People are being booted out of their jobs at 50

The full article can be found at PERMANENT VACATION? 50 and Fired, but here are a few relevant excerpts: --Percy

If anything it understates it. You know what happens to doctors in private practice as they get older? Their practices dry up as their client list passes away and new patients feel more comfortable with younger doctors (not young doctors, just younger doctors). And you know what happens to doctors in group practices as they get older? If they find themselves out of a job, they have just as hard a time getting hired as older people in many other professions. Their original training becomes less and less relevant with the passage of time. Some keep up better than others, but most group practices would rather hire young hotshots just out of residency. Of course there's carryover when changing areas. But to stick with your NFL analogy, who do you think will make a better running back: the aging veteran cornerback, or the young stud running back just out of college. Now add to this that the veteran would make twice as much as the rookie.I don't understand how there can be any discussion on the matter. Age discrimination is real. And it's real because of the declining productivity that comes with age. Experience helps a great deal in making up the difference, but not forever.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 05-10-2005 01:39 PM

I haven't been following this topic very closely, so I hope I'm not out of place here.Available work force, both with essentially equal abilities and performance output:1) 25 year old, getting $40,000 per year in wages and benifits.2) 50 year old, getting $100,000 per year in wages and benifits.While I do believe that company loyality should be rewarded by supporting seniority rights and a certain amount of higher pay, in the above job environment might not the 50 year old be in the situation of being "flat out overpaid"? Might it not be reasonable (albeit painful) for them to take a pay cut?Of course, same considerations should be given to upper management. If a company can have a great CEO for $200,000 per year, why should they be paying a no better one $4,000,000 per year?ContraMoose

And in my industry the figures are much higher. The overhead above salary for things like benefits, facilities infrastructure, computing infrastructure, general services and so forth is at least $100,000/employee. This has a fortunate dilutive effect, since the actual cost comparison for a $40,000 employee versus a $100,000 employee is $140,000 versus $200,000.By the way, I'm not complaining about age discrimination. I wish it didn't exist, I certainly wish I was younger, but it's a challenge I, and many others with me, have to face. We all slow down at different rates. While each individual is different, as a group the stereotype that older workers are less energetic, less flexible and less current in their skills is absolutely true. As time passes by we'll almost all eventually drop out of the work force, and along the way many of us will be forced to accept lower paying jobs, and this will be accompanied by declines in our living standards as governed by income and planning for retirement. It would be nice if companies continued to pay us what we used to be paid, but I don't see how they have any responsibility to do this.--Percy

Methinks it all has to do with the rising costs of healthcare. When I was younger, I abused myself daily and woke refreshed the next day. Now I take care of myself and get plenty of sleep yet my Doctor bills are quite extravagent.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 05-11-2005 11:01 AM

---

"It is as impossible for man to demonstrate the existence of God as it would be for even Sherlock Holmes to demonstrate the existence of Arthur Conan Doyle."
---
"Religion points to that area of human experience where in one way or another man comes upon mystery as a summons to pilgrimage."
---
"People are prepared for everything except for the fact that beyond the darkness of their blindness there is a great light. They are prepared to go on breaking their backs plowing the same old field until the cows come home without seeing, until they stub their toes on it, that there is a treasure buried in that field rich enough to buy Texas. They are prepared for a God who strikes hard bargains but not for a God who gives as much for an hour's work as for a day's. They are prepared for a mustard-seed kingdom of God no bigger than the eye of a newt but not for the great banyan it becomes with birds in its branches singing Mozart. They are prepared for the potluck supper at First Presbyterian but not for the marriage supper of the lamb".Frederick Buechner

quote:

---

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.

---

You don't know what the research says, and even if I can present you with lots high quality evidence that contradicts what your personal opinion, based upon anecdotal evidence, is, you plan to refuse to accept it.How very creationist of you, Percy. I am truly shocked.

quote:

---

Wait till you're 50 yourself and see if you still believe this. Decline in memory begins by age 40 and probably earlier.

---

I have noticed no decline in my memory, and I am 37.Now, I could be tested and find out that I do have a decline in memory. Since in this discussion you seem to value anecdotal, personal evidence much more than controlled studies, I get to say that you are wrong based upon my own impression that I have not experienced any memory decline.

quote:

---

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.

