11 ms·

Over 50, Female and Jobless

86 points by wallflower 11y ago

danmaz74 11y ago
> Ms. Colafrancesco, now 59 and divorced, started determinedly looking for a full-time job three years ago. As soon as she mentioned that she had taken off time to care for two children, she could see in the interviewer’s face that she had been summarily dismissed. Anybody has a clue why having taken time off to care for her children is relevant for a potential employer now that she is 59 years old, and the likelihood of her having more children fairly low?
- chillingeffect 11y ago
  More explicitly stated, "Put your best foot forward in a job interview. Don't give anyone any reason to think you might know less than the next candidate." Also, lying through omission is more acceptable in some places than others.
- maguirre 11y ago
  could it be because, in their eyes, she showed lack of commitment to her job? It feels awful just thinking it in those terms but I can see how that can be used against parents that decide to stay home to take care of their children
- morgante 11y ago
  It could also be that she has missed out on relevant experience due to the time spent child-rearing.
  - tomp 11y ago
    This argument is reasonable on the surface, but when you think about it a bit more, it seems quite unlikely that missing 2 years of work 20 years ago would result in lack of relevant experience... Most people never have 20 years of experience (more like 20 times 1 year of experience); furthermore, whatever experience another person might have had 20 years ago is most likely either forgotten or completely irrelevant by now.
    - mistersquid 11y ago
      > This argument is reasonable on the surface, but when you think about it a bit more, it seems quite unlikely that missing 2 years of work 20 years ago would result in lack of relevant experience... I don't think the article states precisely how much time, whether 2 years or 20, Colafrancesco took off from work to raise her children. However, that's not to justify unequal hiring practices if and where such details keep employers from hiring Colafrancesco and women in similar positions.
    - cbr 11y ago
      Trying to match her linkedin profile [1] to the article, it sounds like she worked in reinsurance from 1980-2003 (age 23-46), took time off to care for kids, and started substitute teaching a few days a week in 2007 (age 50). Not working within your field for the last 13 years does seem like it would have a large effect on experience; this is getting close to your "whatever experience another person might have had 20 years ago is most likely either forgotten or completely irrelevant by now". [1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynn-colafrancesco-5800163 https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynn-colafrancesco-5800163
    - morgante 11y ago
      I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but I do see where employers might be coming from. She likely took off a lot more than 2 years (cbr says 13). Not working in your field for 13 years is a pretty easy way to fall out of touch with the latest practices. Employers should treat her fairly, which would probably be treating her like a slightly above entry level candidate, since so much of her experience is so dated. If they're refusing to hire her at all, that's a problem. But if they're not valuing her experience from 13 years ago as equal to experience from last year, I understand.
- facepalm 11y ago
  It seems like pure speculation on the part of the author of the article. Maybe these words basically write themselves in any article containing the words "women" and "jobs".
- hkmurakami 11y ago
  I would say that here are so many qualified candidates that look virtually identical on the surface that employers can feel justified to "play it safe" and pass on any semblance of even a slight possible negative in a candidate.
- gotchange 11y ago
  Can you tell how much did she take off the job to raise her kids? How many years we're talking about here and was she able to stay up to date with the latest developments and trends in her profession or industry? Also, did she feel really "dismissed" after sharing this piece of info at interviews or just "disqualified" because "dismissed" is a strong word and entails humiliation and lack of respect unlike the other one?
williesleg 11y ago
Thanks Obama. You see, the more jobs available, the more competition for workers. The more competition for workers, the better off the workers are. It's easier to find jobs, easier to move up, easier to live the American Dream. In fact, tax revenue goes up too, so it's a win-win for everyone. That, kids, is called Capitalism.
WhitneyLand 11y ago
I wonder how much of a barrier this is when a woman over 50 has specific, up to date, hard skills like those discussed on HN. In other words, how much is discrimination and how much is investing in and managing an up to date skill set.
- ghaff 11y ago
  The short answer is almost certainly that it still is. Obviously, specific marketable skills are almost always going to be better than just a more generic administrative/business background. However, age discrimination is absolutely a thing and you can't chalk it all up to not being willing to put in the hours or having obsolete skills.
  - dave2000 11y ago
