For the last 20 or so years (62 now) I've been hired to cleanup the messes. When there are 10 million dollar contracts at stake they don't care how old you are. Many of the young players lose interest when the real hard bugs start popping up. I will say the run of the mill software gigs it's better to hire the younger players but those easy jobs are hard to find now. Creating a GUI for database/web UI is easy stuff. Fixing bare metal vendor bugs is really hard and the kids just don't have the experience or interest to solve them.
Excellent discussion! I've been in the tech sector for decades. Much of this is true. There are a lot of boomers that are amazingly brilliant. The challenge is that many of these folks are retiring every day. Let's face it, the tech industry in corporate can be evil only many fronts.
Most companies use "bots" to do the first resume screen. If they plug in 3-5 years of experience, and you have more than that, forget it. Your resume won't even make it to step one. HR doesn't care if they rejected many qualified candidates, and perhaps some better ones. As long as they fill the slot at the lowest cost, they are good to go. In my mind, bots are a blunt instrument, even though they are "high tech". There is bias in their models and how they use them.
You try to say that ageism should not be used to discriminate, but that is broken mental set. The reality is that with age, some of the mental capacities of old people really degrade and there is no way back. Some other capacities stay same. Some other capacities even improve. The solution as an old employee is to prove to the future employer that you still have some capacities that make you better than the young people. Maybe we need some standard tests to prove that you mental capacities as an old person still stand up for your job. Also people tend to cooperate better with people that resemble to them, they can understand them better, they have more common activities, same health problems, same interests. So a younger team will have some troubles integrating older people.
Age 50 has been the standard layoff age for decades, nothing has changed, we cost more, have more medical issues, not everyone has kept up with new technology, we cost the company too much. Used to be that retirement was after 20 years of work so companies like K-Mart used to lay off people at 19 years to avoid paying pensions. I made it to 56 before I was laid off. The key is to plan for age 50 retirement, made my first million the month I turned 50, @56 I made it to $1.55 million and was ready for early retirement as my career ended.
65 used to be retirement age. My Dad planned to retire at 65, but ended up retiring early after being diagnosed with cancer. Making a million on your own isn’t average. If I knew that being pushed out in my 40s was going to be accepted as normal, I would not have taken my parents outdated advice to stick with one organization for over a decade and hope to get promoted, then work there until you retire. I would have concentrated on the entrepreneurial side of life that I’m now forced to concentrate on because I got aged out of my job in my 40s. That’s not a thing anymore, staying into your 60s. But it definitely used to be.
Age discrimination in the tech industry affects both younger and older professionals, creating a complex issue that hinders career growth and innovation. Younger workers, particularly Gen Z and Millennials, often struggle to advance due to older employees, sometimes perceived as less adaptable, remaining in their positions longer. This reluctance to retire can stifle upward mobility and economic competitiveness. Conversely, older workers face biases that paint them as less innovative, leading to fewer opportunities despite their experience. Addressing ageism requires balanced, inclusive policies that value contributions from all age groups, fostering a dynamic workforce where experience and innovation thrive. If this lack of agility affects their performance, they should retire or transition into more suitable roles. There is no shame in doing so.
Suppose I, an older worker, take on development training in a whole new specialty, developing a state-of-the-art skillset. Do I still have to retire or accept a role that doesn't use my training investment?
@@goodgrief888 bro most gen x and boomers can hardly open excel let alone actually do technical work (just seem good at making passive aggressive comments and forcing people to work from an office cube) GIVE ME A BREAK
@@passerbyp8531 My experience is that younger generations get out the knives when we try to stay employed. We were the generation that said that life doesn't have to follow a sterotypical road map.
For the last 20 or so years (62 now) I've been hired to cleanup the messes. When there are 10 million dollar contracts at stake they don't care how old you are. Many of the young players lose interest when the real hard bugs start popping up. I will say the run of the mill software gigs it's better to hire the younger players but those easy jobs are hard to find now. Creating a GUI for database/web UI is easy stuff. Fixing bare metal vendor bugs is really hard and the kids just don't have the experience or interest to solve them.
