Thoughts on unemployment and age

[scrabbler1]

I made the earlier comment regarding younger people willing to work hard, because I have read that the unemployment rate is higher among the 20-something.

Then, just now finished watching a 60 Minutes piece on the Millenial Generation. It said that the younger folks in their 20s were self-absorbed, spoiled, and would not go the extra mile for their employers. It was like Midpack described below.

So, what's the truth? The TV piece above was old. Perhaps the Great Recession has changed them?

That "60 Minutes" segment is being shown again on CNBC right now. I recall when it aired a few years ago and was stunned by the laziness of the millenials. For example, I'd be pretty annoyed if I ever got a call from the parent of someone I gave a bad performance evaluation to.

I was on a teamwork and morale task force at my former company back in the mid-1990s. Out of it came some good ideas to boost morale for us employees but we still had to put in the hours (and I mean ~40, not 60+) and be responsible for our work performance. I would have a hard time hiring any of these millenials, as I recall having to recommend firing a guy in the late 1990s whose behavior and attitude were very similar to those shown in the 60 Minutes segment. He liked to party and was bad at his work. We were not going to let him continue being a burden to the rest of our staff, so if he could not get his act together, he had to go (and we let him go).

 

[JBmadera]

Had lunch with a good friend over the weekend. She has her own business, specialized professional recruiting, and when we get together she always has insights into the economy and hiring in certain business segments. One thing she has helped me understand in the past was how companies practice age based hiring. This get together was to catch up and we only spent a few minutes talking business but one thing she said is that age discrimination is getting worse, businesses that are hiring have lowered the age threshold and now are not hiring people past their early 40’s. Also surprising was the reason – I suggested health care costs, but her view is those extra costs don’t make that much of a difference, and employers are now looking for younger people that are more willing to do “whatever it takes” to “get the job done”. That is, working 60+ hours per week to achieve cost reduction goals that were unthinkable a few years ago using harsh methods that some shy away from.

Ours is a tough economy and, if this is true and widespread, older unemployed people are in for a long, hard time. All the more reason to start saving early.

Agree, all of my 50+ friends in the tech biz have found that once they are let go getting back in is nearly impossible. Why hire a 50+ when they can snag a 35yr old whom they feel is more "fit" and able to do the 6-7 day a week routine.

 

[chris2008]

IMO the hidden reason for superiors not wanting to hire people older than themself very often is fear that the older person is more experienced and might not fully respect a younger superior.
Of course such concern is well hidden behind the (self-) praise that youngsters are willing to do whatever it takes...

 

[ratto]

I hope the young folks learn from what happened to the old folks. When they tire of 60+ hour weeks and are burnt out, they will also be cast onto the scrap heap of expendable resources.

Exactly. No one can stay young forever. What they have been doing is just like what some people or even this country has been doing, i.e. overdrafting until broke. Plus if it's a high-tech company, I doubt those 60+ hour weeks would produce more high quality products; instead probably even more bugs which will cost more to fix. This could be an opportunity for high paid consulting jobs.

IMO the hidden reason for superiors not wanting to hire people older than themself very often is fear that the older person is more experienced and might not fully respect a younger superior.
Of course such concern is well hidden behind the (self-) praise that youngsters are willing to do whatever it takes...

I shared the same feeling. When asked "Can you jump?", the expected answer shall be "How high?". That's the kind of core capacity they are looking for from youngsters instead of stories of arthritis or osteoporosis.

 

[donheff]

I'm skeptical of these 60-80 hour uncompensated work weeks. We have been hearing about them for at least 25 years. For much of the time it was bogus self promotion by us boomers about how hard we worked, now it is the demands of evil bosses. Yet every few years someone publishes a study that shows that workers vastly overestimate their hours of work. They may feel like they are slaving away 80 hours but most of them are not. For skilled workers it may be due to the 24x7 electronic tethering that allows us to pop back into work at any time of day and night. For non-skilled, I suspect the vast majority who work long hours get the overtime pay they are entitled to by law. I do agree that some hiring managers may lean toward younger employees because they want people eager to learn and to work hard, although they may be deluded about the lack of those qualities among the 50+ set.

