4 ms·

As someone in their 50's, that argument makes no sense to me. If I were unable to find a job, you somehow think I'd hold out for premium wages?

by nhebb 9y ago

user5994461 9y ago
A lot of people in their 50's don't need to work. As long as they bought their home when it was affordable, they are fine. Some have sizable assets that the younger folks can't dream to achieve in their lifetime. They won't accept work for less than premium wages, don't need to. That being said, I admit that there is also another part of the population who is struggling and desperate for work at any price. Last but not least there is the question of what is premium wage. In London for instance, a lot of folks over 30 moved to contracting where they can charge a good daily rate, without the hassle of whiteboard interview, overtime or politics. You'll see many companies (see the HN who is hiring) allegedly struggling to recruit at their great wages, but the truth is that employees have moved out to greener pastures for twice the money.
- nhebb 9y ago
  > A lot of people in their 50's don't need to work. I must travel in lowly circles.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    I suppose the distribution is extreme on both sides. Either you accumulated assets from early on and you're golden, or you're still struggling with rent and no pension in sight.
    - Balgair 9y ago
      Um, what? Like, cashflow at 50 with 3 kids is important. Yeah, you've saved for retirement at ~65ish, but you have 2 kids in college with one on the way up, plus a mortgage, plus just regular life stuff. That's not an unreasonable scenario at all. Like, do you live in a first world nation? Honestly, the paradigm changes a lot in the 3rd world and your confusion would be more appropriate in Chad or something. (In Chad, average age of first birth is 18, so you'd reasonably be a grand parent by 50, plus cost of living is very low)
      - user5994461 9y ago
        I live in a first world nation. College education is free, allegedly. If you have kids before your thirties, they will all be +25 when you are 55. They most likely finished college, they probably left the family home.
        Balgair 9y ago
        In the US college is NOT free, and that's 330 million people living here.
        talmand 9y ago
        Don't worry, it's just someone that has no idea of what they speak of pretending they know how to tell other people in a completely different context on how their lives should have turned out.
        user5994461 9y ago
        Just because your life turned to having no home and no pension doesn't mean it's the same for everyone else.
        talmand 9y ago
        I believe that was exactly my point.
    - Hannan 9y ago
      It seems like there's way more on the low side than the high side, at least looking at Table 1 (below) from this PDF from the GAO: https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670153.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670153.pdf Edit: below, the table contents Households age 55-64 with Households age 55-64 no retirement savings with retirement savings Percent of house- 41% 59% holds age 55-64 Median net worth $21,000 $337,000 Median non-retirement $1,000 $25,000 financial resources Median income $26,000 $86,000 Home ownership rates 56% 87% Percent who own a home 22% 27% that is paid off Percent with a 32% 45% defined benefit plan
      - user5994461 9y ago
        So, that's 25% of people having no rent to pay. Then an additional 50% who have a home but still a mortgage to pay. The statistics don't say when mortgages will end, so we can't do any meaningful analysis on the majority. There are more people on the low side, not WAY MORE contrary to your statement.
        talmand 9y ago
        So, um, where you live once you pay off your house everything else is free and you no longer require an income?
        bluGill 9y ago
        Too bad we don't know when they will pay off. A friend of mine just bought a house for $250k from someone who bought it in 1998 for $70k - 6 months before selling they refinanced for $225k. (this is all public information if you go to the right courthouse - he knows this because it is in the title). Which is to say there are some people who don't have their house paid off yet, but will have it paid off before they retire, and then live rent free (but with other bills and taxes). There are other people who will not have anything paid off.
- syshum 9y ago
  >>A lot of people in their 50's don't need to work. As long as they bought their home when it was affordable, they are fine That is the EXTREME minority of people over 50, at least in the US >I admit that there is also another part of the population who is struggling and desperate for work at any price. I would not say they are "desperate for work at any price." but most people over 50 need a fair wage for work, and by fair wage I mean a wage comparable to younger people as well
- bluGill 9y ago
  There are a few people. Not very many. Most people in their 50s have very little savings - http://www.rothira.com/average-retirement-savings-age-2017 http://www.rothira.com/average-retirement-savings-age-2017 has a nice breakdown - baby boomers average could live at most 6 years on their retirement savings - assuming the eat rice and beans... My dad was in fact laid off at 50. Everybody knew he was very careful to save a lot of money, so they always said "but you must have enough money saved away to retire by now". His response was always "yes, but I don't have enough money to get to retirement". In the 15 years between 50 and 65 his money is expected to double twice which makes a big difference to his retirement income. If he had started drawing at 50 would have much less money to work with. He needed a job to pay bills.
lmm 9y ago
Many people in their '50s do; a lot of people are anchored to their previous salary level and would never accept what they see as a "pay cut". And a company doesn't want to hire someone at a "below market" rate, for fear that they'd jump ship as soon as possible.
- talmand 9y ago
  To quote Weird Al Yankovic responding to being overqualified while looking for work before his singing career, "Yeah, but I gotta eat!"
- ojbyrne 9y ago
  I'm in my 50s and I think your second statement is much more true than your first. Recruiters especially get in the mode where "what was your previous salary" determines what the offer is. When you're older, you're more likely to have savings, and taking a pay cut for the right (interesting) job is a no-brainer.