    Age discrimination is a thing but the idea that you work for a company to benefit them and not yourself is something that's taking a painfully long time to sink in for a lot of people. Perhaps for older people they were brought up to think you just work all the time, in one company perhaps, because...its just something you do. The idea that you only work because someone finds what you do economically advantageous is lost on some people. I often hear people complaining that they're not "getting training" at work (for free, on their employer's time). Well, yeah, that costs them a bunch of money and benefits you. Yes, you could argue it benefits them too, but not as much as them simply firing you and hiring someone who already has the skills.
    - LoSboccacc 11y ago
      And to double down on this, people expect to have things just because. If one doesn't negotiate training hours in writing on their contract, then it has no reason to expect anything from the employer. Why people don't ask to put on paper what they expect is beyond me. And if asking such things during negotiation put you at disadvantage compared to other hires, so be it. You can't have the cake and eat it too.
- flint 11y ago
paulojreis 11y ago
I always had the struggles of the slightly older job seekers close to my heart. It's just something that employment policy doesn't address adequately. My father is in that situation - which is why, obviously, I feel it so close. He's slightly above 50, with qualifications (B.Sc. in Chemical Engineering) and a lot of experience. However, he has been jobless since his last company closed, 6 years ago. It's really a perfect shitstorm for people in his situation. He has a lot of experience, but in the manufacturing industry which, as we know, is being dislocated elsewhere (we live in Portugal). There's the competition of younger graduates, which are also unemployed. Of course, he's too young to retire. And he's been unemployed long enough, so state benefits expired; the last resort state benefit - for poverty, really - doesn't apply because my parents have a house (so, he'd have to sell the house to get the state benefit). Luckily he has some money set aside, but - again - this is Portugal. You can save some money with our wages, but not nearly enough to support such a tremendous amount of time unemployed. And, well, luckily I'm employed but the same reasoning applies: I'm able (and happy) to help, but I don't make nearly enough to be able to do so and still save for a rainy day.
- tluyben2 11y ago
  PT employment laws are not helping either. I had a company there with employees and it all just is too protective of them. So you rather not employ someone. I thought the Netherlands was bad but PT and ES are far worse. And that is definitely hurting hiring.
  - paulojreis 11y ago
    That's something employers usually complain about. Portuguese legislation was mostly written in a socialist-led post-revolution period, so you certainly have a point. But what was your biggest issue with employment laws, here? The compensation you'd eventually have to pay when firing someone?
    - tluyben2 11y ago
      If someone is really bad you have issues firing them. I mean if someone watches pr0n all day in NL you just collect proof and that's; in PT we had to pay for the guy even then. That is a perverse incentive for employees; just get through the trial and then jerk off. I am a left wing voter and I am for employee protection but you need to be able to punish abuse and as far as we found we could not in PT nor in ES. Edit: and to make sure; if an employee is good we will do anything we can afford to keep her/him; we are not the employer frauders like Oracle is in Malaga you also encounter...
jkot 11y ago
I find this article a bit sexist, it assumes that women are only one who raises children. Plus 60 years old plumber with alimony has it pretty hard as well, and nobody will hire him as part time teacher.
- andylei 11y ago
  it does not assume that.
  - jkot 11y ago
    Then they should change title from "female" to "parent". Anyway it is typical rant disconnected from reality. Why nobody hires me with my doctorate from "communications"?
    - andylei 11y ago
      did you read the article? it uses words like "most" and "many". it talks about why older females have trouble finding jobs, but also about how older men have trouble finding jobs. its also an article about trends, not absolutes.
moonchrome 11y ago
While it may be upsetting for people I see nothing wrong with people over 50 having a harder time getting their foot trough the "front door" than young people. You had over half of your working career to network, get contacts, recommendations, etc. - if you're still applying for public job ads like the people in 20s and 30s then sorry but this probably means you weren't really good enough at your previous jobs for people to notice you and recommend you. A lot of senior hiring goes trough recommendations - if you aren't on anybody's "let's call this guy for X" and you spent 20+ work years on the job I'd rather gamble with unproven guy that has potential than someone with a disappointing track record. And this is true even when assuming that age doesn't affect your job performance (which it does, and past 50s you're past your prime and as we've discussed before your experience isn't enough to put you on someones recommendation list then it probably isn't that valuable). Naturally there will be exceptions to this but I have a feeling that this logic applies in the majority case.
- jqm 11y ago
  What if "X" to call the guy for doesn't exist anymore? Say for example (of course this could never occur) that a brand new web development paradigm came out and javascript died almost overnight. Say (in this hypothetical example) it was very easy and required almost no learning and anyone could do it almost right away. How is all the networking done with fellow javascript people going to help a web developer find a new job?
