The answer is obvious. Lower the retirement age to 40!

Then they would refuse everyone over 30.

Lower the retirement age to birth.

or just introduce basic income and no need to touch retirement

Prove it was an illegal action and defend your right to employment: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm

"The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older."

I appreciate your straight answer, and the call to defend employment rights. However, isn't it quite difficult to prove age discrimination? How successful are these legal actions?

...and if you're filtered out at the resume stage, good luck proving the intent.

If you can get to discovery, consistent filtering at the resume stage is probably the easiest thing to prove is unambiguous age discrimination.

Wait... it protects against discrimination only if you're over 40? So if you're under 40 you can be discriminated against? Isn't that discrimination itself? Huh?

don't publish specific dates for your education and don't mention first few jobs which are anyway worthless, immediately you got few years younger

alternatively you could put your age data in some link with tracking to figure out if they had look at it

Yeah this will just drive intelligent folks to strip academics dates from their resumes, and limit things to one page containing only their recent employment history.

The article was horrifying because I'll be 40 next year, and am just now really getting rolling in my career. And I certainly don't think of myself as any less than my younger colleagues. Sure, I have more baggage and other priorities (bills, family, hobbies), but I still work hard and deliver a lot of value.