As someone in their 50's, that argument makes no sense to me. If I were unable to find a job, you somehow think I'd hold out for premium wages?

by nhebb 9y ago

As someone in their 50's, that argument makes no sense to me. If I were unable to find a job, you somehow think I'd hold out for premium wages?

user5994461 9y ago

A lot of people in their 50's don't need to work. As long as they bought their home when it was affordable, they are fine. Some have sizable assets that the younger folks can't dream to achieve in their lifetime. They won't accept work for less than premium wages, don't need to. That being said, I admit that there is also another part of the population who is struggling and desperate for work at any price. Last but not least there is the question of what is premium wage. In London for instance, a lot of folks over 30 moved to contracting where they can charge a good daily rate, without the hassle of whiteboard interview, overtime or politics. You'll see many companies (see the HN who is hiring) allegedly struggling to recruit at their great wages, but the truth is that employees have moved out to greener pastures for twice the money.

nhebb 9y ago
> A lot of people in their 50's don't need to work. I must travel in lowly circles.
- user5994461 9y ago
  I suppose the distribution is extreme on both sides. Either you accumulated assets from early on and you're golden, or you're still struggling with rent and no pension in sight.
  - Balgair 9y ago
    Um, what? Like, cashflow at 50 with 3 kids is important. Yeah, you've saved for retirement at ~65ish, but you have 2 kids in college with one on the way up, plus a mortgage, plus just regular life stuff. That's not an unreasonable scenario at all. Like, do you live in a first world nation? Honestly, the paradigm changes a lot in the 3rd world and your confusion would be more appropriate in Chad or something. (In Chad, average age of first birth is 18, so you'd reasonably be a grand parent by 50, plus cost of living is very low)
    - user5994461 9y ago
      I live in a first world nation. College education is free, allegedly. If you have kids before your thirties, they will all be +25 when you are 55. They most likely finished college, they probably left the family home.
      - Balgair 9y ago
        In the US college is NOT free, and that's 330 million people living here.
        talmand 9y ago
        Don't worry, it's just someone that has no idea of what they speak of pretending they know how to tell other people in a completely different context on how their lives should have turned out.
        user5994461 9y ago
        Just because your life turned to having no home and no pension doesn't mean it's the same for everyone else.
        talmand 9y ago
        I believe that was exactly my point.
  - Hannan 9y ago
    It seems like there's way more on the low side than the high side, at least looking at Table 1 (below) from this PDF from the GAO: https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670153.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670153.pdf Edit: below, the table contents Households age 55-64 with Households age 55-64 no retirement savings with retirement savings Percent of house- 41% 59% holds age 55-64 Median net worth $21,000 $337,000 Median non-retirement $1,000 $25,000 financial resources Median income $26,000 $86,000 Home ownership rates 56% 87% Percent who own a home 22% 27% that is paid off Percent with a 32% 45% defined benefit plan
    - user5994461 9y ago
      So, that's 25% of people having no rent to pay. Then an additional 50% who have a home but still a mortgage to pay. The statistics don't say when mortgages will end, so we can't do any meaningful analysis on the majority. There are more people on the low side, not WAY MORE contrary to your statement.
      - talmand 9y ago
        So, um, where you live once you pay off your house everything else is free and you no longer require an income?
      - bluGill 9y ago
        Too bad we don't know when they will pay off. A friend of mine just bought a house for $250k from someone who bought it in 1998 for $70k - 6 months before selling they refinanced for $225k. (this is all public information if you go to the right courthouse - he knows this because it is in the title). Which is to say there are some people who don't have their house paid off yet, but will have it paid off before they retire, and then live rent free (but with other bills and taxes). There are other people who will not have anything paid off.
syshum 9y ago
>>A lot of people in their 50's don't need to work. As long as they bought their home when it was affordable, they are fine That is the EXTREME minority of people over 50, at least in the US >I admit that there is also another part of the population who is struggling and desperate for work at any price. I would not say they are "desperate for work at any price." but most people over 50 need a fair wage for work, and by fair wage I mean a wage comparable to younger people as well
bluGill 9y ago
There are a few people. Not very many. Most people in their 50s have very little savings - http://www.rothira.com/average-retirement-savings-age-2017 http://www.rothira.com/average-retirement-savings-age-2017 has a nice breakdown - baby boomers average could live at most 6 years on their retirement savings - assuming the eat rice and beans... My dad was in fact laid off at 50. Everybody knew he was very careful to save a lot of money, so they always said "but you must have enough money saved away to retire by now". His response was always "yes, but I don't have enough money to get to retirement". In the 15 years between 50 and 65 his money is expected to double twice which makes a big difference to his retirement income. If he had started drawing at 50 would have much less money to work with. He needed a job to pay bills.

lmm 9y ago

Many people in their '50s do; a lot of people are anchored to their previous salary level and would never accept what they see as a "pay cut". And a company doesn't want to hire someone at a "below market" rate, for fear that they'd jump ship as soon as possible.

talmand 9y ago
To quote Weird Al Yankovic responding to being overqualified while looking for work before his singing career, "Yeah, but I gotta eat!"
ojbyrne 9y ago
I'm in my 50s and I think your second statement is much more true than your first. Recruiters especially get in the mode where "what was your previous salary" determines what the offer is. When you're older, you're more likely to have savings, and taking a pay cut for the right (interesting) job is a no-brainer.