73
Fewer People 55-And-Over Choose To Work. But Why? (www.investopedia.com)
submitted 1 week ago by MasterBlaster@lemmy.world to c/workreform@lemmy.world
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is a few weeks old, but I felt it is relevant here. Noticeably absent from the "speculation" as to the reasons fewer people in their 50's are working is the elephant in the room: Ageism. I gave up searching for work because it's painfully obvious my capability is not the issue. AARP has permanent support education for 50+ people trying to get hired.

All I hear about with respect to frustrations being unable to find a job is focused on the youngest, while it's the eldest that are being forced out at alarming rates. The worst part is we don't have any recovery path, and some of us are supporting adult children who can't find work.

We either navigated all the pratfalls life throws at us and have savings enough to "survive", or we didn't, and we become another near invisible member of the predominantly elder population of homeless standing by intersections hoping for a handout.

Next January possibly millions of over 50 people thrown out of work and unable to find any job (even minimum wage jobs) will lose their health coverage, since Medicaid begins requiring 20 hours per week of work to qualify.

We are well beyond "fearing dystopia" now. We've been living it for a decade, some would say longer.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 44 points 1 week ago

The phrasing of this headline is a bit infuriating. Work has never been a free choice for me, and it's less so now than ever before. I'm old and I can't ever afford to retire, but no one wants a new employee my age. So if I lose this job I am afraid I'll become homeless. I'm healthy and smart and capable and better at my work than I've ever been, but experience isn't valued and youth is. So maybe soon I'll be one of the people they count as "choosing" not to work but to beg on the street.

[-] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Absolutely ageism. I recall applying for a job I was perfectly matched to. They might as well have just posted my resume for requirements. I happened to be 50 at the time. They made zero contact. One time is a fluke, but I kept getting ignored for jobs I was very well qualified to do. That happens a lot in the art field, and I'm sure many others. Young artists only want to work with young artists, even if the job itself is more production work than creative.

It's broader than ageism though, that's just a part of prejudice.

[-] Rooster326@programming.dev 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You are not the only one getting ghosted for jobs.

It takes hundreds of applications to get an interview these days. This is for most everyone regardless of qualifications.

You might not have even applied to a real job. There are literally countless "ghost jobs" out there. There is no job. They have zero intention of ever hiring anyone. See more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_job

[-] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 week ago

Yup. I've been thinking it's my autistic tendencies getting in the way of me being hired, but I most often see young people being hired for the positions I'm trying for and ageism has to be playing some role.

It's weird because I'm a much better worker and person than I was in my 20s.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 6 points 1 week ago

Guys..... Just because there is a decline in people choosing to work, it does not mean more people are doing so because of ageism. First of all 50 and over have historically shared a disproportionately large chunk of the job market. Younger baby boomers and older genx just held onto their positions longer than prior generations. Now that they are getting older and their stock portfolios now represent a huge portion of middle and upper class wealth, they are finally choosing to retire.

If you look at the date people 45 and over have the lowest unemployment levels on the market, and they are being unemployed at the same pace as everyone else.

I think you guys are just experiencing the same issues everyone else is in a market where people are hiring less frequently and employees are staying in positions longer. You probably just aren't used to it compared to the younger generations where this has been a norm for their entire careers.

[-] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Perhaps the higher employment rate of 50+ is just based on them already having a job and keeping it.

What you want to look at is at people who are looking for a job.

Are 50+ year olds getting hired at lower rates than younger cohorts?

Edit: Hate to break it to you, but it looks like age discrimination against older workers is actually a thing:

https://www.eeoc.gov/chart-data-older-american-worker-age-discrimination-employment

Not saying you can't still have your little generational warfare thing if you want.

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] MasterBlaster@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Someone else already got to it before me to show that ageism is really a thing. However, I still want to comment.

The dirty little secret about unemployment statistics in the United States of America is that it only counts people who are considered searching for work.

Searching for work means they're receiving unemployment benefits. My benefits ran out six to eight months ago. I am not considered unemployed.

Consistently, month after month, the percentage of the population that is in the workforce is decreasing. I believe that statistic is called the workforce participation rate. This is why the unemployment rate is so low. Everybody who can't find a job and finally gives up drops off the list.

I saw a figure that I can't get the source for at the moment that states we have about a 14% rate of people who are unemployed who want to work.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

Searching for work means they're receiving unemployment benefits. My benefits ran out six to eight months ago. I am not considered unemployed.

The department of labour defines it as anyone receiving benefits or still seeking employment. Seeking employment is defined as making specific efforts to find a job in the last 4 weeks. So no, that is not correct.

the percentage of the population that is in the workforce is decreasing. I believe that statistic is called the workforce participation rate.

