Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  2 3 4 5 6  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
  1 of 1  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
SonicUltimate 05:40 PM on 05/15/2012
I'm sure there are some cases of actual age discrimination out there, and they are hard to prove.  However, The current problem facing those older workers who lost their jobs is not that they are being overtly discriminated against.  

The problem is more experienced (i.e. older) workers are competing for fewer jobs at their level of experience, and are competing with an  Read More...
photo
ibsteve2u
Someone who cares - to his unending regret
06:46 PM on 05/15/2012
Furchtgott-Roth said. "Such policies would needlessly set one generation against another."

Huh...getting arrogant in her old age. Maybe she thinks nobody can find examples of her saying things on her blog like "Ironically, the effect of Obama's failed economic policies has fallen most heavily on the young."

It annoys me when pseudo-intellectuals believe that they can say anything and their hypocrisy will go unnoticed by the dull-witted "masses".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sbrannon
thinker, photojournalist, humanitarian
05:48 PM on 05/15/2012
It reminds me of when the blacks and hispanics felt this way, and it was hard t prove. What happened? They put so much pressure on the corporations, that now, they look at their "racial ratios" to make sure they dont look bad. Maybe they should do he same thing with the elderly. Walk around and tell me how many people over fifty do you see working? It would be a great research project.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
SonicUltimate
05:50 PM on 05/15/2012
The same laws already apply to people over 40.
05:53 PM on 05/15/2012
Elderly discrimination laws are not enforced becasue teh vast majority of Americans could care less.....they look at it as "I have no problem so there is no problem!"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KWiedemer
Denver Unemployment Examiner
05:47 PM on 05/15/2012
Will be interesting - or not really - to see if anything comes as a result of this hearing. Nothing ever does, unfortunately.

We all know that the 'long term unemployed' are having a very hard time getting hired -regardless of whether they are '99ers', '86ers', or '73ers' - and that many of the 'exhaustees' remain unemployed while the 'new' jobs are being filled by migrants coming into the state and by those who've been unemployed for lesser periods of time.

More evidence of the same can be found in today's very sobering report published KRDO in Springs titled, The 86 Million Invisible Unemployed - Labor force At Smallest Size Since '80s Compared To Broader Working Age Population

Last year there were 86 million people who didn't have a job and weren't consistently looking for one, according to Labor Department data.

Older people, ages 65 and over, account for more than a third. Young people between 16 and 24 make up another fifth. More than half don't have a college degree and more than two thirds are white...

http://www.examiner.com/article/jobless-benefits-decline-as-the-number-of-reported-exhaustees-remain-constant
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
SonicUltimate
05:40 PM on 05/15/2012
I'm sure there are some cases of actual age discrimination out there, and they are hard to prove.  However, The current problem facing those older workers who lost their jobs is not that they are being overtly discriminated against.  

The problem is more experienced (i.e. older) workers are competing for fewer jobs at their level of experience, and are competing with an even larger labor pool of less experienced (i.e. younger) workers as they seek jobs that are below their level of experience (i.e. underemployment).  Statistically, older workers will see more jobs go to younger people than not because there are simply more younger people out of work who are equally qualified.
05:41 PM on 05/15/2012
oh and you know this how????
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
SonicUltimate
05:50 PM on 05/15/2012
Look at the labor market stats.  

Older workers were less likely to be let go when the recession hit (i.e. those positions are still largely filled).  Under-employment went up as the recession hit (i.e. older/more experienced workers moved into competition with younger/less experienced workers).  Younger/less experienced workers make up vastly more of the unemployed labor pool than do older workers (i.e. more younger candidates for every position available).  

The lower the knowledge and skill requirements of a given position, the more likely it is that a younger candidate will pull it down.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Swimdude
12:05 PM on 05/17/2012
I spent 3 years at my last employer (Texas Instruments) training people from India to do the Job that I was doing. I documented every piece of the processes I created and introducted the people from India to the people in the United States that I was working with. They laid me off 16 months 3 days from early retirement.

So, today there are 5 people in india doing the Job I used to do. In my group only the people under 40 were retained when the layoff occurred.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
SonicUltimate
12:32 PM on 05/17/2012
You're assuming that it is about age and not experience.

By your description, you trained people to do your job for cheaper, thus undercutting the value of your experience.  It would seem pretty evident that your employer no longer wanted to foot the bill for your level of expertise, and I'm betting everyone under 40 that still works there are expendable drones.

Poor business ethics sure, but that doesn't make it age discrimination.
05:25 PM on 05/15/2012
The woman in this report is a complete idiot.
Even the United States gov't. has a clear age discrimination policy put in place to prevent older people from even applying. What sort of nonsense is this womam spouting.
Most older works can actual read and write the English language as opposed to T42 code which is in use today. But the younger employes cost less.