  - moonchrome 11y ago
    Networking doesn't really work like that from my experience, you show people that you're reliable and a good person to work with in some area they will assume you can transfer to Y even if you specialize in X, even senior positions hire people without direct experience and not only in software. I've seen things like this happen in several jobs I've worked with - not all of which were programming (eg. at my first job CTP was replacing old printing plate development with manual film montage/exposure). People good enough at their work saw this sort of thing coming a long time ahead and start moving to the next thing way before it actually happened, people who got hit by it were people who barely knew their job to begin with and had no interest in keeping up to date - so I don't think this goes against my point. And are you really surprised that people with no relevant experience get discriminated on age ? If your experience is completely irrelevant then you don't really have a lot to offer over a younger person (and younger in this context means <50 which is different from the classic software story of 20 yearolds vs 40 yearols where the differences are still debatable, there are undeniable differences in the below above 50 age groups, you're just past your prime at that point at least when it comes to adapting to new things).
geargrinder 11y ago
In my experience, over-50 employees are easy to work with, knowledgeable, experienced and flexible. They bring a lot less personal drama because they have things pretty much figured out in their personal lives. They are often anxious to learn and have lots of time still left to contribute. Obviously these are some generalizations, but I have found them to be true for many I work with. It is sad they are being left out of the workforce when they can provide so much of the leadership and stability companies are looking for.
brighteyes 11y ago
It's odd that the article avoids presenting data that would directly show the extent of the problem. It does show that older women are at higher risk of long-term unemployment, but only compared to other women. It never compares older women to similarly aged men. The best it does is quote people saying that older women have it harder, but never with actual numbers. We are therefore unable to estimate how big the problem is. Are older women 1% more at risk than older men? 300%? No idea.
- jt2190 11y ago
  From TFA: "A new study on long-term unemployment from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis [1] found that the prospects for women over 50 darkened after the Great RecesAge and Gender Differences in Long-Term Unemployment: Before and After the Great Recessionsion. In 2006-7, before the downturn hit, less than a quarter of the unemployed in this group had been out of work for more than six months. By 2012-13, older jobless women accounted for half of the long-term unemployed." From the study itself [1]: "In sum, men and women of all ages experienced a rise in [long-term unemployment (LTU)] after the Great Recession. In this essay, we document the lesser-known fact that LTU affected older women more strongly. This group experienced a remarkable change: from a low pre-recession LTU-to-unemployment ratio of 14 percent to a post-recession rate of 50 percent." [1] "Age and Gender Differences in Long-Term Unemployment: Before and After the Great Recession" https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2015/11/06/age-and-gender-differences-in-long-term-unemployment-before-and-after-the-great-recession/ https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synops...
  - brighteyes 11y ago
    But that still doesn't answer the question, because it doesn't state anything about older men. Yes, in 2012-2013 older women accounted for around half of long-term unemployed. Perhaps older men accounted for around half as well, which would show that the problem is primarily one of age? And it doesn't need to be so extreme. For example, if older women are 50%, older men are 40%, and younger people are 10%, then age is still the main factor. It would also make sense to see women slightly higher than men, since at older ages, women start to significantly outnumber men. But, on the other hand, if it's 50% older women, 10% older men, and 40% young people, then the article would be spot on. It seems very odd that the article wouldn't just present those figures, so we could tell. edit: In other responses, the proper data was found, and this is indeed an issue of age, for the most part, so sadly the article is misleading.
cmdrfred 11y ago
I started my 'career' as a dishwasher at 13. I worked my way up to chef and then got into IT. Kitchens are ALWAYS hiring. When I hear people complain that they have been looking for x years I always wonder why they don't get a job like that. Is it that they believe it is too good for them? The market seems to disagree.
- BatFastard 11y ago
  As someone who has been in this position, as a matter of fact I do feel that I am too experienced for it. The years of college, 30 years of professional development experience, kinda makes you not want to start from the bottom again. Finally found a company that values my skills, but it took a few years (yeah years!).
- mooreds 11y ago
  It could be about opportunity cost. If they could make x guaranteed in a kitchen, but have a 20% chance of making 10x at another job (if/when they land it), then they should keep looking. That said, at some point you just want income, so I get your point.
