Losing a job in your 50's...

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills
Post Reply
Chris42163
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:03 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by Chris42163 » Thu Apr 04, 2019 12:09 am

It occurs that we're going through a major disruption in the industry we're talking about. As cars start driving themselves, services like lyft & uber will be the norm. They will own all of the cars. No need for expensive parking in congested downtown areas, because the cars will drive off to the next customer. Without the human cost to operate vehicles, the price for a ride goes down. People no longer need to own a vehicle. They simply program a schedule to go to work. Most likely, people will care less about distance from work, as they can sleep/eat/work/relax on the ride each day. A 2 hour ride to/from work isn't so bad when you can be productive or get rest during the commute.

cherijoh
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:49 pm
Location: Charlotte NC

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by cherijoh » Thu Apr 04, 2019 12:12 am

CyclingDuo wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:18 am

This one depicts the scenario that 1/3 of those who suffer a layoff in their 50's and find replacement income get pushed out additional times. Ouch!

Image by
I did a lot of networking before and during the last recession. Many of those people ended up as Linkedin contacts. I have ample anecdotal evidence that this is true - many of them were back looking for another job within a couple of years.

phxjcc
Posts: 376
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:47 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by phxjcc » Thu Apr 04, 2019 12:50 am

bUU wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:57 am
My brother and I are both in our late 50's.

He was a project manager; I am a business analyst; both for software development and maintenance projects.
Similar experience.

The new mantra of several companies is that they are located in "right to work" states.

Be forewarned, this is code for 'right to lay you off for no reason'.

The preceding is interesting reading, w.r.t. the job experiences.

Ultimately, it depedends upon market timing and skill set.

Cisco salesman in 1999? You are golden. 2001, not so much.
Mortgage broker in 2003? Printing money. 2009? Washing dishes.

Unfortunately layoffs usually occur at the bottom or downward slope of the toughs.

To the tone deaf that say: "why didn't you start your own business?"
Well, I did...you have any idea what happened to CapEx spending in 2009?
What I did needed capital expenditure and that depended upon corporate bond issuance...oh, never mind.
The f#%^*^%g government wasn't even buying stuff, well other than lobbyist lawyer's hours.
And jet engines from GE.

If you have not been through it, I guess you cannot understand.
I will say this, when you are in the middle of it takes brass cajoles to put 25 to 50% of your retirement money on the line.

...and it has nothing to do with public transportation, cycling, or owning a car.

User avatar
Topic Author
CyclingDuo
Posts: 3391
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by CyclingDuo » Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:10 am

phxjcc wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 12:50 am
bUU wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:57 am
My brother and I are both in our late 50's.

He was a project manager; I am a business analyst; both for software development and maintenance projects.
Similar experience.

The new mantra of several companies is that they are located in "right to work" states.

Be forewarned, this is code for 'right to lay you off for no reason'.

The preceding is interesting reading, w.r.t. the job experiences.

Ultimately, it depedends upon market timing and skill set.

Cisco salesman in 1999? You are golden. 2001, not so much.
Mortgage broker in 2003? Printing money. 2009? Washing dishes.

Unfortunately layoffs usually occur at the bottom or downward slope of the toughs.

To the tone deaf that say: "why didn't you start your own business?"
Well, I did...you have any idea what happened to CapEx spending in 2009?
What I did needed capital expenditure and that depended upon corporate bond issuance...oh, never mind.
The f#%^*^%g government wasn't even buying stuff, well other than lobbyist lawyer's hours.
And jet engines from GE.

If you have not been through it, I guess you cannot understand.
I will say this, when you are in the middle of it takes brass cajoles to put 25 to 50% of your retirement money on the line.

...and it has nothing to do with public transportation, cycling, or owning a car.
Thanks for sharing what you have been through. All stories are important and show the reality of emotions, tenacity, and struggle.

The discussion regarding public transportation, cycling, and car ownership grew out of my original post that linked to the three immediate steps to take as soon as the news hit of a layoff (article written by Pete Dunn). One of the three immediate steps to take was to cut back on non-essential expenses (point 3). I mentioned we had trimmed some non-essential things after the news hit.

Cycle responded to that article: For me, I disagree with point 3. I've already optimized my expenses so much that there isn't much fat to trim, ie the big levers have been pulled and are in effect regardless of employment status. Those levers are things like not owning a car, not living in a single family home, not having any debt/mortgage/rent.

Pete Dunn's article was written from the standpoint that if there are expenses (non-essentials) that can be cut - make them as one of the three immediate steps to take. Cycle's argument was that he already has built a lifestyle around cutting non-essentials, so for him - if a layoff occurs - he is prepared on the expense front as there is nothing left to cut. A couple of the big levers (house with no mortgage/car ownership) are out of the equation for him. For the rest of us who have gone through it, or perhaps will go through it in the future - cutting back on non-essentials to hunker down is good advice that is actionable. The majority of us have some of the big levers Cycle mentions (big house, mortgage, cars).

I did take steps in the months after the layoff to make some expense cuts and have used the opportunity to continue to review and pare back. Reviewing everything in our household cash flow and lifestyle, there are plenty of things that still have room to trim back if need be.

Point being, that was one of the three immediate actionable steps to take that Pete Dunn recommended for those in their 50's (applies to any age, really) upon news of a layoff.
"Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time." ~ Steven Wright

sixtyforty
Posts: 472
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 12:22 pm
Location: USA

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by sixtyforty » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:15 am

bUU wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:54 am

...
Anyone denying that there is substantial, unchecked age discrimination affecting our labor and employment marketplace is deluding themselves.
So true, especially in the IT world.
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" - Leonardo Da Vinci

KlangFool
Posts: 16992
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by KlangFool » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:24 am

Chris42163 wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 12:09 am
It occurs that we're going through a major disruption in the industry we're talking about. As cars start driving themselves, services like lyft & uber will be the norm. They will own all of the cars. No need for expensive parking in congested downtown areas, because the cars will drive off to the next customer. Without the human cost to operate vehicles, the price for a ride goes down. People no longer need to own a vehicle. They simply program a schedule to go to work. Most likely, people will care less about distance from work, as they can sleep/eat/work/relax on the ride each day. A 2 hour ride to/from work isn't so bad when you can be productive or get rest during the commute.
Chris42163,

If there are no jobs for folks, there is no market for products and services. If there is no market for products and services, there are no good paying jobs that folks need to commute to. The system will balance itself out.

