
Over 50, Female and Jobless - wallflower
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/02/business/economy/over-50-female-and-jobless-even-as-others-return-to-work.html
======
paulojreis
I always had the struggles of the _slightly_ older job seekers close to my
heart. It's just something that employment policy doesn't address adequately.

My father is in that situation - which is why, obviously, I feel it so close.
He's slightly above 50, with qualifications (B.Sc. in Chemical Engineering)
and a lot of experience. However, he has been jobless since his last company
closed, 6 years ago.

It's really a perfect shitstorm for people in his situation. He has a lot of
experience, but in the manufacturing industry which, as we know, is being
dislocated elsewhere (we live in Portugal). There's the competition of younger
graduates, which are also unemployed. Of course, he's too young to retire. And
he's been unemployed long enough, so state benefits expired; the last resort
state benefit - for poverty, really - doesn't apply because my parents have a
house (so, he'd have to sell the house to get the state benefit).

Luckily he has some money set aside, but - again - this is Portugal. You can
save some money with our wages, but not nearly enough to support such a
tremendous amount of time unemployed. And, well, luckily I'm employed but the
same reasoning applies: I'm able (and happy) to help, but I don't make nearly
enough to be able to do so and still save for a rainy day.

~~~
tluyben2
PT employment laws are not helping either. I had a company there with
employees and it all just is too protective of them. So you rather not employ
someone. I thought the Netherlands was bad but PT and ES are far worse. And
that is definitely hurting hiring.

~~~
yulaow
In general in the big part of WE countries (except UK) there were, luckily,
everywhere protective laws towards employees.

It is a matter of preference, you have to decide if is better to protect the
employer the most or the employees the most. Considering employees are the
bigger part of the population, for me that I grown in this area, it seems most
logic to protect them first.

Also consider in the last 3-4 years almost all countries had weakened them in
part, hoping it would change the work crisis situation (short answer, it
changed nothing at all... except now workers are even more in danger to lose
their jobs).

I mean, luckily we have no madness like the "Fire at will" I heard a lot
talking about in US, but the situation right now is starting to get unbalanced
in favor of the employer, and I don't like that.

~~~
gregpilling
I am an employer (manufacturing) in Arizona USA, a "Fire-at-will" state. If I
did not have this privilege, I would not take the risk hiring job candidates
who interview poorly. I would be compelled to take the obvious best choice
every time, and to never take a risk. Risks are too costly.

With Fire-at-Will I can take a chance on anyone. This is especially useful
with lower lever, entry positions where they learn on the job. I have tried
hiring all types; the results have been surprising. The sure thing employees
aren't always, and the WTF employees sometimes surprise you.

The woman in charge of my accounting, was an 18 year old goth cosplayer, moved
from the warehouse to the office as helper during a layoff. She is now 22
(still goth/cosplayer) and does her job like she has 20 years experience. I
would never ever have hired her for that job if I could not fire her easily.
But she is great.

This is the positive side of Fire-at-will. In practice, you never fire anyone
on a whim because it destabilizes the rest of the employees. I only fire the
people who need it, and by then most of the staff probably wants them gone
anyway.

~~~
pt35pt
In Portugal you get 6 months where you can fire at will.

~~~
pkaye
What happens later if the company is doing poorly and they need to reduce the
workforce?

~~~
paulojreis
That will depend on how long the game has been rolling, workforce-wise.

For permanent employees, there's severance payment when firing someone. The
amount depends on how long the employee has been in the company, as well as
when the contract was signed (the legislation has changed and doesn't apply
retroactively). This means paying the dismissed employee something between 12
to 30 days wages per each full year of service. Bear in mind that the value is
capped via multiple factors, e.g. it can't be bigger than X times the minimum
wage, it can't be bigger than Y times the monthly wage.

However, most contracts are fixed-term: for those, the company simply has to
inform the employee that they don't intend to renew. There are also many, many
people illegally hired as independent contractors, but working full-time on
company premises; those are "fire at will".

There are alternatives [1], however:

* A collective dismissal procedure;

* Dismissal due to the termination of a job position;

* Dismissal due to the employee's incapability to adapt.