gragas 11y ago
I love how at the end of the article, Ms. McAfee says "I did everything you’re supposed to do". This little bit of information pretty much encapsulates the entire point of the article: Either Ms. McAfee didn't do everything you're supposed to do, or everything you're supposed to do is wrong.
gotchange 11y ago
From what I could gather from the multitude of articles that I read about the US job market following the 2008 economic crisis, I noticed an interesting trend or pattern where US workers are interested in getting jobs exclusively in the US and not anywhere else. I am not talking here about unskilled or low-skilled labor, I'm talking about individuals who possess marketable skill set who could prove beneficial for any business abroad and yet they limit their job search to their home country. I couldn't find an explanation for this. Is it the expected lower pay? Is it having to live in a foreign country and assimilating to other cultures? What's it exactly? Because If were one of them, I'd take any reasonable job offer abroad than staying unemployed draining my savings and having wide gaps on my resume that would complicate the matter even further.
- mixmastamyk 11y ago
  Those jobs are far and few between, and not usually available to "foreigners" except in rare circumstances. For example, when a guy here was advertising for jobs in Europe, I contacted him and was politely blown off when I said I was a US citizen. Yes a bit odd since this site is US centric, but there you go.
- superuser2 11y ago
  Many, many factors: 1) The average American lives 18 miles from his or her mother. Leaving one's hometown for a tech/finance/arts hub is for the upwardly mobile elites, not the masses. HN's demographic is extremely unrepresentative. 2) Foreign language education is poor. K12 schools generally make a token effort towards Spanish, French, and German. Asian language education is rare. Bilingual children are generally from immigrant families, or from very wealthy families who can afford good schools, study abroad programs, a gap year or summer for their teenager to wander around Europe with friends instead of working, etc. 3) International travel is extremely expensive and most people do not have that kind of cash lying around to cover necessities, let alone leisure travel. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. So going abroad is just not a familiar or natural experience to many people. Only 46% have passports.
mixmastamyk 11y ago
This article just made me realize that me, my wife, and my mother are all now unemployed and over 35. It does contradict the current economic wisdom doesn't it? Luckily I've got plenty of savings and always lived beneath my means. In my own case I find companies want to play games in interviews and are not particularly interested in hiring, even though I've twenty years experience in the tech industry and am an "expert" in Python and Javascript. Being interested in fitness also, I'm often in better shape than the pudgy, pale, late-twenties types I have to interview with, haha.
lkrubner 11y ago
This strikes me as a huge issue, which I've also seen: “I have been told in interviews that they want somebody younger,” said Karen Lamkin, a lawyer with 25 years of experience who lives outside Boston and has been out of work for three years. “It does not matter that I would be satisfied with the salary for a junior position.” I have seen that many times. Managers will want someone younger. Pay has nothing to do with it. Rather, managers believe that someone younger will be willing to work longer hours, and will also be easier to manipulate. The unemployment rate would have to go extremely low before businesses began hiring the unwanteds. It is worth noting that in the USA male participation in the economy peaked in the late 1950s, and has since declined. Much of this was racial: blacks were barred from getting good jobs, so they were overly concentrated in textiles and agriculture. Then a combination of automation and outsourcing reduced employment in textiles and agriculture. 60 years later, and the USA has still failed to recover. How low would unemployment have to be before USA businesses would hire so many men that labor participation rates would go back to the rates of the 1950s? Clearly, the USA would need a long labor shortage before businesses would give up on their biases and hire all of the willing workers.
rustynails 11y ago
The New York times has been very sexist for as long as I can recall. If you have any doubts, search Google against New York Times on general terms like men, women - see a trend of extreme sexism? It's hard to miss. As has been pointed out by many other posters, there is no difference in the figures of unemployment for older men/women. I honestly believe society is far more sexist today than it has ever been in at least 50 years. In my lifetime, no one would ever do a code.org by saying on the front page that (only) girls are welcome, or in Australia, we now have minimum quotas for police based on gender.. They must hire women regardless of who applies or their experience. The sexism and misrepresentation of this article should not be a surprise to any intelligent person.
known 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income should fix it
Mz 11y ago
Upon skim: I think it has some good points to make. Women are more likely to take time off for family obligations. If women do just give up more than men, they stop counting you as unemployed when you stop bothering to try. So the statistics would not show those women.

