If you look at actual OECD data, of course the job market extends a bit beyond 34. But does it really? We know a lot about ageism in hiring, and we also know it’s paradoxical to apply in marketing (only focusing on millennials), because younger people tend to have less money than older people. Just generally.
Anecdotally, I would say this — > The last 2-3 places I’ve had bigger contracts with and needed to visit the office a decent amount, the average age of an employee was 28 or so. There were a few execs in their 40s and no one else, really. Most of sales, SDRs, accounts, marketing, etc. were 28 year-olds, usually female, who spent most of their down time on The Gram.
Small sample size, but I’ve heard dozens of other friends say it too.
Now, also anecdotally, I know a few 27/28 year-olds who have been in job searches in the past year. All of them resolved in less than 75 days. Now, everyone I know over 35 who goes unemployed, it’s a minimum of six months. I know two people over 40 who have been unemployed for three+ years.
All of this is semi-logical. We deify the internal culture of tech companies, and those tend to be youthful. Since most jobs these days (white-collar, at least) involve some degree of interaction with tech, software suites, and apps … it’s biased (but logical, again!) thinking that we need younger people in order to be successful with this stuff. That’s largely bullshit because even the millennial generation is four waves; the oldest wave is in their early 40s and understand tech just fine. But can they get jobs within, say, software implementation? Quite likely not. Unless you have a “rabbi” who can walk your resume straight to the hiring manager, you’re probably getting #piped out by some algorithm somewhere.
Apparently half of American job-seekers believe they’ve experienced ageism, as an aside here. Some tech companies actively tell people they’re “over the hill” in their 30s. Ha. Unless you made a mint and saved well, you’ve got at least two more decades of working, and yet you’re now “over the hill?” Right. Some believe age discrimination within tech roles now begins at — wait for it — 29. People are now calling ageism “the last great prejudice,” which is funny because we still have plenty of prejudices everywhere. And it’s such a big deal that The New Yorker even did a deep dive on it a few years back.
We seem to be at a really dangerous intersection around employment right now. Most CEOs want to automate. Most hiring managers want youth. But the money isn’t there for most workers, so they need to keep working to survive and thrive in their own lives — and make decisions about families, homes, etc. But these twin forces of “You’re dead to me at 35” and “You’re dead to me because you’re not a robot” seem to be rising faster than we thought…
Your take?
But why?
Is the discrimination rational or not?
Does the age discrimination exist because of 1) ability or 2) perceived cost or 3) cultural factors like not wanted to manage someone younger than you?
I think the biggest driver here is $. Since company execs don’t care about people but do care about expenses , hiring younger people with reduced experience keeps costs down. Paying a 28 year old entry level widget developer $40k per year is a 25% discount vs paying their experienced 38 year old counterpart $50k annually.
I know one company at my undergrad alma matter which did this routinely. As fresh graduates were in constant supply they’d artificially record a bad personnel review at year 4 of employment and send tenured staff packing. The opening would be filled by a fresh grad and four years later the process repeated.
That’s pretty crappy (pushing out devs with 4 years of experience).
But here’s the question – is a dev with 4 years of experience WORTH 25% more?
Maybe that employer’s work is sort of mind-less work that anyone straight out of school can do.
If that’s the case, shitty as it is, it almost makes economic sense. That part that doesn’t make sense is why does the company give the grads raises if they are only worth (say) $40K?
I know people that would be happy to be paid LESS, just to keep a job. But for some strange reason — I don’t know why, please enlighten me if you know! — employers don’t want to pay them less.
Sure, I know health care costs more for older employees, and that why employer provided benefits aren’t such a wonderful idea. But, be honest. Are older folks (I am among them) harder to work with? More resistant to change? Less willing to work super long hours? Maybe the biggest “problem” (note the quotes!) is that they have seen more, push back more on dumb ideas, and think more. Maybe not.
The thing about experience is, it benefits the business in ways not easily shown in the quarterly metrics. That extra $10K pays for the sum total of brainpower that employee has over the fresh graduate. Ditto, the annual raise is SUPPOSED to recognize this performance capability . Alas , salary is a honestly a status indicator for ones worth to the silo-not an objective compensation standard.
Back to topic. Since annual expenses impact executive reputations & bonuses that gets attention. No exec got a bonus becuase their team executed process flawlessly.
it is a good article but if someone want to change the world or want to make their career on a brighter way at the age of 38 what he can do now? i suggest if an organization hires 35 or >35 , they can consider this as long lasting assets from whom company can gets hardwork, loyalty, and maturity. only a constraint related with $ will not provide a better employee..