[1]
[http://us.practicallaw.com/6-503-4030?source=relatedcontent#...](http://us.practicallaw.com/6-503-4030?source=relatedcontent#a708040)

------
brighteyes
It's odd that the article avoids presenting data that would directly show the
extent of the problem.

It does show that older women are at higher risk of long-term unemployment,
but only compared to other women. It never compares older women to similarly
aged men. The best it does is quote people saying that older women have it
harder, but never with actual numbers.

We are therefore unable to estimate how big the problem is. Are older women 1%
more at risk than older men? 300%? No idea.

~~~
return0
Here's the data:

[https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-
synops...](https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-
synopses/2015/11/06/age-and-gender-differences-in-long-term-unemployment-
before-and-after-the-great-recession/)

Men have the exact same long-term unemployment share (50%) in the 50-64 range.
So, it's an equally large problem for older men. I 'm baffled by the
chauvinism of the author.

~~~
ryanSrich
"New York Times". Should say it all.

~~~
meagain20000
Actually, it doesn't. I may not hang around the same group of people as you
which may explain why I have no biasses towards the NYTs. Please explain what
you mean.

If you were to mention Fox News I would get the referene since Fox News is
mostly a racist, sexist, xenophobe pile of dung. I'm of course exagerating for
dramatic effect. They are still quite bad on the things they say(twist)
though.

~~~
paulddraper
I don't really "hang out" with NYT readers, so I can't tell you the group
consensus.

But my experience has been that NYT frequently fails to report meaningful
data. For example a few days ago, they compared the propensity of people to
marry others of similar income to "eugenics".
[http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/upshot/marriages-of-
pow...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/upshot/marriages-of-power-
couples-reinforce-income-inequality.html) But then totally and completely
failed to show that income level transfers generations, which is crucial for
eugenics. They also failed to look at it even mention confounding variables.

------
danmaz74
> Ms. Colafrancesco, now 59 and divorced, started determinedly looking for a
> full-time job three years ago. As soon as she mentioned that she had taken
> off time to care for two children, she could see in the interviewer’s face
> that she had been summarily dismissed.

Anybody has a clue why having taken time off to care for her children is
relevant for a potential employer now that she is 59 years old, and the
likelihood of her having more children fairly low?

~~~
morgante
It could also be that she has missed out on relevant experience due to the
time spent child-rearing.

~~~
tomp
This argument is reasonable on the surface, but when you think about it a bit
more, it seems quite unlikely that missing 2 years of work _20 years ago_
would result in lack of relevant experience... Most people _never_ have 20
years of experience (more like 20 times 1 year of experience); furthermore,
whatever experience another person might have had 20 years ago is most likely
either forgotten or completely irrelevant by now.

~~~
cbr
Trying to match her linkedin profile [1] to the article, it sounds like she
worked in reinsurance from 1980-2003 (age 23-46), took time off to care for
kids, and started substitute teaching a few days a week in 2007 (age 50). Not
working within your field for the last 13 years does seem like it would have a
large effect on experience; this is getting close to your "whatever experience
another person might have had 20 years ago is most likely either forgotten or
completely irrelevant by now".

[1] [https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynn-
colafrancesco-5800163](https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynn-colafrancesco-5800163)

------
geargrinder
In my experience, over-50 employees are easy to work with, knowledgeable,
experienced and flexible. They bring a lot less personal drama because they
have things pretty much figured out in their personal lives. They are often
anxious to learn and have lots of time still left to contribute. Obviously
these are some generalizations, but I have found them to be true for many I
work with. It is sad they are being left out of the workforce when they can
provide so much of the leadership and stability companies are looking for.

------
gragas
I love how at the end of the article, Ms. McAfee says "I did everything you’re
supposed to do". This little bit of information pretty much encapsulates the
entire point of the article:

Either Ms. McAfee _didn 't_ do everything you're supposed to do, or everything
you're supposed to do is wrong.

------
WhitneyLand
I wonder how much of a barrier this is when a woman over 50 has specific, up
to date, hard skills like those discussed on HN.

In other words, how much is discrimination and how much is investing in and
managing an up to date skill set.

