People are being booted out of their jobs at 50

This is why Unions are still a good thing. At Safeway, they have hired as many of us older workers as they have younger ones AND they gave us prior experience wages based on our worth....only because of the union. I will say that I cannot work as many hours as I used to...chiefly because of my diabetes. I would be adamant against ever having to work for less, either. Based on that picture of yours, I would say that you are 35-45. Except when you get cranky..then you are 65! This message has been edited by Phatboy, 05-09-2005 01:17 AM

Im intressted in what you guys think about immigrants in the workforce, like younger workers(according to what troy keeps saying about younger workers) immigrants too are willing to work longer hours for less pay,and lets define immigrant workers to be people from 3rd or 2nd world countries with a highschool diploma or less, I know this doesn't cover all immigrant workers, im just trying to limit it so we all stay on the same page.This message has been edited by StormWolfx2x, 05-09-2005 03:53 AM

Im not positive, but im assuming your not using the piano as an analogy and that your dad actually plays the piano for a living.If he loses his ability to paly piano due to an accident then obviously he would not be able to contiue working at that job.If he ws working as an entertainer, then unfortunatly that was a risk he took the job, many failed professional athletes, actors, artists, ect.. have to take jobs they don't like because they were not able to work in their choosen profession(this is especially true of athletes as there are many injuries that could prevent them from competing but not from doing most types of work.On the other hand I can't think of an accident that would prevent a piano player from playing without qualifying him for disability outright.If your father is say a music teacher at a school, and he can't teach piano anymore for some reason, why would he have to move to another musical insturment, wouldn't he have an experience and contacts advantage over fresh applicants for teaching say a basic math class, working as a substitute, or some other teaching position?I can't give you a specific answer because I don't know your dad's specific case, but im very confident that when you say you are both overlimiting your dad's options and downplaying alot of advantages he actually has and you just don't realize.

And why shouldn't they? it's the market in action!(My father is 67 and still works because he likes to - he's a Salesman)

You're incredibly persistent with this misinterpretation. You're arguing against a point I'm not making. Ignore the examples. For some reason they're misleading you.The point is that everyone's performance level declines with age, and that older expensive workers can be easily replaced by younger, cheaper and better performing workers. Experience can make up the difference, but as I pointed out in previous posts, the fast moving high-tech world often leaves workers with experience that is no longer valued.Does this help you understand how I was using those examples? The examples were for people who doubt decline comes with age. That Nobel prizes are usually won for work done by people in their 20's and 30's is an example of the decline that comes with age. It is not intended of an example of the performance level necessary to retain a job.--Percy

Instead of focusing on the point I was trying to make, which was that someone as old as my dad shouldn't have to be expected to relearn something completely new like Rrhain implied, you nitpicked the hell out of my analogy/example. Forget the analogy. No, I am not. Rrhain said that older workers, if they are being replaced by younger ones, should be trained in some other professions. Like Scotty said in the episode Relics of TNG, "I'm not a raw cadet. I can't start all over."I am not saying that older workers absolutely cannot be retrained. I am saying that it shouldn't be a mandatory thing and that they shouldn't have to be penalized for it.

No, I did not! I am saying, and have always been saying, that they shouldn't be expected to work the same way they worked 40 years earlier. If some of them can, good for them. Because we were talking about moving back the retirement age later than 65, and I'm opposed to it. But in today's mechanized world, more skills and experience does not necessarily make it more preferable. I've been saying the same thing but somehow you have been missing my point. I have been saying that at least some older workers, due to age, don't have the energy to work long and cheap hours like the younger generations. But like I have been saying this whole damn time, if an 80 year old is able to work 80 hours a week, good for him. What I don't agree with is making it mandatory for the older workers to have to work just as hard, long, and cheap as the younger ones. Making out? I have been saying this whole time that there are at least some of them that are. Remember that this conversation sprung up because someone suggested that the retirement age should be pushed back more just because people are living longer. And my point have been that just because people are living longer doesn't mean they can jump through hoops. And since when did I say that we should assume that all of them should retire at 65? And the fact that there are those that can should not be held against those that can't. And I agree about the productive part.What I don't agree with is the last sentence there. It is not always the case that living beyond the retirement age equating to having the energy. Some people seem like they are dying but remain in that state for 20-30 years.And finally, Let me ask you something. Did you say, "Oh my god! They put an eagle on the moon?" when the crew of the apollo mission said, "the eagle has landed"?I believe I saidWhat I said was in response to Percy. Before that I was saying that employers should have a heart and not penalize people for turning 50. Percy implied that such a thing might make employers look more like social services rather than employers. Then, I made the statement in question saying that there has to be a happy medium where we can still keep the capitalist values and not kicking someone off the team because he turned 50. Somehow, you intepreted what I said as some kind of disagreement with you.

Reread my post again. I even literally said at one point that I just pointed out at least 1 example where a person grows ever more tired as his age keeps increasing. Somehow, you intepreted "at least" to "representative..."I even said that if you can work well into your 90's, good for you. Nowhere did I say all are useless in old age.You are very persistant at misintepreting my words, Rrhain. Perhaps because it was very late at night? And why did you think I pointed out those examples? The question is should my father and everyone else expected to work such long hours just because at least 1 person can do so? And part of the problem why elders live in poverty is that they are expected rather than given the option to work just as long, hard, and cheap as the younger generation. I'm trying to decide if I should requote my entire post. Haven't decided yet.

