For the Unemployed Over 50, Fears of Never Working Again
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
My work history is peppered mostly with companies of less than 20 people, and a good chunk of it at companies under 10. However, the job or two I have had -- and the interactions I've had with comparable consulting clients -- in places structurally describable as "enterprise" left me with an enormous appreciation of how differently a lot of the labour force there operates. Most of the people I worked with were strict 9-to-5ers of average intelligence who, over time, became highly knowledgeable, deeply entrenched maintenance experts in various legacy systems the company had, which in many cases dated back to the late 1980s; ROI is ROI. They were quite valuable to those companies, operationally.
However, they had been there 9, 10, 15, 20 years; they had virtually no transferrable skill sets whatsoever. When that technology does (did) go, so will their jobs, and they will (do) have an extremely difficult time finding another job in a competitive technology market at any place that does not specifically use those systems. Even the folks who played more generally applicable roles like accounts payable analysis, audits, marketing, etc. often became idiosyncratic domain specialists in that very company's very particular business process and very particular product and customer domain in ways that seemed to call into doubt their ability to shift into an analogous role in another place in time and space.
The zeitgeist of 1950-1990 at General Electric or Ford Motor Co. has passed; it's not coming back, I fear. If there's any advice I can give to people today so that they don't end up in this situation when they're 50, it's that you have to embrace this "up or out" approach we talk about so much here. Unless you're willingly headed toward management and significant increases in compensation, preferably short-term and relatively liquid, you need to get out after a few years. When I say management, I really do mean management; one of the pathologies I have seen a lot is to give people of the above specimen doing the same kind of grunt work year-on-year managerial-sounding titles to justify further salary increases, but whose jobs still consist of procedures and processes that suffer from the above-mentioned liabilities.
But anyway, the company will not take care of you. Company does not care. Probably will not be around forever anyway, at least not in the present form that has any relevance to you whatsoever.
I'm always a little suspicious of anyone who has the job title "Project Manager".
People need to rethink this undue loyalty they have been giving to companies in exchange for a meager pension after 30 years. At some point you need to look out for yourself, your skills and your future employability outside of the company. Perform well at your job, demand the upfront compensation you deserve and take responsibility for your own career...don't leave it in the hands of a large company bureaucracy.
I don't know about the private sector, but public sector pensions seem generous to me. Especially if you take the first 'early retirement' plan you can get on, if you live for an above-average period of time, it's really quite a lot of cash. Did you know that after you retire and start drawing a government pension you can go back to work in a different department (while drawing your first pension and a paycheck) and if you stay in that new department for a specified number of years, you can retire again, and draw two pensions? Also, your pension is a percentage of your salary... your salary when you retire, not an average of your salary.
That's always been my backup plan, anyhow... if it didn't look like I was going to do ok as a business person by the time I was 30 or so (we're down to a month, and I'd say it looks like I'm doing okay. Not great, but okay.) the plan was to get a government job with a pension.
Really, it makes little sense to work for the government when you are young. your pension is calculated based on your age and your years of service, so as far as pension contributions go, years you put in while older earn more pension, and entry-level salaries for most government jobs usually suck compared to the same position in the private sector. so it makes sense to work in the private sector, gain experience and take advantage of the quicker ramp-up in wages while you are young, then at some point switch to a public sector job with a pension as you get older.
Now, personally I'm relieved that it looks like I'll be able to make it on my own. I don't really think I have the temperament for public-sector work. But economically speaking, it looks like my backup plan, which is to say, working in the private sector while young and the public sector while old is basically sound.
but you do have a good point that staying in one place for 20 years is going to, uh, limit your options when it comes time to move around. I'm just saying, the pensions the public sector kicks out, at least here in California, and assuming you live for a while after you retire, make their total compensation packages look pretty attractive for people capable of that sort of work.
Private industry is pretty much devoid of pensions for new workers now and my best guess is that government isn't very far away from that.
You may very well be correct. I think it depends on how long and deep this recession is, and how much debt we are willing to take on to support the public sector workers and unions.