86 points by wallflower 11y ago

> Ms. Colafrancesco, now 59 and divorced, started determinedly looking for a full-time job three years ago. As soon as she mentioned that she had taken off time to care for two children, she could see in the interviewer’s face that she had been summarily dismissed. Anybody has a clue why having taken time off to care for her children is relevant for a potential employer now that she is 59 years old, and the likelihood of her having more children fairly low?

chillingeffect 11y ago
More explicitly stated, "Put your best foot forward in a job interview. Don't give anyone any reason to think you might know less than the next candidate." Also, lying through omission is more acceptable in some places than others.
maguirre 11y ago
could it be because, in their eyes, she showed lack of commitment to her job? It feels awful just thinking it in those terms but I can see how that can be used against parents that decide to stay home to take care of their children
morgante 11y ago
It could also be that she has missed out on relevant experience due to the time spent child-rearing.
- tomp 11y ago
  This argument is reasonable on the surface, but when you think about it a bit more, it seems quite unlikely that missing 2 years of work 20 years ago would result in lack of relevant experience... Most people never have 20 years of experience (more like 20 times 1 year of experience); furthermore, whatever experience another person might have had 20 years ago is most likely either forgotten or completely irrelevant by now.
  - mistersquid 11y ago
    > This argument is reasonable on the surface, but when you think about it a bit more, it seems quite unlikely that missing 2 years of work 20 years ago would result in lack of relevant experience... I don't think the article states precisely how much time, whether 2 years or 20, Colafrancesco took off from work to raise her children. However, that's not to justify unequal hiring practices if and where such details keep employers from hiring Colafrancesco and women in similar positions.
  - cbr 11y ago
    Trying to match her linkedin profile [1] to the article, it sounds like she worked in reinsurance from 1980-2003 (age 23-46), took time off to care for kids, and started substitute teaching a few days a week in 2007 (age 50). Not working within your field for the last 13 years does seem like it would have a large effect on experience; this is getting close to your "whatever experience another person might have had 20 years ago is most likely either forgotten or completely irrelevant by now". [1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynn-colafrancesco-5800163 https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynn-colafrancesco-5800163
  - morgante 11y ago
    I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but I do see where employers might be coming from. She likely took off a lot more than 2 years (cbr says 13). Not working in your field for 13 years is a pretty easy way to fall out of touch with the latest practices. Employers should treat her fairly, which would probably be treating her like a slightly above entry level candidate, since so much of her experience is so dated. If they're refusing to hire her at all, that's a problem. But if they're not valuing her experience from 13 years ago as equal to experience from last year, I understand.
facepalm 11y ago
It seems like pure speculation on the part of the author of the article. Maybe these words basically write themselves in any article containing the words "women" and "jobs".
hkmurakami 11y ago
I would say that here are so many qualified candidates that look virtually identical on the surface that employers can feel justified to "play it safe" and pass on any semblance of even a slight possible negative in a candidate.
gotchange 11y ago
Can you tell how much did she take off the job to raise her kids? How many years we're talking about here and was she able to stay up to date with the latest developments and trends in her profession or industry? Also, did she feel really "dismissed" after sharing this piece of info at interviews or just "disqualified" because "dismissed" is a strong word and entails humiliation and lack of respect unlike the other one?

williesleg 11y ago

Thanks Obama. You see, the more jobs available, the more competition for workers. The more competition for workers, the better off the workers are. It's easier to find jobs, easier to move up, easier to live the American Dream. In fact, tax revenue goes up too, so it's a win-win for everyone. That, kids, is called Capitalism.

WhitneyLand 11y ago

I wonder how much of a barrier this is when a woman over 50 has specific, up to date, hard skills like those discussed on HN. In other words, how much is discrimination and how much is investing in and managing an up to date skill set.