 

[JBmadera]

speaking of older folks:

Working 9 to 5 -- at 75 - SmartMoney.com

 

[tryan]

Reminds me of a Jack@ss I worked 12 years for ... if we had a deliverable deadline (some random date he picked) he would walk the halls and keep tallies on who worked extra hours. Then had the gall to corner people who had kids/lives and question them about why they can't stay longer.

Then came the 3% raises ... then came the MASS EXIT. Funny thing, he sat me down and asked "why is everyone leaving".

 

[ziggy29]

I Just hope the employers who are intentionally abusing their workforce with longer and longer hours for lower and lower pay -- burn them out and discard them -- because this market lets them get away with it suffer serious brain drain when the pendulum swings the other way and labor has some leverage again. They deserve it.

 

[Midpack]

I made the earlier comment regarding younger people willing to work hard, because I have read that the unemployment rate is higher among the 20-something.

Then, just now finished watching a 60 Minutes piece on the Millenial Generation. It said that the younger folks in their 20s were self-absorbed, spoiled, and would not go the extra mile for their employers. It was like Midpack described below.

So, what's the truth? The TV piece above was old. Perhaps the Great Recession has changed them?

We sorta have two (or more) threads going here, surprise.

I think there are two "truths." There are increasingly two classes in America, the upper class - well educated and socialized, and the other class - less educated and skilled. The middle is shrinking (duh).

The upper class has the skills to be productive and they are willing to work very hard, including long hours, no matter what age. The other class increasingly does not have the skillset required to be globally competitive, and many were brought up in households that brought us the millenial described in the 60 minutes piece. It's developed over the last 50 years, and there are generations of hard working upper class families and generations of other class "self-absorbed, spoiled, and would not go the extra mile for their employers." The class trend is reinforcing itself and getting more pervasive. The 50+ workforce is at a disadvantage in both classes, though even more so in competing with younger upper class candidates (tying back to the OP). However, in the other class, the 50+ workforce may have some advantages where pure physical ability isn't primary. Though the other class jobs of course pay poorly in general.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Much of this comes from reading Coming Apart recently, along with other books & articles that seem to conclude same. Still learning...

 

[ziggy29]

It's developed over the last 50 years, and there are generations of hard working upper class families and generations of other class "self-absorbed, spoiled, and would not go the extra mile for their employers." The class trend is reinforcing itself and getting more pervasive.

Maybe, but as it becomes more and more obvious that more employers are viewing labor as a "necessary evil" instead of a strength -- the more they take advantage of the current job market to crap on their workers with longer hours and lower real compensation even if they are making record profits -- I can't blame anyone for not wanting to go the "extra mile". It's obvious that more and more employers don't give a damn about their employees, so why should employees give a damn about their employer beyond what is reasonable for what they are being paid to do?

It was a lot easier to care when one felt like going the extra mile would be rewarded with more than just "this is what you have to do in order to keep a job, even with lower pay and longer hours."

 

[fritz]

Had lunch with a good friend over the weekend. She has her own business, specialized professional recruiting, and when we get together she always has insights into the economy and hiring in certain business segments. One thing she has helped me understand in the past was how companies practice age based hiring. This get together was to catch up and we only spent a few minutes talking business but one thing she said is that age discrimination is getting worse, businesses that are hiring have lowered the age threshold and now are not hiring people past their early 40’s. Also surprising was the reason – I suggested health care costs, but her view is those extra costs don’t make that much of a difference, and employers are now looking for younger people that are more willing to do “whatever it takes” to “get the job done”. That is, working 60+ hours per week to achieve cost reduction goals that were unthinkable a few years ago using harsh methods that some shy away from.