My point was just that, at least for people retiring now, the pension doesn't seem 'meager' - if you can get the deal the people retiring now are getting, it seems like pretty good deal. (Though yes, I don't know if if that will be possible in the future.)
Would you give this advice to an animator at Pixar?
If you're working at Pixar, chances are you are still advancing your skills. You are still marketable. But if Pixar suddenly stagnated, if your advancement stopped, and you were no longer staying up with the market, you have only yourself to blame. Why is it "even more important" at Pixar? Because they are so well known, it's important to evaluate where you are.
It's the same for people from Google. Google offers a great work environment, but people still leave. Why? They outgrow Google. They take responsibility, and move forward.
As long as your employer is still pushing you forward, by all means stay. The advice isn't to give up on something you love that is helping you. It's when it stops helping you that you need to evaluate that relationship.
I do not see the loyalty that you speak of. I see a craving for security. I see a strong desire to stay at one place for 15 years (or 20, or 30). I know a lot of people for whom work is not the #1 priority. (I am not judging these people. They are all healthier, happier, nicer and more sane than I am.) For some of the younger ones, there priorities might be:
1.) education
2.) romantic partner
3.) family
4.) social life
5.) hobbies (motor cycle racing, video games, knitting, yoga, jogging, sailing, fishing, etc)
6.) work
For some of the older ones, their priorities might be:
1.) children
2.) romantic partner
3.) parents (if parents are still alive)
4.) social life
5.) hobbies (motor cycle racing, video games, knitting, yoga, jogging, sailing, fishing, etc)
6.) work
Work is nowhere near their top priority, though the money it provides forms the basis of everything else they do. But their focus is on the "everything else" rather than the work.
To jump around from job to job usually means that work is your #1 priority (or maybe #2). It means you need to keep your skills razor sharp and up-to-date. It means you constantly confront the realities of the market. A great surfer doesn't daydream when they are riding a dangerous wave - that would get them killed. Likewise, a successful freelancer doesn't ignore the market - that will get them killed financially.
But, again, when I say all this, I'm not being judgmental about the folks for whom work is the #5th or #6th or #7th priority. I've several friends in that category, and they are all healthier, happier, nicer and more sane than I am.
But I do not see the loyalty you speak of. To be truly loyal, these folks would make work their #1 priority and would give 100% of their energy to the corporation. There are exceptions, but that is not what I generally see. In the last 10 years, I've twice worked stints in big corporations. What I saw were a lot of people who would work a strict 9-to-5 schedule, and they would be gone by 4:30 on Fridays. They gave the corporations the minimum effort to keep the job, rather than giving 100% of what they were capable of. That is not what I would describe as loyalty. However, the corporations were in no way loyal to the workers, so the worker's lack of loyalty was wholly rational and entirely justified.
The relationship between big corporations and their workers can get dysfunctional. I see that as one of the big problems that big corporations need to wrestle with - possibly the biggest problem that large organizations face is this problem of motivation. Small companies have a different set of problems.
He worked for a defense contractor as a designer. At the time, everything was done freehand. He got laid off in the early 90's and these jobs pretty much dried up, then started to return 5 or so years later. However, everything was now being done with computers and he couldn't get a job in the field.
He has worked minimum wage jobs ever since.
I feel lucky that in software development I can keep on top of technology trends even if I were unemployed. That is how it has played out so far at least, but will it always? When will the next breakthrough, that which turns the working world on its head, arrive? Hopefully long after I retire, lest I miss the boat like so many did in the past.
So far this field generally produces the things that which drive its own productivity, which means by nature I have had an advantage of understanding new tools moreso than other fields may. I have a hard time callously telling these people they must adapt or die because I recognize that adaptation is being pressured upon them by a field foreign to their practice. Its like your boss coming in tomorrow and telling you that your future employability is based upon your ability to understand why 14 year olds are all ga-ga over Robert Pattinson.
And if you're reading this and don't know who that is, I expect your resignation by the end of the day.
I wonder about your girl-friend's dad. I really wish I could draw or design - that skill must have some value. Could he really find no other way to sell his skills? Why could he not learn to use computers?