The labour participation rate keeps track of the percentage of the civilian non-institutional population (ages 16 and older) that is either working or actively looking for a job

It has been in decline since the year 2000 largely due to the baby boomers reaching retirement age.

[-] stringere@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Searching for work means they're receiving unemployment benefits. My benefits ran out six to eight months ago. I am not considered unemployed.

The department of labour defines it as anyone receiving benefits or still seeking employment. Seeking employment is defined as making specific efforts to find a job in the last 4 weeks. So no, that is not correct.

And how does the department of labor measure the number of people still seeking employment. What data are they gathering to measure that. Where are they getting it?

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed

People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

  • Contacting:
  • An employer directly or having a job interview
  • A public or private employment agency
  • Friends or relatives
  • A school or university employment center
  • Submitting resumes or filling out applications
  • Placing or answering job advertisements
  • Checking union or professional registers
  • Some other means of active job search

Passive methods of job search do not have the potential to connect job seekers with potential employers and therefore do not qualify as active job search methods. Examples of passive methods include attending a job training program or course, or merely reading about job openings that are posted in newspapers or on the Internet.

Who is not in the labor force?

As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as not in the labor force.

A series of questions is asked each month of persons not in the labor force to obtain information about their desire for work, the reasons why they had not looked for work in the last 4 weeks, their prior job search, and their availability for work

I have never seen such a questionnaire when I was unemplyed past being able to collect benefits. 4 weeks after my unemployment ran out I become considered "not in the labor force". There is no followup program to identify people who are no longer considered in the labor force, yet are still seeking work.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago

younger genx is just getting to where they can get social security. don't see how that is hanging on to the jobs. In another decade we might see.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago

Which is why I said older gen-x? Though generational classes are pretty vague.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago

I read younger but figured you meant the one close to boomer. what im saying is they are just hitting retirement age. Im mid X and Im supposed to be working for 10 more years. heck now is supposed to be when Im putting in most for retirement. I would totally retire early now if I could. Thats why I was saying you might see in 10 years but honestly im not sure how older X is doing. I mean I know I was unemployed for over a year in 2010/2011 and was kinda lucky I had a job that held out for so long from that crises. similarly I was lucky to enter a government grant based position back with the first tech crash just after 2000. I mean I know boomers who could of retired with a nice enough setup and did not but given X is just at retirement age and that im not sure how prevalent a decent setup is its kinda a different story. I don't many have pension plans they are part of.

[-] MasterBlaster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

The oldest Gen X cohort is 60 years old now. we're not holding on to anything past retirement age... yet.

Note that there are many boomers who are poor and are working because they have no choice. Contrary to popular belief, most jobs were not that cushy over the last 50 to 60 years. pensions were steadily whacked, jobs were sent offshore. Maybe consider listening to the Billy Joel song called "Allentown".

Gen X is cynical and never believed they were going to get retirement anyway precisely because they watched what happened to the generation before them.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

I included genx because some consider starting in 1960 or 1961, which would make them eligible for retirement.

Note that there are many boomers who are poor and are working because they have no choice. Contrary to popular belief, most jobs were not that cushy over the last 50 to 60 years. pensions were steadily whacked, jobs were sent offshore. Maybe consider listening to the Billy Joel song called "Allentown".

Yes, but compared to other generations they are doing much better.

Gen X is cynical and never believed they were going to get retirement anyway precisely because they watched what happened to the generation before them.

Lol, what? They watched their parents sell a home they bought for 10k for 400k and they lost all hope?

[-] MasterBlaster@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

that straw man you set on fire is nice and warm.

Only a moron or a dishonest debater would look back and not acknowledge the destruction of millions of steel, coal, manufacturing, furniture making, and textile industry jobs, the decline of unions, the shifting of tax burdens, or the elimination of public support. oh, lets not forget the drug addiction all over manufacturing towns throughout the industrialized states.

bravo!

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

Only a moron or a dishonest debater would look back and not acknowledge the destruction of millions of steel, coal, manufacturing, furniture making, and textile industry jobs, the decline of unions, the shifting of tax burdens, or the elimination of public support.

Which they at least got to take part in before they voted for the people who destroyed it. They also benefited from the largest growth in wealth in American history. "Baby boomers hold approximately 51.6% of total U.S. household wealth, controlling over $85 trillion. Despite making up roughly 20% of the population, they possess an outsize share of assets compared to younger generations"

[-] Rooster326@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's weird because I'm a much better worker and person than I was in my 20s.

Yes but you are also much more expensive than you were in your 20s. Even if you took the lower wages, the cost for insurance for the company is higher.

There's also the stigma/stereotype(?) of older individuals being stubborn, outspoken, and (often( refusing to learn new processes. "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" .

I unfortunately can say I had these views when I was younger but we will all get to the other side of that coin.

