We already have 15y to go here, at age 50. That’s WAY longer than the median occupancy.

Also, large companies go out of their way to offer early retirement packages to their workforce, often starting even with 55 year old employees. That does not fit the expectation of people working till they are 70. Politics and employer orgs need to talk about that.

Companies that have an average churn of more than 7%—which is most of them—have no place worrying about some 50-year-old retiring.

Not that that stops managers, of course...

I don't buy this at all. I've hired many people in my career, and:

1. I've never had more than a max 2 year time horizon when thinking about a hire.

2. If anything, I've found younger people more likely to job hop than those 40+.

This might not be the case for your hiring principles, but this doesn't reflect the reality and statistics in my European country. People after 50 have a near zero chance of getting hired here as confirmed by the unemployment office.

I didn't see them say it's not harder getting hired over age 50, I think they're questioning that the reason is really job hopping.

Employers will never say what the real reason is because they don't want to get sued for age discrimination.

We’re on an anonymous forum. Many of us make hiring decisions, and are willing to be honest about it.

I responded to a comment that said the reason getting hired over 50 is difficult is because employers are reluctant to hire someone who may retire soon. I objected to that rationale, which makes no sense IMO. I have no doubt that getting hired over 50 is more difficult than for younger people.

And somehow you think your perspective is the only one out in the job market and everything else doesn’t make any sense

    > People after 50 have a near zero chance of getting hired here as confirmed by the unemployment office.

What are the causes for this in your country? I assume that you are an advanced nation with strong labour laws.

Yes that a big part of the reason, laws make it harder to fire those over 50 versus those below 50 where it's basically at-will. So companies fire you before you get to 50. Same with pregnant women, they get firing protection so companies are less likely to hire you if you're pregnant or if you're at that age were women tend to get pregnant.

You can have regulations all you want, but private companies are still profit driven and will take dehumanizing measures to satisfy that profit incentive. Otherwise they wouldn't have moved manufacturing to Asia if they cared about labor so much.

How many people over 50 have you hired?

Young people today job hop like there's no tomorrow.

Young people today can't get jobs, this take seems a couple years out of date

What do you mean by "young"? I'm 51.

Companies today get rid of employees like there is no tomorrow.

> (...) the global average total fertility rate will have dropped below replacement.

My pet theory is that when the system becomes untenable, procreation slows down, which will in time trigger a kind of reset - not that it's going to be fun to live through or anything. Self-regulation.

That’s not a plausible theory to me. IME older people are just less likely to work hard. They bring a “rest n vest” mindset. If an older person rounds a 40hr week down to 35 hrs, and a younger person rounds up to 45 hours because they are passionate and ambitious, all else equal the younger get person is better ROI for the team. Obviously this is stereotyping and may not be accurate but that sentiment can explain many decisions.

depends on the type of work you’re doing. “Work smart not hard” can apply to many jobs. Other jobs not so much…

In addition - when i was a younger engineer i appreciated have a few older engineers around the office because they were always a wealth of knowledge.

> they worry they’ll retire soon

Sorry but how is this different from hiring someone in their 20s and they are very likely to job hop to another company 1 / 2 years later ? I don't think anyone will believe this.