---

...and all of these things tend to be very, very heavily biased by confirmation bias.I don't have time this morning to go through your whole list and present you with research that shows you where you are wrong, although I might not bother if you are just going to declare it all bogus.Are you interested in looking at any of the research, or not?

quote:

---

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.

---

Remember, I am not talking about genious-level cognitive abilities, nor performance requiring peak physical condition.I am talking about members of the general population that never make any big splash in any mental or physical arena.

quote:

---

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.

---

According to the research on basic cognitive abilities, there are no appreciable differences.I guess you are just going to ignore that evidence?

quote:

---

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.

---

What about this scenario involves "basic cognitive abilities?"

Hi Schraf,I don't need to convince you the research you're describing is wrong. As the Rolling Stones said, time is on my side. Whether it's next year or a decade or two from now, the effects of aging, both physical and mental, will eventually accumulate to the point where they become apparent to you.Keep in mind that this thread is about age discrimination. My position is that there is a valid justification for age discrimination, that in general people's ability to perform, both mentally and physically, declines gradually with age. If research into cognition versus age doesn't indicate this decline then either something is wrong with the research, or the decline in mental ability is due to some mental aspect that the research isn't measuring.Perhaps it helps to more clearly characterize this decline in mental ability. It isn't related to a loss of mental skills. For example, I'm as good at math as I ever was. And I'm better at problem solving now in my areas of expertise because I can now draw upon years of experience.But my ability to learn new things has declined. Young people are much more adept at moving into newly opened technical areas than older people. One area where this effect is clearly seen at a young age is language learning. The ability to learn new languages declines dramatically and early with age. I'm sure the research confirms this, and it is declines in this and related kinds of mental ability that I'm talking about.--Percy

quote:

---

I don't need to convince you the research you're describing is wrong. As the Rolling Stones said, time is on my side. Whether it's next year or a decade or two from now, the effects of aging, both physical and mental, will eventually accumulate to the point where they become apparent to you.

---

Well sure, eventually they will. Two decades from now I'll be almost 60.But that's not what we're talking about, is it?Unless I am mistaken, you are claiming that people at 40 are significantly impaired at basic cognitive abilities compared to 20 year olds. Things like short term memory, problem solving (didn't you say you were great at problem solving, though?), the ability to learn new things, etc.The consensus of the scientific Cognitive Psychology community is that your assesment just isn't accurate.The differences between groups are very small compared to variation within groups.

quote:

---

Keep in mind that this thread is about age discrimination. My position is that there is a valid justification for age discrimination, that in general people's ability to perform, both mentally and physically, declines gradually with age.

---

...but not at the age you are claiming.There is very little difference between 40 year olds and 25 year olds on basic cognitive tasks. A statistically significant difference, yes, but a very small one.Let me repeat; there is enormous variation within groups compared to between groups.Here's a nice graph: Here's what Zhimbo has to say on the matter:

quote:

---

If research into cognition versus age doesn't indicate this decline then either something is wrong with the research, or the decline in mental ability is due to some mental aspect that the research isn't measuring.

---

You are absolutely correct that the research could not taking something into account.But couln't it be the case that your anecdotal, personal impressions of yourself and the people around you are maybe not 100% accurate and are probably pretty strongly influenced by confirmation bias, since I doubt you are rigorously following any sort of experimental protocol in your recording of the "subjects" in your "observations"?I mean, what are you basing your claims on other than anecdotal evidence? There are all sorts of reasons why people in the 40-50 age group would begin to do poorly at work. For example, people who have smoked, eaten poorly and been sedentary their whole lives start to get chronic health problems, men often get divorced at this time in their lives and also tend to get depressed and isolated after divorce, etc.All of these things have nothing to do with chronological age-related metal decline but may be correlated with that particular age group's work performance.

quote:

---

Perhaps it helps to more clearly characterize this decline in mental ability. It isn't related to a loss of mental skills. For example, I'm as good at math as I ever was. And I'm better at problem solving now in my areas of expertise because I can now draw upon years of experience.

---

OK.

quote:

---

But my ability to learn new things has declined. Young people are much more adept at moving into newly opened technical areas than older people.

---

But, why do you think you know this, really?Is it just your general impression combined with your personal report, or is there some more reliable, more carefully gathered data to support your gut feeling?I mean, how is this any different from someone saying, "Oh, Christian marriages are much more successful and less prone to divorce than any other kind.", and then when we show them research and statistics that shows that Christians actually have the same or higher divorce rate than other groups, they just say, "The research is wrong."?

quote:

---

One area where this effect is clearly seen at a young age is language learning. The ability to learn new languages declines dramatically and early with age. I'm sure the research confirms this, and it is declines in this and related kinds of mental ability that I'm talking about.