I was lucky to have access to a machine to train myself and young enough that I was still looking for an entry level position.
If I can go and get very specific training to get my skills up to snuff - I consider that valuable and a benefit to society.
So 15% of all unemployed are over 55. That doesn't seem that excessive. If we assumed that the labor force is uniformly distributed (which it probably isn't) from 20 to 65, the expected number is 3.3 million.
Either you think we should have to earn a worthy living and to be treated with respect.
Or that we have the innate right to a worthy living and to be treated with respect.
What is it going to be: The law of the jungle or a more civilized world?
All civilization can be explained as "socialism": To be civil to each other, help the needy and not let the strongest take everything?
The expectation is that people will want to work. Naturally a unconditional basic income will change things: Some will seek employment, others will start a business, and then there are the open source programmers. etc. Another advantage is that one could eliminate minimum wage.
That job could take many forms - cleaning courthouses and prisons for the unskilled, DMV clerk for the skilled. But it is important that the job be unpleasant and low paid, so that people have an incentive to seek more useful jobs in the private sector.
Basic jobs fulfills the same goals as basic income (no one is destitute) while reducing the disincentives to work that basic income creates.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.h... (Article 40)
Just because I generally want the government to do less doesn't mean that I don't want them to do things efficiently and with as few unwanted side effects as possible.
The fact that the USSR did it doesn't make it bad policy - that's the reverse Mussolini fallacy. It would also not be a bad thing to make the trains run on time.
[1] For comparison, unemployment insurance creates bad incentives. Rather than looking for work, the woman described in this article went on vacation while collecting unemployment. Replacing unemployment with a "basic jobs" program would prevent this.
PS: It's also a smaller paycheck than SS or unemployment so it's harder to get by without a job.
If she got neither unemployment nor basic income, but only basic work, the taxpayers would not have been forced to pay for her vacation.
There is a whole lot of work being done by the so called unemployed which really needs to be done but for which no-one is going to pay them. If anything open source should have proven is that while there is a lot of valuable work to be done, no-one is willing to pay for it being done, especially not in the startup phase when it's not even clear what you are working on. Fundamental work is often overlooked because it only becomes clear how to make it profitable after it is made.
Many people are payed while they are totally unproductive, while many of the most productive people are not payed any more, often even a lot less, then the unproductive people. Crap often sells better then quality work.
(2) Full employment is an illusion
There will never be 100% employment, more and more people will find themselves unable to find employment. Currently there is no safety net for the self-employed.
(3) An unconditional basic income is about basic freedom and what this means in the 21th century.
With an unconditional basic income we take worrying about survival of the table. Survival is something that should not be a worry in the civilized world. A basic income is a general safety net for any mishap, misfortune and plain bad luck than could happen to anyone.
(4) An unconditional basic income is about human dignity.
Giving people options that they don't have today: The freedom to quite an unhealthy, low paying, dead-end job and to look for something worth doing. Even if this is something like developing open source software, or some other creative endeavor.In the end more value is created even if no-one was told to do it.
As for 1) and 4), you seem to believe that there are a huge number of budding Linus Torvald's out in the world, being held down by their corporate 9-5 job. I think that's bunk.
If you think I'm wrong, you should be able to prove it easily. Many people do have some variant on basic income: NYC teachers in the rubber rooms, auto workers in the no-job banks, not to mention the vast European welfare class. Could you point out to me some contributions to the open source world from such people?
Still, people like to do stuff they are passionate about?
The only thing that kills passion is struggling to survive. Scarcity eliminates options, reduces freedom, and it forces people to go into a survival mode, leaning powerlessness. Nothing good can come from this. People who struggle to survive will not have the time or energy to look for better employment or to build their own business.
To have a purpose without resources does not realize much. And if all your time is wasted to survive nothing gets done. People often confuse scarcity with necessity? Something might be very necessary but without sufficient resources innovation is impossible. Necessity is the father of invention and abundance is her mother?
History shows that shared abundance gives peace, freedom, and individual autonomy Abundance with purpose gave us enlightenment, abundance with necessity gave us innovation.