Someone's fat/cost is someone's else livelihood.

Imagine what would self-driving truck do to the truck drivers.

KlangFool

scubadiver
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 9:48 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by scubadiver » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:33 am

Chris42163 wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 12:09 am
A 2 hour ride to/from work isn't so bad when you can be productive or get rest during the commute.
LOL. Yes it is.

Valuethinker
Posts: 40582
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by Valuethinker » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:48 am

CyclingDuo wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:51 pm
Cycle wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:41 pm
Most US cities require a car to get around though, especially around a base. I have a military buddy who used to drive everywhere, afterall the public transit isn't great in 29 Palms. He walks everywhere now. Takes the train from Alexandria to the Pentagon for work, driving that route would be hell :twisted:.

Living in an urban environment has trade-offs, but it's difficult to judge how you would actually respond without trying it.

I have a car rental 1 mile from my house. I can select and reserve a car on my phone, ride my brompton to the lot in 3 minutes, and toss my bike in the trunk and be on my way without even going to the counter (Avis Preferred Select & Go).

Of my working career, 11 years were driving, and now I'm on year 3 without one. I love cars for getting out of town, but I don't want to use one for my daily errands and commuting, even when its -30F.
It absolutely can be done if you live urban and have public transportation or are within walking distance of most needs. Worked and lived in Germany in 2015. Walked everywhere, and had great public T (bus, subway, tram, train). Lived and worked in NYC for years and same thing - by foot and public only. No need for a car. Lived and worked in Vienna, Austria for many years - used public and my bike for most everything, but also had a car for getaways from the city. Those opportunities are few and far between for the majority unless they seek them out. Admit that I am not real happy I'm driving XX miles round trip each day I work this year, but that's my only option based on locale. Prior 15 years was a 1.7 mile commute in each direction. I assume a high percentage in the US have only the car option as well outside of urban.
I think the statistic is something over 80% of Americans, and 90% of those outside of Greater NYC, commute to work by car.

American cities post 1945 or so are just not laid out for mass transit, pedestrian or cycling. And if you look at the population growth, net, post 1945, it's been in cities that had limited or no public transport (at least in the expanding suburbs). Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas-FW, Atlanta, Phoenix, LV, parts of Florida, SF Bay (despite BART). Exceptions would be Washington DC (but, again, people only seem to use public transport if they work downtown) perhaps.
I guess the question is what percentage of the population lives close enough to their employment, shopping and needs who can survive without a car? Not talking about foreign countries, but just about the US.
I would reckon it might be 10%. If that. I come from a city which is one of the most "transit friendly" urban megalopoli in North America, and most people live in places where you'd need a car -- 6-7 m people basically have the public transport infrastructure built for 2 million. Ohh and a highway 22 lanes wide at one point (don't worry, it's always jammed).

Post 1945 suburbs are not built for walking. Many of them don't even have sidewalks. Bicycling is an act of courage. Stores are big box malls on the highways, etc. I understand that even the "model" suburbs like Irvine California which were planned for mixed modal transport, everyone drives anyways.

Turbo29
Posts: 864
Joined: Tue May 01, 2018 7:12 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by Turbo29 » Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:21 am

phxjcc wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 12:50 am
The new mantra of several companies is that they are located in "right to work" states.

Be forewarned, this is code for 'right to lay you off for no reason'.
Actually, "Right to Work" means that you cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. Right to work states have laws that prohibit mandatory union membership.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and- ... bills.aspx

Being able to fire an employee for any reason or no reason is "At will."

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... 30022.html
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. --M. Twain

stoptothink
Posts: 7987
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by stoptothink » Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:27 am

HomerJ wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:19 pm
stoptothink wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:00 pm
A lot of the workforce chooses to live far away from their workplace, for a variety of reasons (around here, it is usually to get more house for the money).
I think it's far more likely that people don't choose houses based on their workplaces, nor move every time they change jobs.

We bought a house 12 years ago in a good school district.

I've had 3 jobs in that time. I'm quite glad I didn't limit myself to only "biking distance" jobs or move all three times.
Can't disagree, but that doesn't explain why my neighbors choose to drive when walking would actually be faster. Even when it is more convenient to walk/bike/public transit, in my experience, few people even consider the option.

For our particular situation, we waited to buy a home until we had careers at companies we had some degree of certainty we'd retire from. Most of our peers are buying McMansions in these new communities that are on the "other side of the freeway" and a 30min drive from any possible employers. It's a choice: trading the guaranteed longer commute for more home.

User avatar
Topic Author
CyclingDuo
Posts: 3391
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by CyclingDuo » Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:22 am

stoptothink wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:27 am
HomerJ wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:19 pm
stoptothink wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:00 pm
A lot of the workforce chooses to live far away from their workplace, for a variety of reasons (around here, it is usually to get more house for the money).
I think it's far more likely that people don't choose houses based on their workplaces, nor move every time they change jobs.

We bought a house 12 years ago in a good school district.

I've had 3 jobs in that time. I'm quite glad I didn't limit myself to only "biking distance" jobs or move all three times.
Can't disagree, but that doesn't explain why my neighbors choose to drive when walking would actually be faster. Even when it is more convenient to walk/bike/public transit, in my experience, few people even consider the option.

For our particular situation, we waited to buy a home until we had careers at companies we had some degree of certainty we'd retire from. Most of our peers are buying McMansions in these new communities that are on the "other side of the freeway" and a 30min drive from any possible employers. It's a choice: trading the guaranteed longer commute for more home.
With regard to a layoff in your 50's, and the subsequent forms of replacement income, location of the home one was living in when the layoff occurred most likely is not an immediate actionable change - at least in the early stages unless the replacement income/job involves a move to a different city/state/area.

The layoff in your 50's certainly can be used as a starting point to review one's current living situation and proximity to groceries, services, dining, etc... . In our case, we have an empty nest and are living in a nearly 4000 square foot house that was perfect for our family of four, but now can be seen as more than we as a couple "need". Property tax, utilities, maintenance/repair of the home, etc... certainly can all now be reviewed and allows us to consider alternatives. Even without a layoff the same could be said due to the empty nest, but the impact of a layoff has provided the impetus for a full review. Actually, we have been discussing this as a couple for a few years. We are probably normal in the fact that we have an emotional attachment to the dwelling (family memories). Either way, if we did move, it would be difficult to get close to our work as between the two of us we are now working in 5 different towns. This obviously involves the need for two cars and the costs of operating them for all the commutes.