ghaff 11y ago
The short answer is almost certainly that it still is. Obviously, specific marketable skills are almost always going to be better than just a more generic administrative/business background. However, age discrimination is absolutely a thing and you can't chalk it all up to not being willing to put in the hours or having obsolete skills.
- dave2000 11y ago
  Age discrimination is a thing but the idea that you work for a company to benefit them and not yourself is something that's taking a painfully long time to sink in for a lot of people. Perhaps for older people they were brought up to think you just work all the time, in one company perhaps, because...its just something you do. The idea that you only work because someone finds what you do economically advantageous is lost on some people. I often hear people complaining that they're not "getting training" at work (for free, on their employer's time). Well, yeah, that costs them a bunch of money and benefits you. Yes, you could argue it benefits them too, but not as much as them simply firing you and hiring someone who already has the skills.
  - LoSboccacc 11y ago
    And to double down on this, people expect to have things just because. If one doesn't negotiate training hours in writing on their contract, then it has no reason to expect anything from the employer. Why people don't ask to put on paper what they expect is beyond me. And if asking such things during negotiation put you at disadvantage compared to other hires, so be it. You can't have the cake and eat it too.
flint 11y ago

paulojreis 11y ago

I always had the struggles of the slightly older job seekers close to my heart. It's just something that employment policy doesn't address adequately. My father is in that situation - which is why, obviously, I feel it so close. He's slightly above 50, with qualifications (B.Sc. in Chemical Engineering) and a lot of experience. However, he has been jobless since his last company closed, 6 years ago. It's really a perfect shitstorm for people in his situation. He has a lot of experience, but in the manufacturing industry which, as we know, is being dislocated elsewhere (we live in Portugal). There's the competition of younger graduates, which are also unemployed. Of course, he's too young to retire. And he's been unemployed long enough, so state benefits expired; the last resort state benefit - for poverty, really - doesn't apply because my parents have a house (so, he'd have to sell the house to get the state benefit). Luckily he has some money set aside, but - again - this is Portugal. You can save some money with our wages, but not nearly enough to support such a tremendous amount of time unemployed. And, well, luckily I'm employed but the same reasoning applies: I'm able (and happy) to help, but I don't make nearly enough to be able to do so and still save for a rainy day.

tluyben2 11y ago
PT employment laws are not helping either. I had a company there with employees and it all just is too protective of them. So you rather not employ someone. I thought the Netherlands was bad but PT and ES are far worse. And that is definitely hurting hiring.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  That's something employers usually complain about. Portuguese legislation was mostly written in a socialist-led post-revolution period, so you certainly have a point. But what was your biggest issue with employment laws, here? The compensation you'd eventually have to pay when firing someone?
  - tluyben2 11y ago
    If someone is really bad you have issues firing them. I mean if someone watches pr0n all day in NL you just collect proof and that's; in PT we had to pay for the guy even then. That is a perverse incentive for employees; just get through the trial and then jerk off. I am a left wing voter and I am for employee protection but you need to be able to punish abuse and as far as we found we could not in PT nor in ES. Edit: and to make sure; if an employee is good we will do anything we can afford to keep her/him; we are not the employer frauders like Oracle is in Malaga you also encounter...

jkot 11y ago

I find this article a bit sexist, it assumes that women are only one who raises children. Plus 60 years old plumber with alimony has it pretty hard as well, and nobody will hire him as part time teacher.

andylei 11y ago
it does not assume that.
- jkot 11y ago
  Then they should change title from "female" to "parent". Anyway it is typical rant disconnected from reality. Why nobody hires me with my doctorate from "communications"?
  - andylei 11y ago
    did you read the article? it uses words like "most" and "many". it talks about why older females have trouble finding jobs, but also about how older men have trouble finding jobs. its also an article about trends, not absolutes.

moonchrome 11y ago

While it may be upsetting for people I see nothing wrong with people over 50 having a harder time getting their foot trough the "front door" than young people. You had over half of your working career to network, get contacts, recommendations, etc. - if you're still applying for public job ads like the people in 20s and 30s then sorry but this probably means you weren't really good enough at your previous jobs for people to notice you and recommend you. A lot of senior hiring goes trough recommendations - if you aren't on anybody's "let's call this guy for X" and you spent 20+ work years on the job I'd rather gamble with unproven guy that has potential than someone with a disappointing track record. And this is true even when assuming that age doesn't affect your job performance (which it does, and past 50s you're past your prime and as we've discussed before your experience isn't enough to put you on someones recommendation list then it probably isn't that valuable). Naturally there will be exceptions to this but I have a feeling that this logic applies in the majority case.

