At what age do you think a person becomes "unemployable"
Discussion
We are having this debate at work.
I know of a few people who are around 50years old. Ex-Big4, Top tier experience. BUT...seem to be stuck in middle management or dare I say at my level?
I am 32 years old. These guys have amazing knowledge, both technical and experience wise and know their stuff.
But for some reason people see fit to dismiss them when I ask them why dont they look to move further up the food chain?
I keep hearing: "He is bloody 50 mate, no one want's him"
Is it really that bad out there? By 45 you should aim to be in a better place???
what gives?
I know of a few people who are around 50years old. Ex-Big4, Top tier experience. BUT...seem to be stuck in middle management or dare I say at my level?
I am 32 years old. These guys have amazing knowledge, both technical and experience wise and know their stuff.
But for some reason people see fit to dismiss them when I ask them why dont they look to move further up the food chain?
I keep hearing: "He is bloody 50 mate, no one want's him"
Is it really that bad out there? By 45 you should aim to be in a better place???
what gives?
The assumption amongst many, rightly or wrongly, is that if you haven't made it to senior management by 40ish, there's a good reason - which is that you are either not sufficiently capable or sufficiently motivated. That is where you will stay for ever more, sadly.
It is also far harder to progress in a career if you have had to take a step back in any way (redunancy or other reasons) - people assume that you were not sufficiently capable at your previous, more senior level, so will not re-promote you.
It is also far harder to progress in a career if you have had to take a step back in any way (redunancy or other reasons) - people assume that you were not sufficiently capable at your previous, more senior level, so will not re-promote you.
I think it depends on your priorities. Many people will be happy doing the same level of job for another 20 years because their priorities change. They'll take the energy they used to push themselves up the career ladder and apply it to their families, personal interests or whatever else has become more important.
I don't necessarily agree about age becoming a barrier to jobs. In many cases it might be, but what's also happening is skills learnt earlier in your career are becoming less relevant. A case in point would be my dad, who in his 50s found a new, much better job last year as a software architect. He's kept himself on top of the technology curve though, by ensuring he works in places that allow him to do that.
I don't necessarily agree about age becoming a barrier to jobs. In many cases it might be, but what's also happening is skills learnt earlier in your career are becoming less relevant. A case in point would be my dad, who in his 50s found a new, much better job last year as a software architect. He's kept himself on top of the technology curve though, by ensuring he works in places that allow him to do that.
It all depends on the person themself, some young people are 'old' before their time and some older folk could work until they dropped, look at Rupert Murdoch who's in his '80s and still working hard (although he obviously doesn't have to worry about anyone employing him!)
2 of my best employees are 'older'. One is a man in his mid '50s the other is a 70 year old woman. They work for our business not for the money, they could both retire, but because 'it keeps them young'. The vast majority of my other staff are in their '30s.
They both have more energy and enthusiasm than a lot of younger folk we employ and the wealth of experience they can draw on is amazing.
2 of my best employees are 'older'. One is a man in his mid '50s the other is a 70 year old woman. They work for our business not for the money, they could both retire, but because 'it keeps them young'. The vast majority of my other staff are in their '30s.
They both have more energy and enthusiasm than a lot of younger folk we employ and the wealth of experience they can draw on is amazing.
HannsG said:
50years old.
These guys have amazing knowledge, both technical and experience wise and know their stuff.
what gives?
As someone who is 48 in August, was unemployed from February till May and has taken a backwards step careerwise I'm asking "what gives?" on a regular basis.These guys have amazing knowledge, both technical and experience wise and know their stuff.
what gives?
Dominicc01 said:
It is also far harder to progress in a career if you have had to take a step back in any way (redunancy or other reasons) - people assume that you were not sufficiently capable at your previous, more senior level, so will not re-promote you.
This is a big worry for me. I was in a senior position with a construction company who closed their regional offices after the credit crunch. Up until May of this year I have only been able to attain short term contract work through agencies. Whilst working on these contracts my technical and contractual experience has proved very useful to my various employers. It's not so appreciated by middle managers in their late 30s who realise the old fart in a junior position that the agency has sent to fill a gap can do a better job than they can and they don't want you around for very long thereafter. I am fit, sharp, know my stuff and am probably at the top of my game. I gone from working as a commercial manager to a middle ranking surveyor. Unlike the rest of the team my line managers are a bit wary of me. These are the sort of guys who are throwing out the "you don't want to promote someone that old" lines and trotting out the various and somewhat spurious reasons as to why.