A layoff in one's 50's (with the empty nest) could be a good time to consider downsizing and moving to a green space, city/town center type of housing (townhomes/condos) with most services within walking distance, walking trails, etc... if available in one's area. There are several in our area that we may have to take a look into as we have some options worth considering.
"Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time." ~ Steven Wright

davidsorensen32
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by davidsorensen32 » Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:56 am

When everyone is acutely aware of this issue that is permanently damaging our livelihood why doesn't anyone do something about it ? Call your representatives to initiate a bill in congress.
sixtyforty wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:15 am
bUU wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:54 am

...
Anyone denying that there is substantial, unchecked age discrimination affecting our labor and employment marketplace is deluding themselves.
So true, especially in the IT world.

User avatar
3CT_Paddler
Posts: 3300
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:28 pm
Location: Marietta, GA

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by 3CT_Paddler » Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:44 pm

davidsorensen32 wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:56 am
When everyone is acutely aware of this issue that is permanently damaging our livelihood why doesn't anyone do something about it ? Call your representatives to initiate a bill in congress.
sixtyforty wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:15 am
bUU wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:54 am

...
Anyone denying that there is substantial, unchecked age discrimination affecting our labor and employment marketplace is deluding themselves.
So true, especially in the IT world.
Naturally if you are a business that needs to cut expenses you are often going to target your highest earning group if they don't generate revenue for the firm. Older employees are often in that group.

I think the bigger issue is not them being fired, but the fact that they are not able to find a similar position in the marketplace. Its very field dependent which says something about the problem. If you are 55 and you can sell widgets or you are a civil engineer that can market clients, you bet your bottom dollar that companies will still line up to hire you.

JackoC
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:14 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by JackoC » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:18 pm

3CT_Paddler wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:44 pm
davidsorensen32 wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:56 am
When everyone is acutely aware of this issue that is permanently damaging our livelihood why doesn't anyone do something about it ? Call your representatives to initiate a bill in congress.
sixtyforty wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:15 am
bUU wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:54 am

...
Anyone denying that there is substantial, unchecked age discrimination affecting our labor and employment marketplace is deluding themselves.
So true, especially in the IT world.
Naturally if you are a business that needs to cut expenses you are often going to target your highest earning group if they don't generate revenue for the firm. Older employees are often in that group.

I think the bigger issue is not them being fired, but the fact that they are not able to find a similar position in the marketplace. Its very field dependent which says something about the problem. If you are 55 and you can sell widgets or you are a civil engineer that can market clients, you bet your bottom dollar that companies will still line up to hire you.
As shown on the 'investing theory' thread touching on this, it's obviously an emotional topic if it's *your* job, even potentially at risk. However stepping and back and looking at the bigger picture, cutting costs in a way that may tend to land on a certain category of employees, in this case some older employees in certain jobs, is not deliberate discrimination by age. It's part of maximizing shareholder value. And people saying that US companies aren't pretty good in general at maximizing shareholder value have a hard time explaining the performance of US stocks compared to international peers in the last few decades. It's much easier arguing against loosely regulated hiring/firing if you first establish that you don't care about shareholder value in particular, just the overall greater good. Which might be a reasonable judgment call in general perhaps, but again Ironic to put forward on this forum alongside all the arguments why superior past US stock returns are inherent to the superior US system and never going to change in the future. :happy

An intellectually honest discussion of this in general, not wrt to some particular person, IMO has to acknowledge the pretty clear reality that companies cut higher paid but not necessarily higher producing older workers basically because they want to increase profits, not because they want to fire older people. If it tended to be younger workers producing less per unit cost, it would tend to be them getting let go. And US companies in general are good at raising profits, which benefits shareholders. Also, further external constraints on who and how you can fire people dampens hiring and/or creates a dual track of permanent employees whose number is minimized vs. temporary/contract workers who don't fall under the constraint. That's a clear pattern in other countries with more rigid labor laws than the US. There's no free lunch in those kind of collective interventions. It's just a value judgment which of those positive and negative aspects you think is optimal...but that's known as 'politics' and beyond the scope here.

KlangFool
Posts: 16992
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by KlangFool » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:48 pm

JackoC wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:18 pm

An intellectually honest discussion of this in general, not wrt to some particular person, IMO has to acknowledge the pretty clear reality that companies cut higher paid but not necessarily higher producing older workers basically because they want to increase profits,
JackoC,

Discrimination happened when you treated a person unfairly based on what he/she is versus the actual job performance.

You made two assumptions here that are common to all those age discriminations.

A) Older = higher paid.

B) Older = lower producing.

You assume those to be true without actual data. And, many did the hiring and firing assume the same. And, those assumptions are used in hiring and firing. This is discrimination.

It is easy to prove this. Just replace the word, "older" with race, religion, and/or gender, there will be no doubt that it is discrimination.

In the last round of my unemployment, I was the only one laid off in my group. It was right before my 50 years birthday. I was not the highest paid. And, to add to the irony, I won the most employee awards that year.

KlangFool

JackoC
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:14 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by JackoC » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:59 pm

KlangFool wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:48 pm
JackoC wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:18 pm

An intellectually honest discussion of this in general, not wrt to some particular person, IMO has to acknowledge the pretty clear reality that companies cut higher paid but not necessarily higher producing older workers basically because they want to increase profits,
JackoC,

Discrimination happened when you treated a person unfairly based on what he/she is versus the actual job performance.

You made two assumptions here that are common to all those age discriminations.

A) Older = higher paid.

B) Older = lower producing.

You assume those to be true without actual data. And, many did the hiring and firing assume the same. An,d those assumptions are used in hiring and firing. This is discrimination.

It is easy to prove this. Just replace the word, "older" with race, religion, and/or gender, there will be no doubt that it is discrimination.

In the last round of my unemployment, I was the only one laid off in my group. It was right before my 50 years birthday. I was not the highest paid. And, to add to the irony, I won the most employee awards that year.
Again I have no comment on individual cases except out of politeness I accept that however a person describes what happens to them, then that's what happened in that individual case.