[-] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

That's true. Making insurance go through employers does obviously contribute to age discrimination.

And, as far as stereotypes go, yes, that is almost universally the cause of discrimination.

But, in this case, as other people have pointed out, a big part of it could just be social exclusion--that is younger people want to work with younger people. I think some countries and cultures do this better than others, but in the United States there is a very strong generational segregation.

[-] Rooster326@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There is a strong segregation. I'd argue it isn't just generational though. And it's not new

Look at literally the hiring habits of every Indian manager, or eastern European?

Literally all it took was 1 Indian to be promoted to director of my department,and we have not had a single promotion, or out of cycle raise for anyone that was not a man with strong Indian roots. Not once in almost a decade. If you want up, you must move sideways - which I thankfully did.

My friends employer hired a VIP that was from Belarus, and within 6 months. My buddy found he was the only American still in his entire department.

[-] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Yup, that is more explicit discrimination. And before you retire, consider suing that place. Right wing outlets will eat it up.

There is a separate softer and amorphous "team culture" bias that is particularly difficult if you're substantially older (or younger) than everyone else.

I once was on a job interview and was asked, "It's important that everyone gets along, so what are your hobbies?" Obviously, if people get along and what their hobbies SHOULD ideally be two different questions, but if everyone is talking about Pokemon and you're just wondering who is going to win the International Chopin Competition, you're probably not going to gel.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago

This worries me a bit because I have never been diagnosed but I am that person that has always been "odd". Tech was great in not caring about that stuff.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 17 points 1 week ago

This is me. I have done relatively well but have been single income and as I started making better pay my wifes medical issues got to where it was a decent chunk of change. So we have always lived far below our means because of extraneous costs. Lost my job like two months before th election. Almost got one about a month in but the other guy scored half a point higher on the assessment. At that point things just dried up and stayed that way for awhile. Its recoverd some but between the lethargic pace of hiring, ageism, and worse having no tech work for going on two years. Well I know im not a sought after canidate at this point with the current attitudes. I subsitute teach but you can't get a regular amount of work out of it. I keep hoping I can finagle something but so far nothing I have tried has worked. I was kinda lucky because we were used to saving for big bills and we stay away from debt to deal with what we have. Our place is old and needs renovation and we had been saving for that specifically do get disabled things in the bathrooms but also elsewhere. That has been what we have been drawing from. I have looked up on drawing from retirement accounts without penalty. Its kinda funny because I saw many a well of boomer not retiring even when they could into their 70's and such (never understood why someone would not want to retire). Looks like we are getting the opposite.

[-] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Damn dude, that's pretty rough :/ My partner has chronic health issues and lost their job like 2 months ago. Thank god I still have work. We're only 40 but in 20 years I fear i will be in a similar situation to you.

I am not optimistic about the future :\

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago

I do worry about those younger. It looks like everything may drop out just befor retirement for folks my age but everything seems to get worse the further on someone was born.

[-] AlphaOmega@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

When I lost a promotion to a 19 year old with zero experience vs my 40 + years experience, it's just blatant ageism. Especially since I was going above and beyond the job requirements daily and 2x the seniority.

[-] Bakkoda@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I routinely watch manufacturing plants purge high dollar/high experience workers just to save on labor. Guaranteed to cost them in overtime, downtime, oee/etc and possibly even recalls, warning letters etc.

They know the cost and they don't give a fuck. Pile it onto the consumer with higher prices.

[-] sunsofold@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

The world run by MBAs...

If you are old in a professional field, you have years of experience they have to pay you for, so they hire the young guy to make the payroll smaller, even if it causes problems for some other department, because no one high enough to do anything about it is going to catch it.

If you are in the general labour space, making min wage, they know they can't expect the same energy, and can expect you to know the 'advancement' they dangle over ambitious min wage workers' heads doesn't actually exist, so they will get more labour out of a kid for the same money.

[-] FemboyPrincess@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Are people facing "discrimination" for being older or are they just worse with computers and phones and far more entitled?

I mean younger generations are more educated and willing to accept less pay. I think that explains the difference well enough with discrimination.

[-] MasterBlaster@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Seems like rage bait to me. But I will say I'm a senior software engineer. Many people in my age group whom I know have been using computers since high school.

Less pay rings true - doesn't mean that they can do it as well.

[-] FemboyPrincess@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago

I'm just speaking in generalities. Sounds like you're an exception to the rule on tech literacy and sounds like you're employed too. So it seems like your data point fits my narrative🤷

[-] MasterBlaster@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

uhhh.... lol? ooookklaayyyy, fella. have a day.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2026
73 points (95.1% liked)

Work Reform

17432 readers
115 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
kat_angstrom@lemmy.world