jqm 11y ago
What if "X" to call the guy for doesn't exist anymore? Say for example (of course this could never occur) that a brand new web development paradigm came out and javascript died almost overnight. Say (in this hypothetical example) it was very easy and required almost no learning and anyone could do it almost right away. How is all the networking done with fellow javascript people going to help a web developer find a new job?
- moonchrome 11y ago
  Networking doesn't really work like that from my experience, you show people that you're reliable and a good person to work with in some area they will assume you can transfer to Y even if you specialize in X, even senior positions hire people without direct experience and not only in software. I've seen things like this happen in several jobs I've worked with - not all of which were programming (eg. at my first job CTP was replacing old printing plate development with manual film montage/exposure). People good enough at their work saw this sort of thing coming a long time ahead and start moving to the next thing way before it actually happened, people who got hit by it were people who barely knew their job to begin with and had no interest in keeping up to date - so I don't think this goes against my point. And are you really surprised that people with no relevant experience get discriminated on age ? If your experience is completely irrelevant then you don't really have a lot to offer over a younger person (and younger in this context means <50 which is different from the classic software story of 20 yearolds vs 40 yearols where the differences are still debatable, there are undeniable differences in the below above 50 age groups, you're just past your prime at that point at least when it comes to adapting to new things).

geargrinder 11y ago

In my experience, over-50 employees are easy to work with, knowledgeable, experienced and flexible. They bring a lot less personal drama because they have things pretty much figured out in their personal lives. They are often anxious to learn and have lots of time still left to contribute. Obviously these are some generalizations, but I have found them to be true for many I work with. It is sad they are being left out of the workforce when they can provide so much of the leadership and stability companies are looking for.

brighteyes 11y ago

It's odd that the article avoids presenting data that would directly show the extent of the problem. It does show that older women are at higher risk of long-term unemployment, but only compared to other women. It never compares older women to similarly aged men. The best it does is quote people saying that older women have it harder, but never with actual numbers. We are therefore unable to estimate how big the problem is. Are older women 1% more at risk than older men? 300%? No idea.

jt2190 11y ago
From TFA: "A new study on long-term unemployment from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis [1] found that the prospects for women over 50 darkened after the Great RecesAge and Gender Differences in Long-Term Unemployment: Before and After the Great Recessionsion. In 2006-7, before the downturn hit, less than a quarter of the unemployed in this group had been out of work for more than six months. By 2012-13, older jobless women accounted for half of the long-term unemployed." From the study itself [1]: "In sum, men and women of all ages experienced a rise in [long-term unemployment (LTU)] after the Great Recession. In this essay, we document the lesser-known fact that LTU affected older women more strongly. This group experienced a remarkable change: from a low pre-recession LTU-to-unemployment ratio of 14 percent to a post-recession rate of 50 percent." [1] "Age and Gender Differences in Long-Term Unemployment: Before and After the Great Recession" https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2015/11/06/age-and-gender-differences-in-long-term-unemployment-before-and-after-the-great-recession/ https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synops...
- brighteyes 11y ago
  But that still doesn't answer the question, because it doesn't state anything about older men. Yes, in 2012-2013 older women accounted for around half of long-term unemployed. Perhaps older men accounted for around half as well, which would show that the problem is primarily one of age? And it doesn't need to be so extreme. For example, if older women are 50%, older men are 40%, and younger people are 10%, then age is still the main factor. It would also make sense to see women slightly higher than men, since at older ages, women start to significantly outnumber men. But, on the other hand, if it's 50% older women, 10% older men, and 40% young people, then the article would be spot on. It seems very odd that the article wouldn't just present those figures, so we could tell. edit: In other responses, the proper data was found, and this is indeed an issue of age, for the most part, so sadly the article is misleading.

cmdrfred 11y ago

I started my 'career' as a dishwasher at 13. I worked my way up to chef and then got into IT. Kitchens are ALWAYS hiring. When I hear people complain that they have been looking for x years I always wonder why they don't get a job like that. Is it that they believe it is too good for them? The market seems to disagree.