But, looking at the forest not the trees, if US companies consistently fired more productive per $ employees because they were older, why would large US companies be generally significantly more profitable than large companies globally on average, and why would the US stock market's cap have expanded so much in % of total world stock market while the US economy was shrinking as % of world GDP?

This is not conclusive proof of course, but the other side of the argument never provides any rationale *why* companies would choose to fire equally productive per $ employees just because they were older. Which would imply a disregard for shareholder value, which is generally not the case with US companies by world standards, as stock values show.

Occam's Razor says companies generally fire who they fire and hire who they here because it allows the companies to produce more for a given labor cost. And that is not *discrimination* just because there might be *disparate impact*.

scubadiver
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 9:48 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by scubadiver » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:18 pm

scubadiver
Last edited by scubadiver on Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

KlangFool
Posts: 16992
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by KlangFool » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:29 pm

JackoC wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:59 pm

Occam's Razor says companies generally fire who they fire and hire who they here because it allows the companies to produce more for a given labor cost. And that is not *discrimination* just because there might be *disparate impact*.
JackoC,

By simple logic too, if American employers are doing such a good job, they would not be out of business. Many of my 100+ years old employers are no longer in business.

It is very simple.

There is no point in arguing about this. I will survive and thrive. Success is the best revenge. As for those that treated me unfairly, justice will be served.

KlangFool

User avatar
3CT_Paddler
Posts: 3300
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:28 pm
Location: Marietta, GA

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by 3CT_Paddler » Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:24 pm

KlangFool wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:48 pm
JackoC wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:18 pm

An intellectually honest discussion of this in general, not wrt to some particular person, IMO has to acknowledge the pretty clear reality that companies cut higher paid but not necessarily higher producing older workers basically because they want to increase profits,
JackoC,

Discrimination happened when you treated a person unfairly based on what he/she is versus the actual job performance.

You made two assumptions here that are common to all those age discriminations.

A) Older = higher paid.

B) Older = lower producing.

You assume those to be true without actual data. And, many did the hiring and firing assume the same. And, those assumptions are used in hiring and firing. This is discrimination.

It is easy to prove this. Just replace the word, "older" with race, religion, and/or gender, there will be no doubt that it is discrimination.

In the last round of my unemployment, I was the only one laid off in my group. It was right before my 50 years birthday. I was not the highest paid. And, to add to the irony, I won the most employee awards that year.

KlangFool
KlangFool it may be that you were unfairly fired. It sounds like you didn't let it keep you down... Kudos for that.

I would add you don't have to be the most highly paid in the group for the point to stand. As a 50-year old were you paid decently more than someone just out of school? Were you in a sales role at your company?

As someone who is in the engineering world, I see a stark difference in how companies see a 55-year old worker who interfaces with clients and helps bring in work and a 55-year old who is a technical expert who does not generate revenue. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other... It just means that companies, especially the bigger ones, are heartless and bottom lined thinking. Sometimes they become penny wise and pound foolish.

My employer doesn't owe me a lifetime job. It's why I think more people should start their own business or always have an exit strategy that involves starting a business.

User avatar
bUU
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by bUU » Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:09 am

I think one aspect of this that is lost in translation is that the transgression isn't just age discrimination but rather the reconceptualizing of work such that experience has little or no value for all but a ever-decreasing percentage of roles. This phenomenon goes back to Taylor, but has been ratcheted up in the last thirty five years.

BanquetBeer
Posts: 481
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:57 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by BanquetBeer » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:13 am

Cycle wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:18 pm
If you don't live in an NYC, Boston/Cambridge, Chicago, Minneapolis, KC, St. Louis, Seattle, Portland, Davis, Bay Area, Baltimore, DC, Atlanta, New Orleans, Nashville, Detroit, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Philly, LA, Salt Lake City, Omaha, Boulder, Denver, Milwaukee, ABQ, Iowa City, East Lansing, Madison, or the like there is really no possibility to be car free due to the lack of pedestrian, transit, and biking infrastructure.
Lol, this is so impractical. In Houston if you want a good school district your choice is suburbs, private school ($$$), or close to a million dollar house.
Is someone supposed to ride their bike 2 miles over broken sidewalks to get the 50lbs of groceries (2 gal milk, sparkling water, etc.) we go through every week? I could take the bus there though, just 45 minutes. Or I could use the bus to commute downtown - let’s see, car drive is 15 minutes to closest bus stop and then the bus would be 40 minutes (closes bus stop is away from downtown, fastest public option) in vs the 30 min drive it takes me in the morning.

Lots of things are possible if you don’t have kids. There are a few childless people who do live close to work and can walk. I think the idea that the average family can easily survive without a car isn’t realistic. Especially southern summers and Northern winters with small kids.

I bought a new, much nicer car than I could have. Expected cost is $40k over time he next 10 years/90k miles (car, repairs, gas, & insurance) the non sport model would have cost $7k less (probably less gas and insurance cost). While I could easily half that cost with a used car - car cost represents ~5% of savings rate and public transport is not zero (would be closer to $1k/yr). Dunno if the $3k differential is worth the inconvenience. Especially if you spend $$ on a rental car for a few weekend trips (we take at least once a month)

Edit: New Orleans is more bike friendly but again small kids there is very impractical to be without a car unless you have $$$ (~$2500/mo apartment and private school fees)

User avatar
Topic Author
CyclingDuo
Posts: 3391
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by CyclingDuo » Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:06 am

BanquetBeer wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:13 am
Cycle wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:18 pm
If you don't live in an NYC, Boston/Cambridge, Chicago, Minneapolis, KC, St. Louis, Seattle, Portland, Davis, Bay Area, Baltimore, DC, Atlanta, New Orleans, Nashville, Detroit, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Philly, LA, Salt Lake City, Omaha, Boulder, Denver, Milwaukee, ABQ, Iowa City, East Lansing, Madison, or the like there is really no possibility to be car free due to the lack of pedestrian, transit, and biking infrastructure.
Lol, this is so impractical. In Houston if you want a good school district your choice is suburbs, private school ($$$), or close to a million dollar house.
Is someone supposed to ride their bike 2 miles over broken sidewalks to get the 50lbs of groceries (2 gal milk, sparkling water, etc.) we go through every week? I could take the bus there though, just 45 minutes. Or I could use the bus to commute downtown - let’s see, car drive is 15 minutes to closest bus stop and then the bus would be 40 minutes (closes bus stop is away from downtown, fastest public option) in vs the 30 min drive it takes me in the morning.