Ours is a tough economy and, if this is true and widespread, older unemployed people are in for a long, hard time. All the more reason to start saving early.

When there are too many pegs and not enough holes - some pegs always go unused. Throughout my 35 year career, this has always been an issue in the U.S. workforce. Used to be that hard work came with rewards. Now it might buy you a pass when the cyclical layoffs begin (unless you're older). And yes, forget about running "out front" when you're older....

There's something fundamentally wrong (with government) when U.S. companies that have benefited from regulations and quality workforce, can move their jobs off U.S. soil (along with their money) without any government interference. They actually get help from regulators in accomplishing this (anyone remember NAFTA). We're not talking foreign competition from foreign companies - we're talking unfair competition from U.S. companies that drive U.S. companies out of business (or also offshore). This issue is more of a governmental regulation issue. Laws could be easily written (well, maybe not easily) to keep jobs here in the U.S. Problem is, they now control too much of our government (thought it was by the people for the people). This would go a long way towards solving the "too many pegs and not enough holes" scenario that's been prevalent for my entire career. Never hear anything about going after this issue....

I started my working career in a factory back in the 70's, and this was an issue back then. I completed college and climbed the so-called professional ladder and have had many professional people of all age groups working for me. As mentioned here, it is the individual's work ethic and not age that is judged for work performance (quality not quantity). As we all know - the higher you climb, the more freedom you give up. It's always been that way. What hasn't been that way is now it is even expected of entry level positions. There's still hope, as it's been my experience that career advancement/rewards and individual learning enhancement always came from the smaller business environment. I believe that if you're going to take risks in the work environment - take it with a smaller company and don't take the risks of too many pegs and not enough holes at the mega corps that don't even know your name.

FWIW - we retired early @ 59/57 - no megacorp/govt. pensions. Most financial reward came from smaller business - even a start-up (the most fun).

 

[Midpack]

Maybe, but as it becomes more and more obvious that more employers are viewing labor as a "necessary evil" instead of a strength -- the more they take advantage of the current job market to crap on their workers with longer hours and lower real compensation even if they are making record profits -- I can't blame anyone for not wanting to go the "extra mile". It's obvious that more and more employers don't give a damn about their employees, so why should employees give a damn about their employer beyond what is reasonable for what they are being paid to do?

It was a lot easier to care when one felt like going the extra mile would be rewarded with more than just "this is what you have to do in order to keep a job, even with lower pay and longer hours."

I wasn't justifying the idea, just trying to understand the seemingly different behaviors between those who will do "whatever it takes" and those who seem to do "only what's required and no more."

As for blame, chicken and the egg in many cases? I've known at least as many ungrateful entitlement minded employees as I have unreasonable self important bosses. And I still know more productive workers and competent caring bosses than their counterparts, though I'd have to agree the ungrateful & unreasonable seem to be gaining ground.

 

[Finance Dave]

Agree, all of my 50+ friends in the tech biz have found that once they are let go getting back in is nearly impossible. Why hire a 50+ when they can snag a 35yr old whom they feel is more "fit" and able to do the 6-7 day a week routine.

Experience, dependability, knowledge of company culture, a known quantity, solid known work record, and the list goes on.

Perhaps your friends' experience differs...but I think there are plenty of reasons to hire older workers or keeping them.

 

[glippy]

Oh, my friends! Young or old workers, don't we want them to work hard, so that their business will be more profitable, and their stocks will pay us retirees much in dividends, so that we can sit around at home chatting on forums?

Yup! Crack that whip!

 

[W2R]

speaking of older folks:

Working 9 to 5 -- at 75 - SmartMoney.com

This article describes the life of a woman who commutes 90 minutes each way to work every day at age 73 and sees no light at the end of the tunnel. Then it goes on to describe various appalling aspects of working life that affect older workers more than those that are younger, and ways in which older workers are discriminated against at work, denied desirable job tasks, overlooked for promotions, and more.

What a nightmare! So glad it's not MY nightmare. I feel like I escaped just in time.