---

Yes, the research clearly indicates that after adolescence, it becomes much more difficult to learn new languages.The problem you have with this claim is that language aquisition is pretty much unique WRT cognitive function.We don't learn anything else the same cognitive way that we learn language. It's also not that learning languages is just "harder" past adolescence; the way a person's brain learns language past adolescence is fundamentally different.There are no other abilities that are cognitively similar to language aquisition, so your reference to other abilities is not valid.

Which is more important, reality, legality or the beliefs of the hiring agency?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

"Important" in what regard?

In the issue of working and getting hired as you age.Do my actual capabilities matter as much as what those capabilities are perceived as being by the hiring authority?Does legality actually play much if any of a role?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Do my actual capabilities matter as much as what those capabilities are perceived as being by the hiring authority?

---

Well, sure. If you can actually do the job just as well or better than as someone 10 or 20 years younger than you, but the hiring authority erroniously believes that all people your age are in significant mental decline, that's not good.Of course, remember that there are lots of other factors, such as physical and mental health, etc., which could significantly affect someone's hireability/work performance and are associated with someone's age group but are unrelated to age-related mental decline.This is also true WRT the descision to get rid of an employee due to their getting older.

quote:

---

Does legality actually play much if any of a role?

---

I think that discrimination based upon false information is always something best avoided if at all possible.Just as it is illegal to refuse to hire or fire women because "they all get PMS", it should be illegal to fire or not hire older workers because "they all are significantly behind younger workers in basic cognitive abilities."

Hi Schraf,Like I said before, time is on my side. If you don't accept what I'm saying about the reality versus the research you're citing I only have to bide my time - you'll inevitably come over to my point of view. But I did want to correct one or two things. I'm not making any claims of amounts of decline by specific ages, and there are wide variations among individuals. Whenever the decline in mental ability begins, and I think that physiologically as measured by post-mortem inspection of the brain it begins to be apparent in at least some individuals in their 20's, it progresses gradually and inevitably. It affects learning more than anything else, but other aspects of mental function are also affected. Accumulated learning and experience are compensating factors. The impact of the declines on job performance varies widely according to required mental skills.This means that you have to balance where you say this: Against where Zhimbo says this: Research into health and nutrition and psychological issues faces difficult hurdles in reaching hard conclusions. And removing the subjective elements from considerations about obesity, for example, is much easier than for something with no physical component whatsoever like cognitive skills.All I'm saying is that age discrimination is not without justification because the changes that come with age are very real. To once again use myself as an example, as a high techie I consider myself one of the lucky ones. Most of the friends I graduated with were long ago pushed over the side and are no longer in high tech, and for the most part they've had to accept much lower paying jobs. Somehow or other I've managed to stay on board, and I'd like to think that it's because I've been able to maintain a high performance level. But even so, I've noticed a marked decline in mental function as measured by my ability to do my job, and especially as measured against the ability of the young guns just out of school who continue to get better and better.So getting back to your research, let's say I took whatever tests were given that yielded that graph you presented. I bet I'd peg the top level (right along with you and many other people here). It's probably a safe bet those tests can't measure anything about how well I might perform in my current job. And I'm sure the same is true about many other job categories.If I were a plumber or an electrician I would probably be claiming I haven't suffered any mental decline at all, because I do these things better now than I ever did, and I certainly don't notice any decline in any other aspect of my life outside my job. In fact, outside of my job I feel smarter than ever before. But if things had worked out differently and I ended up in a field not so mentally demanding such that I never noticed any decline, that would not mean it wasn't there. The challenge for the researchers is to find ways to objectively measure what we already know to be true.--Percy

quote:

---

The challenge for the researchers is to find ways to objectively measure what we already know to be true.

---

That's it.The world is going to end.Percy is a Creationist.

nice graphI can't help noticing that the 'smartest' 85 year olds are about as smart as the 'dumbest' 25 year olds ... but I also note that is NOT saying much for the "smarts" department another thing that could be skewing your graph is that the 'dumbest' eliminate themselves from the later groups (and from the reproduction pool) in some rather darwineskian ways

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}