Lots of things are possible if you don’t have kids. There are a few childless people who do live close to work and can walk. I think the idea that the average family can easily survive without a car isn’t realistic. Especially southern summers and Northern winters with small kids.

I bought a new, much nicer car than I could have. Expected cost is $40k over time he next 10 years/90k miles (car, repairs, gas, & insurance) the non sport model would have cost $7k less (probably less gas and insurance cost). While I could easily half that cost with a used car - car cost represents ~5% of savings rate and public transport is not zero (would be closer to $1k/yr). Dunno if the $3k differential is worth the inconvenience. Especially if you spend $$ on a rental car for a few weekend trips (we take at least once a month)

Edit: New Orleans is more bike friendly but again small kids there is very impractical to be without a car unless you have $$$ (~$2500/mo apartment and private school fees)
If one lives in a city where the infrastructure for using a bike to commute to work, grocery store, etc... is in place - it is a very viable option. It is utilized throughout Europe in a way most Americans, due to our car culture and infrastructure, have not adopted. Some of those reasons are, as you point out, impractical. A culture that lives far from services and makes a weekly trip to the grocery store, compared to a culture that lives closer to services and shops daily at the market (spreads the 50 pounds out over the week as opposed to all at once) with baskets and panniers on their bike is difficult to compare.

However, we shouldn't lose focus of the original point. That was the immediate cut of non-essential expenses in the aftermath of a layoff in your 50's. Depending on how things turn out with regard to finding replacement income or not, location of any new job, frequency of hours worked, etc... - one could indeed review their situation before and after the layoff to see if transportation costs could be mitigated once the new reality is discovered. I can attest, at one year in, we at least know our current reality which includes increased fuel/mileage costs due to the commutes involved with the new jobs.

It's probably not atypical to consider the lifestyle one finds themself living in their 50's and finding ways to cut transportation expenses. There may be a car for each spouse, and there may even be a third car that was formerly used by the teenager(s) sitting in the driveway or garage. That would be our situation!

This is not atypical for an empty nest household where the children have moved off to big cities and left the old car behind. That third car could be jettisoned to save on expenses (insurance, maintenance, fuel). Cutting back to two cars, or even cutting back to one car depending on what transpires after the layoff and the need for transportation certainly is an option to trim the household budget. Even the option of selling one car and getting a scooter or small motorcycle is a viable, less expensive option. Not practical in continental climates with ice/snow, but certainly worth consideration in the seasons that makes it practical.

As pointed out earlier in this thread, the data shows that over 75% of Americans commute alone...

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-aven ... nsus-data/

The majority of that is due to the impractical infrastructure as well as our culture. Hence, one would have to combine a change in housing (moving closer to work/services/public transportation) to make a cut in transportation costs. The change in housing costs to do that may or may not be cost efficient with the savings for the transportation. It might cost you $100K or more to save $5-$10K a year. So by the time it paid off, one would be retired.
"Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time." ~ Steven Wright

JackoC
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:14 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by JackoC » Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:54 pm

KlangFool wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:29 pm
JackoC wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:59 pm

Occam's Razor says companies generally fire who they fire and hire who they here because it allows the companies to produce more for a given labor cost. And that is not *discrimination* just because there might be *disparate impact*.
JackoC,

By simple logic too, if American employers are doing such a good job, they would not be out of business. Many of my 100+ years old employers are no longer in business.

It is very simple.

There is no point in arguing about this. I will survive and thrive. Success is the best revenge. As for those that treated me unfairly, justice will be served.
You made the point about survival of individual companies before: it's simple but invalid logic. :happy The overall measure of performance of US companies collectively is total market value. It doesn't matter for the general statement 'more value has been created among US companies' whether or not it's not the same corporate entities over time. From a shareholder POV what matters is total value, and that's increased for US companies by a huge amount both absolutely and relative to the rest of the world in recent decades. Hence shareholders reading these arguments implying that US companies systematically cull the wrong employees at shareholder expense for no good reason but pure prejudice are naturally puzzled. That argument is basically inconsistent with the clearly observed phenomena of better profitability at US companies generally, and particularly in the recent age of more ruthless cost cutting, than world companies in general. Again ironic since that performance is a staple topic of this forum in discussions of international investing. It's not as if nobody here has ever heard that US companies have tended to be especially profitable, nor do I remember the bogus argument being put forth in those discussions by you that that's somehow not true because individual companies have gone bankrupt or been merged into others.

But I agree it's pointless to debate this with you, because your view of it is obviously shaped by your own individual experience. Again I'm not going to debate with you what happened to you. I will just a little more directly though I hope still civilly point out that your own opinion of why you were fired is worth less than nothing to draw any general conclusion of whether actual age discrimination is common. Not only is it one case, but things like being fired make people angry and resentful, naturally, rather than being objective.

stoptothink
Posts: 7987
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by stoptothink » Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:03 pm

BanquetBeer wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:13 am
Cycle wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:18 pm
If you don't live in an NYC, Boston/Cambridge, Chicago, Minneapolis, KC, St. Louis, Seattle, Portland, Davis, Bay Area, Baltimore, DC, Atlanta, New Orleans, Nashville, Detroit, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Philly, LA, Salt Lake City, Omaha, Boulder, Denver, Milwaukee, ABQ, Iowa City, East Lansing, Madison, or the like there is really no possibility to be car free due to the lack of pedestrian, transit, and biking infrastructure.
Lol, this is so impractical. In Houston if you want a good school district your choice is suburbs, private school ($$$), or close to a million dollar house.
Is someone supposed to ride their bike 2 miles over broken sidewalks to get the 50lbs of groceries (2 gal milk, sparkling water, etc.) we go through every week? I could take the bus there though, just 45 minutes. Or I could use the bus to commute downtown - let’s see, car drive is 15 minutes to closest bus stop and then the bus would be 40 minutes (closes bus stop is away from downtown, fastest public option) in vs the 30 min drive it takes me in the morning.

Lots of things are possible if you don’t have kids. There are a few childless people who do live close to work and can walk. I think the idea that the average family can easily survive without a car isn’t realistic. Especially southern summers and Northern winters with small kids.

