4 ms·
I think if we really want to get more seniors into the workforce, we have to get rid of the notion that wages should be monotonically increasing with age. In A
by jakobegger 10y ago
I think if we really want to get more seniors into the workforce, we have to get rid of the notion that wages should be monotonically increasing with age.
In Austria, for most professions, there are contracts that explicitely require wages to increase with experience (number of years worked). This means that older employees are automatically more expensive. It's especially bad for many "public" positions; for example, a teacher's salary automatically increases every two years or so. A 65 year old teacher earns twice the salary of a 25 year old teacher. Sure, the older teacher has more experience, but it's hard to argue that experience is worth more than TWO young teachers.
Also, often retirement is just a convenient way to get rid of people. If everyone's goal is to keep climbing the ladder, we have to get rid of the people at the top at some point. There's only so much space up there. And since the people at the top probably don't want to switch to roles with less responsibility, the only place left is retirement.
And last but not least, willingness to change is also necessary. Now, I don't think that a 60 year old is per se more reluctant to change than a 30 year old. I think that senior people can adapt to changes just as well as young people; given the right motivation. However, a 30 year old has a lot more extrinsic motivation to change than a 60 year old: when you are young, you have to adapt, or you will end up poor. When you are old, you have the option to refuse to adapt and just retire...
- kjs3 10y agoSure, the older teacher has more experience, but it's hard to argue that experience is worth more than TWO young teachers. Do you have an objective reason to believe that? Are two surgeons with a couple of years of experience better than one with 25? Two mechanics?
- jpindar 10y agoI've seen it here on HN many times as an excuse for ageism - we can't hire older people, they want more money and more time off.
- andyjdavis 10y agoKind of surprised it is more money AND more time off. I am an Australian in my mid 30s and most of my social circle is mid 30s through mid 40s. There is a bit of a trend to specifically request less money but more time off ie for a new job "that is a generous offer. I propose we reduce the salary by X dollars and increase my annual leave by Y days/weeks" or for an existing job "keep your raise, give me an extra week of annual leave instead." Perhaps it is something related to this specific stage of life but lots of people have young children. Also, the appeal of their career has really worn thin after 10-15 years of full-time work.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jl6 10y agoHmm, I would probably rate a teacher with 40 years experience much more than twice as valuable as one with only a few years.
- peteretep 10y agoMy understanding - and I spend a lot of time with teachers - is that this probably isn't true. Teachers improve for the first 3 to 5 years, but most don't after that, as very few spend time on ongoing professional development, and there are very few novel experiences they're exposed to. At least some references in: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21700385-great-teaching-has-long-been-seen-innate-skill-reformers-are-showing-best http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21700385-great-teachi...