~~~
flint
Say you are a 35 year old manager. All else equal who do you hire; a 25 year
old or a 50 year old? Is it age discrimination to hire an individual that you
think you'd be better able to manage?

~~~
Caprinicus
If the 50 year old has the same amount of experience that the 25 year old has,
they have been doing something seriously wrong. That is reality, if people
want to keep working at a given position they need to constantly develop and
improve to remain competitive, all else should not be equal when the older
candidate has been working for 25 extra years.

~~~
gaius
Real skills transcend whatever language is trendy today. A 50 year old with 25
years experience including 5 years Node.js trumps a 25 year old with 5 years
Node.js and nothing else. In a sane world, anyway.

~~~
bm1362
I worked with an older engineer (late 40s) when I was 21 (and with a bunch of
young SDEs) and he was proficient, intelligent. His downfall was his ego and
inability to make trade offs. He beat every decision, design, code review to
death and couldn't see the forest for the trees. Writing in Java, he would use
byte arrays or unfold loops for unnecessary performance gains. He sabotaged
meetings because he would derail for such a long time on minor issues. He was
only there for 6 months and jumped ship to Google.

~~~
gaius
Are you saying all older engineers are raging egomaniacs? Because that sounds
pretty ageist to me.

------
mixmastamyk
This article just made me realize that me, my wife, and my mother are all now
unemployed and over 35. It does contradict the current economic wisdom doesn't
it? Luckily I've got plenty of savings and always lived beneath my means.

In my own case I find companies want to play games in interviews and are not
particularly interested in hiring, even though I've twenty years experience in
the tech industry and am an "expert" in Python and Javascript. Being
interested in fitness also, I'm often in better shape than the pudgy, pale,
late-twenties types I have to interview with, haha.

------
lkrubner
This strikes me as a huge issue, which I've also seen:

“I have been told in interviews that they want somebody younger,” said Karen
Lamkin, a lawyer with 25 years of experience who lives outside Boston and has
been out of work for three years. “It does not matter that I would be
satisfied with the salary for a junior position.”

I have seen that many times. Managers will want someone younger. Pay has
nothing to do with it. Rather, managers believe that someone younger will be
willing to work longer hours, and will also be easier to manipulate.

The unemployment rate would have to go extremely low before businesses began
hiring the unwanteds. It is worth noting that in the USA male participation in
the economy peaked in the late 1950s, and has since declined. Much of this was
racial: blacks were barred from getting good jobs, so they were overly
concentrated in textiles and agriculture. Then a combination of automation and
outsourcing reduced employment in textiles and agriculture. 60 years later,
and the USA has still failed to recover.

How low would unemployment have to be before USA businesses would hire so many
men that labor participation rates would go back to the rates of the 1950s?
Clearly, the USA would need a long labor shortage before businesses would give
up on their biases and hire all of the willing workers.

------
cmdrfred
I started my 'career' as a dishwasher at 13. I worked my way up to chef and
then got into IT. Kitchens are ALWAYS hiring. When I hear people complain that
they have been looking for x years I always wonder why they don't get a job
like that. Is it that they believe it is too good for them? The market seems
to disagree.

~~~
BatFastard
As someone who has been in this position, as a matter of fact I do feel that I
am too experienced for it. The years of college, 30 years of professional
development experience, kinda makes you not want to start from the bottom
again. Finally found a company that values my skills, but it took a few years
(yeah years!).

------
rustynails
The New York times has been very sexist for as long as I can recall. If you
have any doubts, search Google against New York Times on general terms like
men, women - see a trend of extreme sexism? It's hard to miss.

As has been pointed out by many other posters, there is no difference in the
figures of unemployment for older men/women.

I honestly believe society is far more sexist today than it has ever been in
at least 50 years. In my lifetime, no one would ever do a code.org by saying
on the front page that (only) girls are welcome, or in Australia, we now have
minimum quotas for police based on gender.. They must hire women regardless of
who applies or their experience.

The sexism and misrepresentation of this article should not be a surprise to
any intelligent person.

------
Mz
Upon skim: I think it has some good points to make. Women are more likely to
take time off for family obligations. If women do just give up more than men,
they stop counting you as unemployed when you stop bothering to try. So the
statistics would not show those women.

------
gotchange
From what I could gather from the multitude of articles that I read about the
US job market following the 2008 economic crisis, I noticed an interesting
trend or pattern where US workers are interested in getting jobs exclusively
in the US and not anywhere else. I am not talking here about unskilled or low-
skilled labor, I'm talking about individuals who possess marketable skill set
who could prove beneficial for any business abroad and yet they limit their
job search to their home country.

I couldn't find an explanation for this.

Is it the expected lower pay? Is it having to live in a foreign country and
assimilating to other cultures? What's it exactly?

Because If were one of them, I'd take any reasonable job offer abroad than
staying unemployed draining my savings and having wide gaps on my resume that
would complicate the matter even further.