If we were to lower the retirement age to 55 the unemployment problem in this country would go away.
Or if we had some sort of national health care from a range of companies to choose from that might help too provide your employer is left out of the equation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bobr3
Politics = Propaganda
05:19 PM on 05/15/2012
Ok...Seniors are next target. Women...then gays...Now Seniors...The Teabaggers certainly are the party of the 1%
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
FBueller
That's so Putin
05:17 PM on 05/15/2012
Anyone over 45 who does not have a really strong personal network....better not loose their job.
Anyone who says age discrimination doesn't exist hasn't been unemployed and over 50 (wealthy people excluded). No war on women, no global warming, no age discrimination......yabetcha.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptainRenault
Here to keep an eye on the rascals.
05:09 PM on 05/15/2012
Furchtgott-Roth said. "Such policies would needlessly set one generation against another. They rest on the false premise that the problems facing older workers are the result of discrimination, or other factors that work specifically against older workers and in favor of younger workers."

Dear Ms. Furchtgott-Roth: Go intercourse yourself!

Brainless twit.

^ ^
FBueller
That's so Putin
05:06 PM on 05/15/2012
If the GAO would just run a DOB census for many companies suspected of age discrimnation, versus DOB's of who has applied for jobs....they CAN prove age discrimination. In many cases the older worker has 10-20years more experience than the person hired. They don't want you on their health plan if you're over 45.

We can put a man on the moon, yet, we can't prove age discrimination??? Seriously??
photo
MrStat1
Conservative, NRA and Proud of It
05:39 PM on 05/15/2012
There is no federal requirement that applicants not selected for a job have to keep records of who they did not hire. In order to prove age discrimination you will have to prove in court, with documents and other legal evidence, that the company willfully did this. All they will have to say is we felt that the other person was more qualified. There goes your case because you will have no way to prove they lied.
05:48 PM on 05/15/2012
Exactly...this is a frivilous attempt to help the not working with their excuses. how would you ever go about proving you weren't hired because of a so-called discrimination issue? It would have to be and inside job...only way.
FBueller
That's so Putin
09:08 AM on 05/16/2012
Pass legislation requiring employers to keep that data. Yes, yet another burden on the poor employer (but creates a job). Just sayin....it could be done, but I doubt the GOP has the will.
12:42 AM on 05/16/2012
Well said
05:05 PM on 05/15/2012
at 73 you really and I mean really have to have something an employer needs...like in demand skillz, connections, large clientele base, not just the ability to show up and collect a check. Otherwise hiring someone at that age would almost be an liability.
05:43 PM on 05/15/2012
go play in traffic so someone can run you over and get away with it....
05:49 PM on 05/15/2012
We know that you're won't be the one...you're too dam skeered to show your face.
12:42 AM on 05/16/2012
Hiring them would be a liability? Why does that sound so familiar? Oh, yeah, the same thing was said about blacks, women, Jews, the Irish....do you get it?
07:55 AM on 05/16/2012
not the same thing.  those people more able bodied in most case.  73  mmm not so much
04:49 PM on 05/15/2012
Cheer-up old folks. You can compete with the developmentally disabled to be a part time greeter at Wally World or a part time Bagger at a Grocery store for minimum wage with no benefits. You have to realize that the Rich want you to DIE so they can complain that Social Security and Medicare are stealing their money to get more Tax Breaks.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert SF
04:47 PM on 05/15/2012
I'm actually not in favor of anti-discrimination legislation in this case because it will allow lawmakers to say they've "done something," but in fact, discrimination just changes who gets the job, and outlawing one more kind of discrimination won't create a single job.

What we need are jobs. Then discrimination becomes much less of an issue.
05:03 PM on 05/15/2012
you would quickly chnage your tune if it were you being screwed!
05:18 PM on 05/15/2012
not everybody whines like you bleeding heart hp commenters
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert SF
07:15 PM on 05/15/2012
I'm 54, fool. Do you really think the solution to unemployment is take jobs from the young and give them to the old?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptainRenault
Here to keep an eye on the rascals.
05:27 PM on 05/15/2012
Utter nonsense. It would help provide jobs for those who are victims of this practice.

^ ^
05:34 PM on 05/15/2012
you are not owed a living or a job.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert SF
07:12 PM on 05/15/2012
Yes, the jobs that would go to others. Don't you see? It's just like rearranging what you have in your pockets.
photo
BBackSoon
Hello, I must be going.
04:44 PM on 05/15/2012
No Global Warming, No War on Women, No Age Discrimination, Am I starting to see a pattern here?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Tahut
It's a religious war we're fighting
04:33 PM on 05/15/2012
If they admit there's an issue, then they'll have to do something about it. It's all about a refusal to commit.
04:23 PM on 05/15/2012
There are all sorts of discrimination going on in the job market these days, and the bad job market makes it easy for employers to behave this way. We need to bring more jobs back to the USA by either repealing NAFTA, or charging employers more taxes for outsourcing jobs.
photo
MrStat1
Conservative, NRA and Proud of It
05:40 PM on 05/15/2012
Then, when you drive those companies with more taxes out of the country, where will you get the tax revenue and where will the jobs be?
05:55 PM on 05/15/2012
They can't think that far out...they'll start in on the blaming, but never they're fault.