It would be tragic enough if what I was experiencing was a unique situation but sadly for the late forty/early fifty-somethings in the job-market who have been bitten by the recession it's pretty much par for the course. If anything I'm quite lucky in that I've kept myself in work for the last three years and am now back in a reasonably well paid permanent position with a company car (admittedly a poverty spec Astra 1.3 diesel with steel wheels and non metallic paint that screams "welcome to the bottom of the food chain). There are a lot of guys out there every bit as good as me, if not better not working at all.
Obviously it varies according to sector, company, role etc but from a legal perspective you cannot discriminate against someone's ability to do a job based on their age.
I recently placed a chap who is 75 years old (albeit on a contract), and had a client make an offer for a 65 year old.
In certain sectors there is a real skills gap appearing in the 30-50 range. As a result, many of the old boys are still out working and making a fair packet at the same time.
I recently placed a chap who is 75 years old (albeit on a contract), and had a client make an offer for a 65 year old.
In certain sectors there is a real skills gap appearing in the 30-50 range. As a result, many of the old boys are still out working and making a fair packet at the same time.
Some of the big 4 accountancy firms have a policy of compulsory retirement for partners who reach 55.
I tried looking for legal jobs at junior levels with much less pay than I would have been used to in the past. I'd have been delighted to give them a go. The problem was, people looked at the 25 years of blue-chip experience on my CV and told me that I was "over-qualified" and that I'd "get bored". Almost as if they feel there's something wrong with you for wanting to start in a related area at or near to the bottom of the ladder. Whereas in reality you'd love to be given the chance.
Short of outright lying about your age and leaving out most of your career history, there's not much can be done about this. The market is geared towards fresh-faced, frequently-hungover, malleable, semi-literate incompetents with no decision-making experience. That's how it rolls, folks.
Since started my own business.
I tried looking for legal jobs at junior levels with much less pay than I would have been used to in the past. I'd have been delighted to give them a go. The problem was, people looked at the 25 years of blue-chip experience on my CV and told me that I was "over-qualified" and that I'd "get bored". Almost as if they feel there's something wrong with you for wanting to start in a related area at or near to the bottom of the ladder. Whereas in reality you'd love to be given the chance.
Short of outright lying about your age and leaving out most of your career history, there's not much can be done about this. The market is geared towards fresh-faced, frequently-hungover, malleable, semi-literate incompetents with no decision-making experience. That's how it rolls, folks.
Since started my own business.
tommy1973s said:
Some of the big 4 accountancy firms have a policy of compulsory retirement for partners who reach 55.
Errr....pardon?Other than compulsory retirement being illegal it's also not true. I'd guess that most of the Partners are over 55.
Do you think PwC, EY et al are like "Logan's Run"?
Countdown said:
tommy1973s said:
Some of the big 4 accountancy firms have a policy of compulsory retirement for partners who reach 55.
Errr....pardon?Other than compulsory retirement being illegal it's also not true. I'd guess that most of the Partners are over 55.
Do you think PwC, EY et al are like "Logan's Run"?
Edited by schmunk on Wednesday 29th November 13:10
Do you mean there’s an unofficial expectation that they’ll retire / step down / take a lower paying role?
Given how much they get paid and the pressure they work under I can understand why they might CHOOSE to take it easier. It’s not something I was aware of. Both our internal and external audit engagement partners must be mid if not late 50s.
Given how much they get paid and the pressure they work under I can understand why they might CHOOSE to take it easier. It’s not something I was aware of. Both our internal and external audit engagement partners must be mid if not late 50s.
Countdown said:
Do you mean there’s an unofficial expectation that they’ll retire / step down / take a lower paying role?
Given how much they get paid and the pressure they work under I can understand why they might CHOOSE to take it easier. It’s not something I was aware of. Both our internal and external audit engagement partners must be mid if not late 50s.
No - an official expectation, within the partnership agreement.Given how much they get paid and the pressure they work under I can understand why they might CHOOSE to take it easier. It’s not something I was aware of. Both our internal and external audit engagement partners must be mid if not late 50s.
55 is a traditional age for retirement, albeit with longer life expectancies I'd expect most have been increased over the years, e.g. here's one in which a compulsory retirement age of 65 was upheld by the courts:
http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2013/11/pa...
I'm struggling to find hard stats, but here's an article discussing law partner retirement in the UK vs. the US:
https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/almID/120276521...
Edited by schmunk on Wednesday 29th November 13:49
"A recent survey... ...revealed that just 4 percent of partners at the U.K.’s 14 largest law firms by revenue are over age of 60. Half are 50 or under."
"The partnership deeds of most U.K. firms have historically included mandatory retirement ages, which ranged anywhere from 55 at elite practices, such as the Magic Circle, to 65 at smaller midmarket and regional firms."
Edited by schmunk on Wednesday 29th November 13:51
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff