all 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 5 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

in my 30s, having the same experience. completely invisible.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 hours ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 47 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 30 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

    Never put dates on the education part of your resume.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 6 hours ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 4 hours ago

    The job loyalty thing pisses me off so bad. I enjoy staying at a single company and was at my former one for nearly 5 years. That whole time though was spent fighting tooth and nail for a promotion to a position I was already acting as and then shortly after getting it, I got laid off without any remorse. I built half of their system and knew it inside and out but apparently that meant nothing

    I'm at a better company now doing much cooler stuff but I still think back to that and get angry again

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    Have you tried getting into US politics?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 hours ago

    I'm not surprised. I've seen it, even in industries which value experience.

  • source
  • [+] -19 points 7 hours ago (13 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

    Paid for by social security taxes on millionaires and up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 7 hours 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    They’re young most likely and think that 40yos are “old timers”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 7 hours 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

  • source
  • parent