I have been applying for a lot of jobs. Although targeting Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Utah, Hawaii, and California- I have also applied for jobs in Florida, Bulgaria, Korea, Washington, Romania, and Japan. Last week I did an interview on Teams for the Japan job.Grammar
Blaine hired a guy from the county Sheriff office
This is interesting and helpful information. The DEI thing and then the concept of firms not wanting to hire a 60 year old - how much more hypocritical could it get???? There is huge value in the experience and wisdom of older workers. Age is every bit a part of DEI as anything else.I have been applying for a lot of jobs. Although targeting Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Utah, Hawaii, and California- I have also applied for jobs in Florida, Bulgaria, Korea, Washington, Romania, and Japan. Last week I did an interview on Teams for the Japan job.
Something new I learned was the impact of AI. I was not getting much response to my resume/applications, and learned that AI was likely preventing the applications to go forward. I redesigned my resume to be AI friendly. My applications are generating significantly more responses. But my resume looks brutal because it is designed for AI, not for a human/ hiring manager, or director.
The biggest wakeup call in the application process next to AI, has been DEI, and age. I won't discuss DEI, but I am being told that nobody really wants a 60-year-old for many of the positions I am applying to. Learning about the age thing is a wakeup call. I feel young, ready to contribute---but on a MACRO sense few organizations want to hire a 60-year-old. I just wasn't tracking that.
I am assuming that you were told about your age situation by your peers and friends and not by the HR organizations who rejected your applications. That would obviously open them up to age discrimination labor law liability if formally documented as part of why you were not hired or interviewed.The biggest wakeup call in the application process next to AI, has been DEI, and age. I won't discuss DEI, but I am being told that nobody really wants a 60-year-old for many of the positions I am applying to. Learning about the age thing is a wakeup call. I feel young, ready to contribute---but on a MACRO sense few organizations want to hire a 60-year-old. I just wasn't tracking that.
Yes, absolutely correct. No HR person has told me I am not in the running for a vacancy due to age.I am assuming that you were told about your age situation by your peers and friends and not by the HR organizations who rejected your applications. That would obviously open them up to age discrimination labor law liability if formally documented as part of why you were not hired or interviewed.
Regardless of the source, that attitude is quite prevalent in today's corporate mindset where the goal is to hire and promote youthful workers who can contribute for more than just a few years before retirement. I witnessed it repeatedly for the past decade in the workplace where very capable and deserving senior peers were passed over for promotion to mid-to-upper management positions in favor of 30-40 y.o. workers who previously reported to the senior individual(s). My HR associates claim that is the current strategic policy to retain talent in the age of mass attrition, particularly since the pandemic altered the values of the workforce. There are many indications that it also serves notice to the senior workers that it is time to retire; hence, trimming some of the higher level salaries from the payroll. As always, the focus of a business will be the bottom line results, especially if stockholders are involved.
I'm now 67 and have been in my current position for what will be 24 years in May.If I understand Gon's statement correct - some of us have careers that provide MUCH more than just a paycheck. It provides social interaction with others. It provides challenges to keep the mind sharp and physical activity to keep the body toned. It provides rewards way beyond simply money. It provides gratification for the work accomplished, i.e., think of Mother Teresa. It provides an outlet other than being with your loved ones 24/7 (really, think about it). A passionate career can co-exist with family, friends, and hobbies/interests. You can get these things in retirement too, but you have no income, and why wait if you can enjoy them your entire life? 40 +/- hours a week is too long for something you are miserable with. I could never understand how a great salary could over-ride a satisfying, fulfilling lifestyle. Money does not buy happiness.
I will never understand the opposite of your implication: How does a person choose and stay in a career that they hate so much that their ongoing goal is "the day they get to retire from their bad situation". I am content and have few regrets that 50 years ago I chose the road much less traveled.
Also, working for oneself or owning a business (mentioned by a few) is no easy piece of cake either.
Much easier to spout philosophy than to put in to practice.I'm now 67 and have been in my current position for what will be 24 years in May.
I find it quite tolerable and sometimes very rewarding.
There are those I've worked with who have said that they can't effing stand it. That is truly sad.
If someone really hates what they do then they should find something else to for a living. If you're talking about what you do for a third of your waking hours five days each week, if you aren't reasonably happy with it you should find something else to do.
I am assuming that you were told about your age situation by your peers and friends and not by the HR organizations who rejected your applications. That would obviously open them up to age discrimination labor law liability if formally documented as part of why you were not hired or interviewed.
Regardless of the source, that attitude is quite prevalent in today's corporate mindset where the goal is to hire and promote youthful workers who can contribute for more than just a few years before retirement. I witnessed it repeatedly for the past decade in the workplace where very capable and deserving senior peers were passed over for promotion to mid-to-upper management positions in favor of 30-40 y.o. workers who previously reported to the senior individual(s). My HR associates claim that is the current strategic policy to retain talent in the age of mass attrition, particularly since the pandemic altered the values of the workforce. There are many indications that it also serves notice to the senior workers that it is time to retire; hence, trimming some of the higher level salaries from the payroll. As always, the focus of a business will be the bottom line results, especially if stockholders are involved.
Maybe so, but if anyone really dreads going to work at the job they have, it can't be good for their health, mental and physical.Much easier to spout philosophy than to put in to practice.
That's on the level of "get three jobs and buy a house"