BatFastard 11y ago
As someone who has been in this position, as a matter of fact I do feel that I am too experienced for it. The years of college, 30 years of professional development experience, kinda makes you not want to start from the bottom again. Finally found a company that values my skills, but it took a few years (yeah years!).
mooreds 11y ago
It could be about opportunity cost. If they could make x guaranteed in a kitchen, but have a 20% chance of making 10x at another job (if/when they land it), then they should keep looking. That said, at some point you just want income, so I get your point.

gragas 11y ago

I love how at the end of the article, Ms. McAfee says "I did everything you’re supposed to do". This little bit of information pretty much encapsulates the entire point of the article: Either Ms. McAfee didn't do everything you're supposed to do, or everything you're supposed to do is wrong.

gotchange 11y ago

From what I could gather from the multitude of articles that I read about the US job market following the 2008 economic crisis, I noticed an interesting trend or pattern where US workers are interested in getting jobs exclusively in the US and not anywhere else. I am not talking here about unskilled or low-skilled labor, I'm talking about individuals who possess marketable skill set who could prove beneficial for any business abroad and yet they limit their job search to their home country. I couldn't find an explanation for this. Is it the expected lower pay? Is it having to live in a foreign country and assimilating to other cultures? What's it exactly? Because If were one of them, I'd take any reasonable job offer abroad than staying unemployed draining my savings and having wide gaps on my resume that would complicate the matter even further.

mixmastamyk 11y ago
Those jobs are far and few between, and not usually available to "foreigners" except in rare circumstances. For example, when a guy here was advertising for jobs in Europe, I contacted him and was politely blown off when I said I was a US citizen. Yes a bit odd since this site is US centric, but there you go.
superuser2 11y ago
Many, many factors: 1) The average American lives 18 miles from his or her mother. Leaving one's hometown for a tech/finance/arts hub is for the upwardly mobile elites, not the masses. HN's demographic is extremely unrepresentative. 2) Foreign language education is poor. K12 schools generally make a token effort towards Spanish, French, and German. Asian language education is rare. Bilingual children are generally from immigrant families, or from very wealthy families who can afford good schools, study abroad programs, a gap year or summer for their teenager to wander around Europe with friends instead of working, etc. 3) International travel is extremely expensive and most people do not have that kind of cash lying around to cover necessities, let alone leisure travel. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. So going abroad is just not a familiar or natural experience to many people. Only 46% have passports.

mixmastamyk 11y ago

This article just made me realize that me, my wife, and my mother are all now unemployed and over 35. It does contradict the current economic wisdom doesn't it? Luckily I've got plenty of savings and always lived beneath my means. In my own case I find companies want to play games in interviews and are not particularly interested in hiring, even though I've twenty years experience in the tech industry and am an "expert" in Python and Javascript. Being interested in fitness also, I'm often in better shape than the pudgy, pale, late-twenties types I have to interview with, haha.

lkrubner 11y ago

This strikes me as a huge issue, which I've also seen: “I have been told in interviews that they want somebody younger,” said Karen Lamkin, a lawyer with 25 years of experience who lives outside Boston and has been out of work for three years. “It does not matter that I would be satisfied with the salary for a junior position.” I have seen that many times. Managers will want someone younger. Pay has nothing to do with it. Rather, managers believe that someone younger will be willing to work longer hours, and will also be easier to manipulate. The unemployment rate would have to go extremely low before businesses began hiring the unwanteds. It is worth noting that in the USA male participation in the economy peaked in the late 1950s, and has since declined. Much of this was racial: blacks were barred from getting good jobs, so they were overly concentrated in textiles and agriculture. Then a combination of automation and outsourcing reduced employment in textiles and agriculture. 60 years later, and the USA has still failed to recover. How low would unemployment have to be before USA businesses would hire so many men that labor participation rates would go back to the rates of the 1950s? Clearly, the USA would need a long labor shortage before businesses would give up on their biases and hire all of the willing workers.

rustynails 11y ago

The New York times has been very sexist for as long as I can recall. If you have any doubts, search Google against New York Times on general terms like men, women - see a trend of extreme sexism? It's hard to miss. As has been pointed out by many other posters, there is no difference in the figures of unemployment for older men/women. I honestly believe society is far more sexist today than it has ever been in at least 50 years. In my lifetime, no one would ever do a code.org by saying on the front page that (only) girls are welcome, or in Australia, we now have minimum quotas for police based on gender.. They must hire women regardless of who applies or their experience. The sexism and misrepresentation of this article should not be a surprise to any intelligent person.

known 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income should fix it

Mz 11y ago

Upon skim: I think it has some good points to make. Women are more likely to take time off for family obligations. If women do just give up more than men, they stop counting you as unemployed when you stop bothering to try. So the statistics would not show those women.