Figure out how to do that, even at an exorbitant cost, and you have yourself quite a business model. As far as I can tell, it's not something that has been figured out yet, in the private or public sector.
I think people's problem is that they are refusing to adjust to the reality of the times. Namely that they need to live more frugally and be more proactive about finding a job instead of just submitting a few resumes online or taking an online computer skills course. As if that is some kind of herculean task.
"Stunned and depressed, she sent out résumés, but figured she had a little time to recover. So she took vacations to Turkey and Thailand with her husband, who is a home repairman. She sought chiropractic treatments for a neck injury and helped nurse a priest dying of cancer."
This also caught me by surprise: "And now, her $500-a-week unemployment benefits have been exhausted."
That has to be wrong. Almost 4-years of unemployment? Of course...
"She has since cut back, forgoing Nordstrom shopping sprees and theater subscriptions, but also cutting out red meat at home and putting off home repairs."
I don't mean to sound harsh. I realize that finding a good job is nice. However, I can only hope to learn from this and remember that it's important to always be learning. Never rest.
Of course this, "In four years of job hunting, Ms. Reid has discovered that she is no longer technologically proficient." is a true telling of why it's taking so long for some people to find work.
767 jobs on Monster for: audit "masters degree" "information systems"
2 of those jobs are within 20 miles of Seattle, WA (Vashon is an island where you catch a ferry and make it to your job in an hour or so in town).
We live in a global labor pool now and people have a hard time accepting that. You may need to go to the work rather than having the option of choosing from a number of jobs right by where you choose to live.
We're (I work for Rackspace Hosting) constantly flying people out for interviews from all over as we look to find the ideal person for a role. For a company it is much more expensive to settle and hire a non-ideal candidate over time than it is to spend some money on the interview and selection process. The same applies even for valley based companies -- do you think Google or Facebook have a policy of "local candidates only"?
and I've worked with some other people who worked from home most of the time and commuted more than 100 miles once or twice a week.
The centerpiece of the story was a 57 year old female from Boeing. If her financial planning or outcomes were so poor as to leave her near-penniless at 57, she was going to be a bag lady sooner or later. It was just a matter of time. Imagining she could save for an adequate retirement in the ten remaining years of her career was delusional.
That's not to say that there aren't a lot of hale, hearty 60 year old women in the world. It's just that one can no longer count on good health. It's important to realize this ahead of time. (In this case, this woman and her husband are really in pretty good shape. Sure, she's not working, but at least she is still capable of working!)
She eventually did make it back here and got a job. But only after getting another Master's degree in analytics (her 5th degree!)
I've seen a couple of comments like this lately, and each time - had no paywall pop-up.
Is it a geographic thing or something? I'm in the UK so maybe they don't bother targeting people outside the USA?
Problem 1: Illegal immigrants.
Problem 2: Americans who can't find a job.
This seems like a matching problem. I propose that DHS crack down hard on employers of illegal immigrants. To solve problem 2, they must coordinate with local unemployment agencies. DHS will arrest and deport illegal immigrants. For each illegal thus deported, the unemployment benefits of an American (maybe whoever has been on unemployment the longest) will be terminated and they will be ordered to report to work at the former employer of the illegal. Employing a formerly unemployed American will be part of the penalty for the employer of the illegal immigrant.
To induce cooperation among employers, we could create an amnesty program. Employers can report their illegal workers to DHS and avoid paying fines. Maybe DHS/Unemployment Office will even give extra help to minimize disruption to your business (i.e., no deportation until the day replacements are available).
[edit: to those downmodding, just curious. Is there an obvious flaw in my plan that I'm missing?]
- The job market isn't always a zero-sum game, so immigrants aren't always "stealing" jobs from citizens.
- Illegal immigrants are often in low-paying jobs involving manual labor, jobs that many citizens wouldn't consider even if they were available. (Anecdotally, I know one landscaping company that offers all their jobs to legal immigrants/citizens first, and if no one takes them they go to H-1B visas, and if those run out they start looking at illegal immigrants.)
As for citizens being unwilling to accept available jobs, why should the taxpayer be forced to pay unemployment benefits to people who are unwilling to work?