I bought a new, much nicer car than I could have. Expected cost is $40k over time he next 10 years/90k miles (car, repairs, gas, & insurance) the non sport model would have cost $7k less (probably less gas and insurance cost). While I could easily half that cost with a used car - car cost represents ~5% of savings rate and public transport is not zero (would be closer to $1k/yr). Dunno if the $3k differential is worth the inconvenience. Especially if you spend $$ on a rental car for a few weekend trips (we take at least once a month)

Edit: New Orleans is more bike friendly but again small kids there is very impractical to be without a car unless you have $$$ (~$2500/mo apartment and private school fees)
I always seem to be that outlier; lived in Houston for 5yrs and now Utah without a car, and kids. To be fair, the wife has a car (we both have worked the entire time).

Bacchus01
Posts: 3182
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:35 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by Bacchus01 » Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:25 pm

If you’ve been fired or laid off multiple times. It’s probably not discrimination. It’s you.

If companies you’ve worked for are constantly going out of business, it’s probably not discrimination. It’s you.

User avatar
bUU
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by bUU » Sun Apr 07, 2019 7:04 am

Bacchus01 wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:25 pm
If you’ve been fired or laid off multiple times. It’s probably not discrimination. It’s you.

If companies you’ve worked for are constantly going out of business, it’s probably not discrimination. It’s you.
Nonsense.

Bacchus01
Posts: 3182
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:35 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by Bacchus01 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 7:11 am

bUU wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 7:04 am
Bacchus01 wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:25 pm
If you’ve been fired or laid off multiple times. It’s probably not discrimination. It’s you.

If companies you’ve worked for are constantly going out of business, it’s probably not discrimination. It’s you.
Nonsense.
I’ve never seen it the other way.

User avatar
bUU
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by bUU » Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:08 am

Bacchus01 wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 7:11 am
I’ve never seen it the other way.
That may be why.

stoptothink
Posts: 7987
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by stoptothink » Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:18 am

Bacchus01 wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 7:11 am
bUU wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 7:04 am
Bacchus01 wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:25 pm
If you’ve been fired or laid off multiple times. It’s probably not discrimination. It’s you.

If companies you’ve worked for are constantly going out of business, it’s probably not discrimination. It’s you.
Nonsense.
I’ve never seen it the other way.
I've just accepted that different people have very different definitions of the word "discrimination". Mine seems to match yours.

KlangFool
Posts: 16992
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by KlangFool » Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:33 am

Folks,

Your life is your own business. The employer treated you as a cost item. So, do not assume the employer will take care of you. You could and would be replaced. And, some times, it happened due to discrimination of your race, religion, gender, and/or age. It may have nothing to do with cost reduction at all.

You need to take care of yourself.

A) Do not work for free. Make sure that your hours are compensated. It could be money and/or learning a new and marketable skill.

B) Save your money and invest the money.

C) Look at the possibility of freelancing and/or side business. Aka, the possibility of self-employment.

You want to survive and thrive in spite of any employment challenges.

KlangFool

User avatar
bUU
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by bUU » Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:58 am

KlangFool wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:33 am
You need to take care of yourself.
I think the two facts can exist simultaneously - there is discrimination, and you need to do the best you can for yourself despite that. The latter doesn't discount the former, or discount the need for good people to consider the former a (separate) problem that needs to be worked.
KlangFool wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:33 am
A) Do not work for free. Make sure that your hours are compensated. It could be money and/or learning a new and marketable skill.
Interesting thought. What do you consider, "working for free"?

KlangFool
Posts: 16992
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by KlangFool » Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:09 am

bUU wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:58 am
KlangFool wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:33 am
You need to take care of yourself.
I think the two facts can exist simultaneously - there is discrimination, and you need to do the best you can for yourself despite that. The latter doesn't discount the former, or discount the need for good people to consider the former a (separate) problem that needs to be worked.
KlangFool wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:33 am
A) Do not work for free. Make sure that your hours are compensated. It could be money and/or learning a new and marketable skill.
Interesting thought. What do you consider, "working for free"?
bUU,

Unpaid overtime beyond 40 hours per week.

KlangFool

AZAttorney11
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:12 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by AZAttorney11 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:13 am

Bacchus01 wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:25 pm
If you’ve been fired or laid off multiple times. It’s probably not discrimination. It’s you.

If companies you’ve worked for are constantly going out of business, it’s probably not discrimination. It’s you.
Yep.

User avatar
bUU
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by bUU » Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:32 am

KlangFool wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:09 am
Unpaid overtime beyond 40 hours per week.
You're being cagey. Let's assume that we're talking about a salaried employee, not an hourly worker. In that context, you seem to be saying that working more than 40 hours a week is "working for free" and people shouldn't do that. However, most salaried employees can help you understand that their co-workers who refused to go the extra mile and got a reputation for working-by-the-clock ended up the first to be let go in the layoffs.

BanquetBeer
Posts: 481
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:57 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by BanquetBeer » Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:37 am

stoptothink wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:03 pm
I always seem to be that outlier; lived in Houston for 5yrs and now Utah without a car, and kids. To be fair, the wife has a car (we both have worked the entire time).
I think it’s totally doable with 1 car. Living in the suburbs you can live close to a park and ride with decent schools and really eliminate the need for 2 cars. I think it’s prudent to get to your NPV retirement goal by 50 so you only have to cover living expenses until you are 60. That can be approximately half your number.

Even if you get laid off you can likely find a job to cover day to day with no savings.

I do think you don’t have to be too honest on your resume. If you are suited to a role, tell them the applicable parts. Do you need to say you were a manager (if that is a threat as previously mentioned).

KlangFool
Posts: 16992
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by KlangFool » Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:44 am

bUU wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:32 am
KlangFool wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:09 am
Unpaid overtime beyond 40 hours per week.
You're being cagey. Let's assume that we're talking about a salaried employee, not an hourly worker. In that context, you seem to be saying that working more than 40 hours a week is "working for free" and people shouldn't do that. However, most salaried employees can help you understand that their co-workers who refused to go the extra mile and got a reputation for working-by-the-clock ended up the first to be let go in the layoffs.
bUU,

<<In that context, you seem to be saying that working more than 40 hours a week is "working for free" and people shouldn't do that.>>

They should only do it when it is beneficial to them. Aka, not free. They get something out of this.