 

[ziggy29]

As for blame, chicken and the egg in many cases? I've known at least as many ungrateful entitlement minded employees as I have unreasonable self important bosses. And I still know more productive workers and competent caring bosses than their counterparts, though I'd have to agree the ungrateful & unreasonable seem to be gaining ground.

Maybe -- but I think back to my days as a software guy in the "mercenary" era of Silicon Valley in the late 1990s. The moment someone with a technical degree and a pulse sent their resume out they'd have several interviews and probably a few job offers with nice raises.

Yes, it was common for workers in that time and place to go "job hopping" to the highest bidder. But there was also more of a sense of giving a damn about doing a good job, about wanting to exceed your employer's expectations and helping them prosper. People felt like they were getting a good deal and were being treated and valued fairly. Today there's more of a sense that employers will crap on their workforce every chance they get because they have all the leverage and there aren't many options for labor but to suck it up and take it. Even companies posting record profits year after year are freezing wages, cutting benefits and exporting jobs. So there's less and less motivation to want to help your employer succeed -- and more on pure survival.

Frankly I remember waves of layoffs, freezing of pensions and watering down of benefits before it became common for workers to voluntarily leave good jobs for greener pastures. I know it's a matter of perspective but as I see it, employers fired the first shots in the "no loyalty" shootout.

 

[ziggy29]

Experience, dependability, knowledge of company culture, a known quantity, solid known work record, and the list goes on.

Perhaps your friends' experience differs...but I think there are plenty of reasons to hire older workers or keeping them.

I agree, but in a market and and era where the mantra is "burn them out and discard them," better to find someone with more energy, more tolerance for BS and less of a learned cynicism about the relationship between employer and employee. Many people with a lot of experience feel like they have already paid their dues, that they no longer have to endure a bunch of crap just to get the experience. Young and eager folks who need the experience on their resume will endure an awful lot of BS and abuse to get it. And today's employers are more than willing to dish out huge quantities of BS and abuse.

 

[ronocnikral]

Interesting. I know my boss, who just turned 62, is way into working overtime and doing what it takes, which often means taking about 1/3 of his vacation a year, with the rest not paid out. The few "young bucks" I work with, work their hours, usually intensely (ironic to be posting here during work hours, I know), take all their vacation and go home. I guess if I had a family and felt like I was competing for a job, I'd do like the japanese and give the appearance of working long hours. But, fortunately for me, that isn't the case. I get my work done, and then some and go home within reason.

 

[martyp]

Experience, dependability, knowledge of company culture, a known quantity, solid known work record, and the list goes on.

Knowledge of the company culture - If it is a question of laying them off then, well sure, unless the company is going through a lot of changes, then maybe the culture is starting over. If you are entering a new job then you don't know the culture better than the people already there.

Known quantity - see above

Experience - possibly but they might also be out of date in their skills.

Dependability - each age cohort has its own dependability problems. For older workers I've noticed that their health problems or the health/life problems of their parents can interfere with work availability

Work record - definitely a plus as long as it is a good work record in line with what they are hiring for.

 

[devans0]

I've griped before about my toxic w*rk situation before. Last week, I left that j*b to "take on new opp*rtunities". First week on my new j*b finished yesterday. There is a 180 calender day qualification process. The last two people who tried to do this j*b were disqualified. It is a difficult and exacting job that requires specialized training. There are perhaps 100 people in the world that do this work.
My new co-workers are working 80 hour weeks because of the severe worker shortage. I am running half of the job rotation and am concentrating on making life as easy as possible for my co-workers/trainers and bosses. After 80 hour weeks, they are extremely grateful for the help and of course are giving me fantastic reviews.

The whole age/productivity thing is overblown. When I concentrate on making my co-workers and bosses lives easier, so that customers are happy, I have more work and offers than I can handle. The younger workers who get this also are doing well. Slackers, at any age, on the other hand...

