed 26 weeks after she took her final buyout. She could have filed for an extension, but she got the impression her "job search" would be watched carefully if she did. I never bothered to claim UI after I hung it up.

Here's the Wisconsin requirements from the state website:

"Employees who are collecting UI benefits are required to register with the Wisconsin Job Service and conduct at least 4 weekly work search actions unless the department provides a waiver. The department communicates to employees when they need to register with Wisconsin Job Service and/or search for work."

What is considered a “work search action”?

Examples of Valid and Invalid Work Search Actions (list is not all-inclusive):

Valid Work Search Actions

Mandatory JCW (Job Center of Wisconsin) Registration
Submitting résumé or application to employer that has openings/is taking applications
Applying for civil service position on wisc.jobs
Non-mandatory re-employment services
Registering with placement facility, temporary help agency, or head hunter
Posting résumé on employment website
Meeting with a career counselor
Participating in a job interview
Participating in professional work-related networking group/event
Creating a personal user profile on professional networking site
Taking a WorkKeys exam
Using online career tools such as job match advisors, other national job boards, or mySkills myFuture

Invalid Work Search Actions

Viewing job leads (but not applying)
Contacting employer to learn that no openings exist/applications are not being taken
Submitting application to same employer within 4 week period (unless a new job becomes available/posted)
Subsequent/duplicate posting of résumés on job search websites (unless part of application for specific job)
Submitting application for work that is not reasonable considering your training, experience, duration of unemployment, and availability of jobs in your labor market

How does an employee prove they searched for work?

Employees will need to identify their work search actions either when filing their weekly claim online, or by submitting the work search actions by mail or fax if filing by telephone.

Employees may be required to provide verification to DWD for up to 52 weeks after benefits were paid so keeping an accurate record of where and when employees applied or performed other work search actions is important.

 

[ER Eddie]

From the article:

"Through 2016, our analysis found that between the time older workers enter the study and when they leave paid employment, 56 percent are laid off at least once or leave jobs under such financially damaging circumstances that it’s likely they were pushed out rather than choosing to go voluntarily."

That sounds like fishy reasoning to me. Just because you're laid off doesn't mean you're a victim of age discrimination. And just because you are in "financially damaging circumstances" when you leave a job, that doesn't mean you're being pushed out because of age discrimination.

They note that the data comes only from the employee's perspective. What are the employees going to say? "I was laid off because my work wasn't profitable"? No, it was my employer's fault. I was a victim.

I also find their categories a little fishy -- e.g., "employer driven" job loss could mean any change in work conditions the employee doesn't like (hours, pay, coworkers, benefits), not necessarily age discrimination.

There is a lot of inference and reading-between-the-lines by the researchers/pundits here, without any real discussion of alternative explanations for the data.

Sounds like fear-mongering to me. People get laid off for all kinds of reasons, not just age discrimination. People leave jobs and find themselves in "financially damaging circumstances" for all kinds of reasons, not just age discrimination. And just because people leave jobs because of changes in work conditions it doesn't mean that the employers were targeting them for being over 50.

Not saying age discrimination doesn't happen. Just saying the conclusions based on this survey are suspect.

p.s. Even when older workers are "forced out" by employers making their working conditions miserable, the motive there is often not really age discrimination; it's the fact that the older worker is generally paid more, and they can get someone younger to do the work at a cheaper rate.

 

[Spock]

Maintaining skills might help, but its not a fire proof suit.
I received another software tech patent award for distributed computer storage 6 weeks before involuntary retirement (the company doesn't count me as laid off because I was retirement eligible by 6 weeks).

 

[gamboolman]

I'm pushing 60 and been working oilfield since age 18.

Speaking for myself - I would love it if a Package and Incentives to Retire was offered now. But I'm not counting on it....

If they pish me off enough....I'll just accelerate the retirement plan. But we are fortunate to be at this point in our lives with that option available to us.

Come end of next year....Ms. gamboolgal and I are planning to retire to Texas....

Having said all that, I believe Age Discrimination is a real thing and that it is devastating to many hardworking loyal workers who have "rode for the brand" only to be pushed out via RIF's, Right Sizing, PIP's, etc., while training there replacements. I say that because I know folks it has happened too.

gamboolman....

 

[RAE]

p.s. Even when older workers are "forced out" by employers making their working conditions miserable, the motive there is often not really age discrimination; it's the fact that the older worker is generally paid more, and they can get someone younger to do the work at a cheaper rate.

Actually, I believe what you described here could indeed be the basis for an age-discrimination lawsuit, if the employee that is forced out is replaced with a younger employee. Cost-savings may have been the main motivation, but the way they achieved the cost savings involved replacing an older worker with a younger one, so age was definitely an important factor. I know this happens all the time, but that doesn't necessarily make it legal.

 

[MRG]

Actually, I believe what you described here could indeed be the basis for an age-discrimination lawsuit, if the employee that is forced out is replaced with a younger employee. Cost-savings may have been the main motivation, but the way they achieved the cost savings involved replacing an older worker with a younger one, so age was definitely an important factor. I know this happens all the time, but that doesn't necessarily make it legal.

At Megacorp the older, better compensates workers were replaced by people in other countries working for 20 cents on the dollar.