<<However, most salaried employees can help you understand that their co-workers who refused to go the extra mile and got a reputation for working-by-the-clock ended up the first to be let go in the layoffs.>>

1) People that worked overtime has no time for self-promotion. People that have the reputation to go the extra mile has the time for self-promotion. They are not overworked.

People that worked and people that receive the credit for the work are usually not the same people.

2) The salaried employee does not get to decide who among their co-worker will be laid off. It is upper management. I received the most employee reward (nominated by my co-workers) for being the best team player. Then, I was laid off. My co-workers were shocked.

3)Your employer is a business. Its goal is to maximize profit from your effort.

You as an employee is a business too. Your goal is to maximize your profit / earning / return from your time spent with the employer.

KlangFool

User avatar
bUU
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by bUU » Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:24 pm

The more I understand what you're trying to say, the more I'm convinced that you're offering non-operational advice.

User avatar
corn18
Posts: 1754
Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 6:24 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by corn18 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:28 pm

How many of the BH on this thread have direct reports and had to let people go? I ran a division in a megacorp with 168 direct reports. It used to be 221. We were not profitable. We got things fixed up and we are now more productive with 168 than we were with 221. Never once did age factor into the terminations. And I can tell you that every single one of them affected me personally. Gut wrenching, to be honest. A data point of one.
Don't do something, just stand there!

KlangFool
Posts: 16992
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by KlangFool » Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:00 pm

bUU wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:24 pm
The more I understand what you're trying to say, the more I'm convinced that you're offering non-operational advice.
bUU,

Then, pick something that works for you. If your approach is useful to others, let someone's else know.

KlangFool

User avatar
samsoes
Posts: 1469
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:12 am
Location: Northeast Rat Race

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by samsoes » Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:32 pm

corn18 wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:28 pm
How many of the BH on this thread have direct reports and had to let people go? I ran a division in a megacorp with 168 direct reports. It used to be 221. We were not profitable. We got things fixed up and we are now more productive with 168 than we were with 221. Never once did age factor into the terminations. And I can tell you that every single one of them affected me personally. Gut wrenching, to be honest. A data point of one.
If I had to produce a list of direct reports to get laid-off, I'd submit a list with one name: mine.
Last edited by samsoes on Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Happiness Is Not My Companion" - Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren. | (Avatar is the statue of Gen. Warren atop Little Round Top @ Gettysburg National Military Park.)

smitcat
Posts: 6110
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by smitcat » Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:33 pm

samsoes wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:32 pm
corn18 wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:28 pm
How many of the BH on this thread have direct reports and had to let people go? I ran a division in a megacorp with 168 direct reports. It used to be 221. We were not profitable. We got things fixed up and we are now more productive with 168 than we were with 221. Never once did age factor into the terminations. And I can tell you that every single one of them affected me personally. Gut wrenching, to be honest. A data point of one.
If I had to produce a list of direct reports to get laid-off, I'd submit a list with one name: mine.

I don't want blood on my hands.
I would guess that you have never been in that position then.

User avatar
samsoes
Posts: 1469
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:12 am
Location: Northeast Rat Race

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by samsoes » Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:38 pm

smitcat wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:33 pm
samsoes wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:32 pm
corn18 wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:28 pm
How many of the BH on this thread have direct reports and had to let people go? I ran a division in a megacorp with 168 direct reports. It used to be 221. We were not profitable. We got things fixed up and we are now more productive with 168 than we were with 221. Never once did age factor into the terminations. And I can tell you that every single one of them affected me personally. Gut wrenching, to be honest. A data point of one.
If I had to produce a list of direct reports to get laid-off, I'd submit a list with one name: mine.
I would guess that you have never been in that position then.
No need to guess. Note the word "if" in my comment.
Last edited by samsoes on Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Happiness Is Not My Companion" - Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren. | (Avatar is the statue of Gen. Warren atop Little Round Top @ Gettysburg National Military Park.)

smitcat
Posts: 6110
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by smitcat » Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:40 pm

samsoes wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:38 pm
smitcat wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:33 pm
samsoes wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:32 pm
corn18 wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:28 pm
How many of the BH on this thread have direct reports and had to let people go? I ran a division in a megacorp with 168 direct reports. It used to be 221. We were not profitable. We got things fixed up and we are now more productive with 168 than we were with 221. Never once did age factor into the terminations. And I can tell you that every single one of them affected me personally. Gut wrenching, to be honest. A data point of one.
If I had to produce a list of direct reports to get laid-off, I'd submit a list with one name: mine.

I don't want blood on my hands.
I would guess that you have never been in that position then.
No need to guess. Note the word "if" in my comment.
Then its likely you will never be in that position.

User avatar
samsoes
Posts: 1469
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:12 am
Location: Northeast Rat Race

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by samsoes » Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:41 pm

smitcat wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:40 pm
samsoes wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:38 pm
smitcat wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:33 pm
samsoes wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:32 pm
corn18 wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:28 pm
How many of the BH on this thread have direct reports and had to let people go? I ran a division in a megacorp with 168 direct reports. It used to be 221. We were not profitable. We got things fixed up and we are now more productive with 168 than we were with 221. Never once did age factor into the terminations. And I can tell you that every single one of them affected me personally. Gut wrenching, to be honest. A data point of one.
If I had to produce a list of direct reports to get laid-off, I'd submit a list with one name: mine.
I would guess that you have never been in that position then.
No need to guess. Note the word "if" in my comment.
Then its likely you will never be in that position.
Correct.
Last edited by samsoes on Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Happiness Is Not My Companion" - Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren. | (Avatar is the statue of Gen. Warren atop Little Round Top @ Gettysburg National Military Park.)

User avatar
samsoes
Posts: 1469
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:12 am
Location: Northeast Rat Race

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by samsoes » Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:44 pm

bUU wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:32 am
KlangFool wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:09 am
Unpaid overtime beyond 40 hours per week.
You're being cagey. Let's assume that we're talking about a salaried employee, not an hourly worker. In that context, you seem to be saying that working more than 40 hours a week is "working for free" and people shouldn't do that. However, most salaried employees can help you understand that their co-workers who refused to go the extra mile and got a reputation for working-by-the-clock ended up the first to be let go in the layoffs.
"Extra miles" don't mean squat. For years, I worked weekends, late nights, all-nighters, and answered overnight calls and had to go in to the data center in the middle of the night to save the day. I won multiple company awards, including the highest the company offers.

I still got whacked.