Insecure middle managers are definitely the reason older workers have a a tough time in the job market.
Excellent discussion! I've been in the tech sector for decades. Much of this is true. There are a lot of boomers that are amazingly brilliant. The challenge is that many of these folks are retiring every day. Let's face it, the tech industry in corporate can be evil only many fronts.
Most companies use "bots" to do the first resume screen. If they plug in 3-5 years of experience, and you have more than that, forget it. Your resume won't even make it to step one. HR doesn't care if they rejected many qualified candidates, and perhaps some better ones. As long as they fill the slot at the lowest cost, they are good to go. In my mind, bots are a blunt instrument, even though they are "high tech". There is bias in their models and how they use them.
I have more experience and my tech knowledge is high but mmost does want older people for many reason including financial and ego.
You try to say that ageism should not be used to discriminate, but that is broken mental set.
The reality is that with age, some of the mental capacities of old people really degrade and there is no way back. Some other capacities stay same. Some other capacities even improve.
The solution as an old employee is to prove to the future employer that you still have some capacities that make you better than the young people.
Maybe we need some standard tests to prove that you mental capacities as an old person still stand up for your job.
Also people tend to cooperate better with people that resemble to them, they can understand them better, they have more common activities, same health problems, same interests.
So a younger team will have some troubles integrating older people.
Age 50 has been the standard layoff age for decades, nothing has changed, we cost more, have more medical issues, not everyone has kept up with new technology, we cost the company too much. Used to be that retirement was after 20 years of work so companies like K-Mart used to lay off people at 19 years to avoid paying pensions. I made it to 56 before I was laid off. The key is to plan for age 50 retirement, made my first million the month I turned 50, @56 I made it to $1.55 million and was ready for early retirement as my career ended.
65 used to be retirement age. My Dad planned to retire at 65, but ended up retiring early after being diagnosed with cancer. Making a million on your own isn’t average.
If I knew that being pushed out in my 40s was going to be accepted as normal, I would not have taken my parents outdated advice to stick with one organization for over a decade and hope to get promoted, then work there until you retire. I would have concentrated on the entrepreneurial side of life that I’m now forced to concentrate on because I got aged out of my job in my 40s. That’s not a thing anymore, staying into your 60s. But it definitely used to be.
Age discrimination in the tech industry affects both younger and older professionals, creating a complex issue that hinders career growth and innovation. Younger workers, particularly Gen Z and Millennials, often struggle to advance due to older employees, sometimes perceived as less adaptable, remaining in their positions longer. This reluctance to retire can stifle upward mobility and economic competitiveness. Conversely, older workers face biases that paint them as less innovative, leading to fewer opportunities despite their experience. Addressing ageism requires balanced, inclusive policies that value contributions from all age groups, fostering a dynamic workforce where experience and innovation thrive. If this lack of agility affects their performance, they should retire or transition into more suitable roles. There is no shame in doing so.
Suppose I, an older worker, take on development training in a whole new specialty, developing a state-of-the-art skillset. Do I still have to retire or accept a role that doesn't use my training investment?
Yes we’re all supposed to sacrifice ourselves to the PRECIOUS godlike millennials. Give me a break.
@@goodgrief888 bro most gen x and boomers can hardly open excel let alone actually do technical work (just seem good at making passive aggressive comments and forcing people to work from an office cube) GIVE ME A BREAK
Not really. They have to learn “the game”. Most people over 40 need to go back and update their tech knowledge.
This is one sign of age discrimination and other one is performance degradation.
All my certs are current and in hot technologies. It didn't help much.
@@sorellasotero8047 Who cares about your experience and certs when age discrimination at highest level due to baby boomers!
@@passerbyp8531 My experience is that younger generations get out the knives when we try to stay employed. We were the generation that said that life doesn't have to follow a sterotypical road map.
Gen X got the most screwed.