 

[sunnysideup]

Very interesting opinion from the original post. I am still working, the same industry for 33 years, pharmaceuticals. I have done various quality and regulatory jobs, and am a mid-level executive at this point. I would like to share my opinion, all related to professional jobs.

I have seen many young people who do not "do whatever it takes". And I disagree with the assessment that older people do not. I think much of anyone's work ethic is personality based, and sometimes it depends on where you have worked.

I can say that having worked at 7 companies, that some companies expect you to be in the office long hours, but it is not related to productivity. Does that make sense? And what about the fact that some people waste alot of time and others are very efficient? Do we punish those who get the same job done in half the time?

Clearly I do not agree with making generalizations.

I would agree that typically older workers have higher salaries, on average and that probably leads to their being laid off first. However, during these hard times, many people take pay cuts to simply stay employed. I also think the competitive job market is making recent graduates be less complacent than workers in the job force with 5-15 years experience.

So I hope that the prejudice against older workers is not shared by all HR people since I can attest to hiring 4 workers over 45 last year and they are the best!!!

Norma

 

[farmerEd]

There are perhaps 100 people in the world that do this work.

The whole age/productivity thing is overblown. When I concentrate on making my co-workers and bosses lives easier, so that customers are happy, I have more work and offers than I can handle. The younger workers who get this also are doing well. Slackers, at any age, on the other hand....

Your situation may not apply in the general case however...if there are truly only 100 people in the world that can do what you do, then that situation doesn't really have the same rules as say a mid-level paper-pusher in some mega-corp with the same skills as 10 million other people.

 

[MichaelB]

Very interesting comments so far. The US labor market is 130M strong, so it can’t be easily broken down into just one trend. There are many dynamics here. Youbet asks an important question. A business should want to take advantage of experience with a low cost. The small business survey consistently reports the number one issue as lack of demand. This is consistent with declining job prospects. In this case, experience is only valuable if it can be used to make something to export. Lack of domestic demand is allowing employers to be very picky when they hire.

It isn’t clear “Whatever it takes” has always been around, at least in the same form as today. Business labor cost has been contained by increasing productivity, lowering real wages and pushing retirement costs back onto the worker. In the 90’s the benefit of this was realized by sharholders. In the ‘00s the benefit has been exclusive to management, both workers and owners have lost. Allowing corporate execs to benefit personally to such extreme levels seems to be unhealthy when the rest of the economy is disadvantaged.

That said, I know of an initiative where in just a few years a privately run business in the Midwest went public, raised a fair amount of money, has greatly expanded its operations and even built new facilities, all in an industry that is subject to substantial environmental regulation. Their hiring has definitely not been one that can be easily categorized by age, profession, degree, etc. Perhaps the "least common denominator" is hard working. It can be done.

Our biggest jobs related problem is still lack of aggregate demand. It may take a long time to improve, and meanwhile I suspect we will see lots of tough employment situations.

 

[martyp]

Attitude definitely counts. My last hire, about a year before I ER'd, was someone coming out of retirement. He had trained as a Six Sigma Black Belt and that was what he wanted to do. He didn't want to go back to electrical engineering or supervision. His commute was going to be 90 minutes each way but I called his references and he had done commutes longer than this in the past. He had a mother that needed some care. We agreed that he could telecommute 1 day a week.

He was always on time, energetic, cheerful, and he was excited about his work. When working from home he was available by phone and email. I saw him recently (a year after my ER) and he is still on the job and happy.

 

[eridanus]

I'm skeptical of these 60-80 hour uncompensated work weeks. We have been hearing about them for at least 25 years. For much of the time it was bogus self promotion by us boomers about how hard we worked, now it is the demands of evil bosses. Yet every few years someone publishes a study that shows that workers vastly overestimate their hours of work.

As am I. Working 60 hours/week is hard and a huge strain on the body. Doing 80 hours/week for months/years at a time? Work 8-8 7 days/week? Never seen it unless a release is imminent.