~~~
superuser2
Many, many factors:

1) The average American lives 18 miles from his or her mother. Leaving one's
hometown for a tech/finance/arts hub is for the upwardly mobile elites, not
the masses. HN's demographic is extremely unrepresentative.

2) Foreign language education is poor. K12 schools generally make a token
effort towards Spanish, French, and German. Asian language education is rare.
Bilingual children are generally from immigrant families, or from very wealthy
families who can afford good schools, study abroad programs, a gap year or
summer for their teenager to wander around Europe with friends instead of
working, etc.

3) International travel is _extremely_ expensive and most people do not have
that kind of cash lying around to cover necessities, let alone leisure travel.
Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. So going abroad is just not a
familiar or natural experience to many people. Only 46% have passports.

------
jkot
I find this article a bit sexist, it assumes that women are only one who
raises children. Plus 60 years old plumber with alimony has it pretty hard as
well, and nobody will hire him as part time teacher.

~~~
andylei
it does not assume that.

~~~
jkot
Then they should change title from "female" to "parent".

Anyway it is typical rant disconnected from reality. Why nobody hires me with
my doctorate from "communications"?

~~~
andylei
did you read the article? it uses words like "most" and "many". it talks about
why older females have trouble finding jobs, but also about how older men have
trouble finding jobs. its also an article about trends, not absolutes.

------
known
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income)
should fix it

------
moonchrome
While it may be upsetting for people I see nothing wrong with people over 50
having a harder time getting their foot trough the "front door" than young
people.

You had over half of your working career to network, get contacts,
recommendations, etc. - if you're still applying for public job ads like the
people in 20s and 30s then sorry but this probably means you weren't really
good enough at your previous jobs for people to notice you and recommend you.

A lot of senior hiring goes trough recommendations - if you aren't on
anybody's "let's call this guy for X" and you spent 20+ work years on the job
I'd rather gamble with unproven guy that has potential than someone with a
disappointing track record.

And this is true even when assuming that age doesn't affect your job
performance (which it does, and past 50s you're past your prime and as we've
discussed before your experience isn't enough to put you on someones
recommendation list then it probably isn't that valuable).

Naturally there will be exceptions to this but I have a feeling that this
logic applies in the majority case.

~~~
jqm
What if "X" to call the guy for doesn't exist anymore?

Say for example (of course this could _never_ occur) that a brand new web
development paradigm came out and javascript died almost overnight. Say (in
this hypothetical example) it was very easy and required almost no learning
and anyone could do it almost right away. How is all the networking done with
fellow javascript people going to help a web developer find a new job?

~~~
moonchrome
Networking doesn't really work like that from my experience, you show people
that you're reliable and a good person to work with in some area they will
assume you can transfer to Y even if you specialize in X, even senior
positions hire people without direct experience and not only in software.

I've seen things like this happen in several jobs I've worked with - not all
of which were programming (eg. at my first job CTP was replacing old printing
plate development with manual film montage/exposure). People good enough at
their work saw this sort of thing coming a long time ahead and start moving to
the next thing way before it actually happened, people who got hit by it were
people who barely knew their job to begin with and had no interest in keeping
up to date - so I don't think this goes against my point.

And are you really surprised that people with no relevant experience get
discriminated on age ? If your experience is completely irrelevant then you
don't really have a lot to offer over a younger person (and younger in this
context means <50 which is different from the classic software story of 20
yearolds vs 40 yearols where the differences are still debatable, there are
undeniable differences in the below above 50 age groups, you're just past your
prime at that point at least when it comes to adapting to new things).