Having been through what you described, I can relate to them. When we first came to this country, we had to work long hours for less pay. It was the only way we could survive, considering we brought almost nothing with us.A side note. If I ever meet my old bosses again, I'm going to tie them up and skin them alive. Bastards thought that they could insult us, yell at us, and push us around as much as they want just because they were our bosses.Anyway I see no problem with immigrant workers doing what they are doing.Now, what I'm about to say reflects my ignorance in this matter and is in no way a permanent opinion.I do have a problem with illegal immigrants who have no intention of staying permanently in the states. Our family waited many years to come the official way. I know families that waited 20 years or so.This is like lunch time in school. Sometimes you get assholes that cut in line rather than doing what everybody else does.

Immigration is a fact of life in America, and it is a way for Social Security to get paid for later Americans IF we tax the money of these people as we tax our own workers.As to the issue directly, True enough, but the downside of this "market in action" is that blue collar labor gets pushed aside while white collar CEO's keep their jobs! America needs to look out for its citizens or we will become like Britain with a wider class disparity. Which is why I support seniority as a mandated workplace rule. (Unions are the only source of clout able to enforce this) I absolutely agree. There should be some perks earned with age.
The bottem line should not be the arbitrator...or else society will have to tax the heck out of those greedy CEO's in order to support retirement programs. One way or another, it must get done.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, Phatboy, but social inequality measures are generally similar between US and UK, and the US has inequality rather higher than most european countries.Research carried out by the European Economy Group (2002) showed:On social inequality: Comparing the major economic powers of Europe with the USA, the EEG found: On income mobility there were two results. If we measure the correlation between one's own income and one's father's income: if we measure the ability to move between social classes during one's lifetime USA, Italy and Spain were found to be it seems that social mobility and inequality are best tackled with a German-style social democratic system rather than the freemarket system of US, UK, Italy and Spain.Mick

quote:

---

It'll give you a better idea of the point I was actually making. When I was just out of school I wondered why most of the other engineers were under 40. Now I'm on the other side of fence and I can see that the older you get the more likely you are to fall by the wayside.

---

Well, I think that at least part of this is ageism.Zhimbo, my very handy live-in research Psychologist, tells me that for tasks that do not require genious-level mental ability or peak physical skill and conditioning, older is better.Now, there is the economic issue of companies wanting to pay people less, but they may often be pushing out very valuable workers who really do a better job overall than their younger replacements. Older workers have interpersonal and leadership skills and experience that young workers have yet to develop.Many, many, many companies underestimate the detrimental long-term effect of high turnover on their service to customers, internal morale and willingness of their staff to care about the company, lack of cohesion and a sense of team/family among the staff, and new-worker training costs.ABE:Now that Zhimbo has woken up a bit more this morning, he tells me that in tests of basic cognitive abilities, older people do better than younger people on tests of knowledge (no surprise there).In tests of working memory, processing speed, and other basic, fundamental cognitive skills, there is no appreciable difference between younger and older people until the older group gets to around age 60. There is, however, enormous variation in individual abilities within each group.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-10-2005 08:34 AM

I'm not going to research this, I don't have time now, but I don't think this is true. If the research says this is so then it's wrong. Wait till you're 50 yourself and see if you still believe this. Decline in memory begins by age 40 and probably earlier. Most people become aware of this because they experience increased difficulty remembering names, and they note an increase in what is usually termed absentmindedness. The ability to learn new things is definitely less by age 40 than in your 20s, the cognitive ability to solve problems declines, and short term memory declines. It is common for people to make greater and greater use of lists and other types of reminders as they grow older. And this is all accompanied by a decrease in both physical and mental energy.The evidence for this is all around us. More of the most significant accomplishments in almost any field are performed by the young than by any of the other older age groups. This would not be true if people in their 50s were really the equal of people in their 20s. Older people are not just the same as younger people except they like to spend more time at home in front of the TV.I'll use myself for another example. As you might guess from this website, I like to program. When I was in my 20s I could program around the clock. When I was in my 30s I could program 14 hours a day. When I was in my 40s I could program 10 hours a day. Now in my 50s I can program about 8 hours a day. The limits are due to mental fatigue. Do you think it's leveled off? I don't.When I was young I thought I would never slow down. Why would I? I was active all the time, I'd just stay active. I always worked energetically on projects, why should that ever change? But it does change, and there is nothing that can hold back the change. Whether the research shows it or not, the change is very real.Experience is a very big compensating factor. Older people make many fewer mistakes, and they've developed a large mental database of "things that don't work". But as I commented before, in some fields, and high tech is one them, rapid change can cause your experience to suddenly have little value, and then you're very vulnerable to the topic of this thread, replacement by younger, more energetic, better trained, much cheaper people.--Percy

Damnit!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think this overstates the case somewhat. In some fields (medicine, law, PhD level science or even engineering) one is not even fully trained until the late 20's or early 30's. Granted, a 52-year old cardiologist would be less capable of the 30-hour rotations of residency than a 26-year old fresh medical school graduate. However, which would you choose to perform bypass surgery on yourself ?Granted that IT is a field which bears a closer resemblance to NFL football than the fields mentioned above. However, in terms of semantic knowledge, isn't there some carryover from older to newer programming languages in what constitutes good design and development practice ? Are you saying the ability to churn out code for hours on end is the sole or primary competitive factor ?