No more extra miles for me.
"Happiness Is Not My Companion" - Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren. | (Avatar is the statue of Gen. Warren atop Little Round Top @ Gettysburg National Military Park.)

stoptothink
Posts: 7987
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by stoptothink » Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:56 pm

samsoes wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:32 pm
corn18 wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:28 pm
How many of the BH on this thread have direct reports and had to let people go? I ran a division in a megacorp with 168 direct reports. It used to be 221. We were not profitable. We got things fixed up and we are now more productive with 168 than we were with 221. Never once did age factor into the terminations. And I can tell you that every single one of them affected me personally. Gut wrenching, to be honest. A data point of one.
If I had to produce a list of direct reports to get laid-off, I'd submit a list with one name: mine.
That's good of you, I have a family and financial responsibilities too. I've had to do it twice, including cutting almost half my staff at one time at my prior job because we lost a major funder. I can tell you that age never even crossed my mind as a possible influencing factor. Really, the one and only factor was job performance/compensation. May sound harsh, but my decisions have never been that hard because there are always people who simply don't perform and the only reason I could not let them go before was because that process was a huge PITA. Businesses don't exist to provide individuals jobs.

randomguy
Posts: 9139
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by randomguy » Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:14 pm

samsoes wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:44 pm
bUU wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:32 am
KlangFool wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:09 am
Unpaid overtime beyond 40 hours per week.
You're being cagey. Let's assume that we're talking about a salaried employee, not an hourly worker. In that context, you seem to be saying that working more than 40 hours a week is "working for free" and people shouldn't do that. However, most salaried employees can help you understand that their co-workers who refused to go the extra mile and got a reputation for working-by-the-clock ended up the first to be let go in the layoffs.
"Extra miles" don't mean squat. For years, I worked weekends, late nights, all-nighters, and answered overnight calls and had to go in to the data center in the middle of the night to save the day. I won multiple company awards, including the highest the company offers.

I still got whacked.

No more extra miles for me.
But were you the first or the second person whacked? In the companies I have been in that have done general layoff (i.e. not cutting a project), the first round was always the underperformers. By the second round you started cutting solid people. And the 3rd was painful. I never made the cuts but have ranked team members. I can tell you age never mattered. If we could ship without you mattered a lot. Nobody is irreplaceable. But some are a lot more painful to replace.

The group that gets laid off skews towards underperformers. That doesn't mean everyone in the group was an underperformer. It is easy to look at the numbers and realize that most people make it past 60 without becoming drastically underemployed. But there is a big chunk that does end up there.

Oblivious
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by Oblivious » Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:35 pm

corn18 wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:28 pm
How many of the BH on this thread have direct reports and had to let people go? I ran a division in a megacorp with 168 direct reports. It used to be 221. We were not profitable. We got things fixed up and we are now more productive with 168 than we were with 221. Never once did age factor into the terminations. And I can tell you that every single one of them affected me personally. Gut wrenching, to be honest. A data point of one.
I believe you when you say that age did not factor into the equation directly, but were the factors that contributed to who was laid off highly correlated with age? Was there people that happened to be there 20+ years, that made quite a bit more but did the same job as a person with 5 years of experience. Did the 20+ year person possibly not contribute more than the 5 year person, so from a production/cost standpoint, they were easy to identify? So age did not factor into the terminations directly.

Then if you ignore the factors used to choose who to layoff and look at the average age of the people that were laid off, was the average age of the people laid off higher than the average age of the 168 left?

visualguy
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:32 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by visualguy » Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:44 pm

randomguy wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:14 pm
samsoes wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:44 pm
bUU wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:32 am
KlangFool wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:09 am
Unpaid overtime beyond 40 hours per week.
You're being cagey. Let's assume that we're talking about a salaried employee, not an hourly worker. In that context, you seem to be saying that working more than 40 hours a week is "working for free" and people shouldn't do that. However, most salaried employees can help you understand that their co-workers who refused to go the extra mile and got a reputation for working-by-the-clock ended up the first to be let go in the layoffs.
"Extra miles" don't mean squat. For years, I worked weekends, late nights, all-nighters, and answered overnight calls and had to go in to the data center in the middle of the night to save the day. I won multiple company awards, including the highest the company offers.

I still got whacked.

No more extra miles for me.
But were you the first or the second person whacked? In the companies I have been in that have done general layoff (i.e. not cutting a project), the first round was always the underperformers. By the second round you started cutting solid people. And the 3rd was painful. I never made the cuts but have ranked team members. I can tell you age never mattered. If we could ship without you mattered a lot. Nobody is irreplaceable. But some are a lot more painful to replace.

The group that gets laid off skews towards underperformers. That doesn't mean everyone in the group was an underperformer. It is easy to look at the numbers and realize that most people make it past 60 without becoming drastically underemployed. But there is a big chunk that does end up there.
Particularly in project-based layoffs, but also general layoffs, you may get laid off just because of where you are in the organization. One of the important skills in working for large companies is seeing the writing on the wall before this happens, and trying to move to a different group before the axe falls. Not always possible, but often it is, particularly for high performers who cultivate connections with other groups in the company. Anyway, this is unrelated to age.

User avatar
bUU
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Losing a job in your 50's...

Post by bUU » Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:58 pm

samsoes wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:44 pm
"Extra miles" don't mean squat. For years, I worked weekends, late nights, all-nighters, and answered overnight calls and had to go in to the data center in the middle of the night to save the day. I won multiple company awards, including the highest the company offers. I still got whacked.
I did "extra miles" too. I got to keep my job longer than my colleagues that didn't. I bet you did too even if you don't realize it or can't grant it.
randomguy wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:14 pm
But were you the first or the second person whacked?
Precisely.
stoptothink wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:56 pm
I can tell you that age never even crossed my mind as a possible influencing factor.
Then your company was far too "small potatoes" to reflect the kind of environment that most Americans face. And of course denial of the problem just exacerbates the problem. What we really need is a requirement for BLS to gather data necessary to show what percentage of older workers versus younger workers are laid off. The evidence would be clear from the statistics. They report layoffs by industry and region, but not by age of employee. And we won't see such statistics coming from BLS because those who have a vested interest in keeping such data from being reported will do what they can (read: campaign donations) to ensure that BLS is not given that mandate. And given how many apologists there are in this regard, I'm rather glad I'm getting out of the race.
Last edited by bUU on Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply