This study isn’t surprising, and the results are buttressed by well-known bias against older job candidates and employed workers. (I used the term ‘well-known’ in anticipation of a challenge by nuisance “postrollers” to ‘prove it’ or ‘provide data’.)
Gross pay/ wages are higher for older, more experienced workers. (Search BLS.gov for such stats.) Employers concerned with controlling costs in a competitive industry will opt for lower paid workers, whenever possible. Search ‘common sense’ and ‘life experience’.
Benefit costs, especially 401k employer matches and group health plans, are higher for older workers. (Search your local state insurance department files for group health rates by age band, and BLS.gov for wage levels by age group band.) Benefit costs for employer’s 401k plans who have staff skewed toward older, experienced workers are very likely relatively higher than other employers costs due to the higher wage levels for their relatively more experienced, older workers.
Health insurance pools have higher costs when the average age is driven up by older, experienced workers in the pool. The experience rating/ individual risk rating (ER/IRR) of the individual employers’ group health plan reflects the average age and distribution of ages in that company. ER/IRR will coerce some employers to reduce their workforce age to the extent possible when they are in a competitive industry that competes (mainly) based on price.
Summary: bias against these two factors are proxies for age discrimination.
Older, more experienced workers do higher quality work, they show up for work instead of sleeping off a binge drinking or weed smoking. Far more profitable for the employer.
LOL older, more experienced workers CAN do higher quality work is what I think you mean. They can also have trouble multi-tasking, adapting to new technology and new environments. You CAN be an asset as an older worker, but you CAN also be a liability. It’s no surprise that the two cranky old men who regularly show their age via their ignorant opinions are so upset that anyone might have a problem with older workers. Everyone knew that HR departments are biased against older workers, you two provide every reason why on these forums on the daily.
I smoke marijuana, drink daily, and still build stronger relationships/write more business than you on the daily, Agent. I’d bet money on it. :)
Come on Polar, you are just being blatantly hypocritical.
March 21, 2020 at 9:20 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
Come on flawedlogic, that’s your opinion, and it is flawed.
I opined that older workers don’t waste their/ their company’s time trolling on IJ/ internet. It is a generalization that is supported by (my) general observations of older people not being as tech-oriented as younger people.
Being a ‘prolific poster’ is not equivalent to ‘trolling’ or ‘wasting time’, unless you assume the posts are worthless, which is an opinion, not a fact, as you want to imply.
March 18, 2020 at 7:35 pm
GeorgeSmathersAsTheBeaver says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
I have had a Psych prof in college (who, by the way, taught the class on how to do research there) said to take alot of these published stories about research with a grain of salt.
Just because you are young and tech savvy doesn’t automatically mean you know what the devil you are doing I’ve worked with some 4.0s who couldn’t tie their shoes without help. Just because you populate your quote intake sheets faster than I do doesn’t mean you’re counseling the prospect with the right coverages, especially if you just toked on a reefer!
The opposite can be said for all of your points. Just because you are older doesn’t automatically mean you are wise or intelligent. I’ve worked with people who have been at a place 30 years and literally can’t read. Just because you’ve been doing a job forever doesn’t mean you’re an expert, and your assumption that someone who can quote more than you doesn’t actually know what they’re doing swings both ways, because your generation finds it more difficult to accept change and learn new things.
Pointing out exceptions to the general rule doesn’t invalidate the rule that older workers are more highly valued due to their experience and wisdom gained over their careers. And the PROOF is in their statistically significantly higher wages relative to young(er) workers.
You’re again claiming that there is a “rule” that older workers are more highly valued. You clearly have never spoken to anyone with HR experience, because that is not the general view by any metric I’ve seen. That’s “proof” you claim often has more to do with years worked than anything else, which is why when downsizing occurs you’re the first to go on a work done/pay ratio.
A lot of us started out with a phonebook and a promise from management. Work hard and starve for 3-5 years then you will be set. Technology and the do-not-call list have definitely changed that scenario and looking back it’s incredible that the system even worked, for a small percentage of the many people that attempted it, but it did.
There is what is referred to as ‘deadwood’ in every industry. Every industry also has issues between older and younger workers (we used to call them ‘whippersnappers’). The average age of an insurance agent is quite high; the industry obviously needs to replace those who are leaving.
I completely agree. There are certainly older people who are great at what they do, just as there are younger people who are very talented. The only time things become a problem is when the older generation feel like their experience automatically makes them better than everyone in the younger generation. Merit has to be proven, it’s not just something you’re entitled to because you’ve been doing it for 20 years. Just like any career there are plenty of people who worked hard for a few years when they started and have just been coasting, and some of the posters on this board who protest excessively any time millennials or younger workers are brought up just reek of that particular kind of desperation.
This study isn’t surprising, and the results are buttressed by well-known bias against older job candidates and employed workers. (I used the term ‘well-known’ in anticipation of a challenge by nuisance “postrollers” to ‘prove it’ or ‘provide data’.)
Gross pay/ wages are higher for older, more experienced workers. (Search BLS.gov for such stats.) Employers concerned with controlling costs in a competitive industry will opt for lower paid workers, whenever possible. Search ‘common sense’ and ‘life experience’.
Benefit costs, especially 401k employer matches and group health plans, are higher for older workers. (Search your local state insurance department files for group health rates by age band, and BLS.gov for wage levels by age group band.) Benefit costs for employer’s 401k plans who have staff skewed toward older, experienced workers are very likely relatively higher than other employers costs due to the higher wage levels for their relatively more experienced, older workers.
Health insurance pools have higher costs when the average age is driven up by older, experienced workers in the pool. The experience rating/ individual risk rating (ER/IRR) of the individual employers’ group health plan reflects the average age and distribution of ages in that company. ER/IRR will coerce some employers to reduce their workforce age to the extent possible when they are in a competitive industry that competes (mainly) based on price.
Summary: bias against these two factors are proxies for age discrimination.
Older, more experienced workers do higher quality work, they show up for work instead of sleeping off a binge drinking or weed smoking. Far more profitable for the employer.
LOL older, more experienced workers CAN do higher quality work is what I think you mean. They can also have trouble multi-tasking, adapting to new technology and new environments. You CAN be an asset as an older worker, but you CAN also be a liability. It’s no surprise that the two cranky old men who regularly show their age via their ignorant opinions are so upset that anyone might have a problem with older workers. Everyone knew that HR departments are biased against older workers, you two provide every reason why on these forums on the daily.
I smoke marijuana, drink daily, and still build stronger relationships/write more business than you on the daily, Agent. I’d bet money on it. :)
Common Sense; you forgot one important thing; older workers don’t waste their / their company’s time trolling on IJ or other websites.
…except both you AND Agent are some of the most prolific posters on the IJ, so there’s that…
Yes, that is an exception to ‘wasting time’.
Come on Polar, you are just being blatantly hypocritical.
Come on flawedlogic, that’s your opinion, and it is flawed.
I opined that older workers don’t waste their/ their company’s time trolling on IJ/ internet. It is a generalization that is supported by (my) general observations of older people not being as tech-oriented as younger people.
Being a ‘prolific poster’ is not equivalent to ‘trolling’ or ‘wasting time’, unless you assume the posts are worthless, which is an opinion, not a fact, as you want to imply.
I have had a Psych prof in college (who, by the way, taught the class on how to do research there) said to take alot of these published stories about research with a grain of salt.
I had a Stat professor in college who said take the advice of Psych professors with a grain of salt.
Turn 6, Polar.
Just because you are young and tech savvy doesn’t automatically mean you know what the devil you are doing I’ve worked with some 4.0s who couldn’t tie their shoes without help. Just because you populate your quote intake sheets faster than I do doesn’t mean you’re counseling the prospect with the right coverages, especially if you just toked on a reefer!
Long live the baby boomers!
The opposite can be said for all of your points. Just because you are older doesn’t automatically mean you are wise or intelligent. I’ve worked with people who have been at a place 30 years and literally can’t read. Just because you’ve been doing a job forever doesn’t mean you’re an expert, and your assumption that someone who can quote more than you doesn’t actually know what they’re doing swings both ways, because your generation finds it more difficult to accept change and learn new things.
Pointing out exceptions to the general rule doesn’t invalidate the rule that older workers are more highly valued due to their experience and wisdom gained over their careers. And the PROOF is in their statistically significantly higher wages relative to young(er) workers.
You’re again claiming that there is a “rule” that older workers are more highly valued. You clearly have never spoken to anyone with HR experience, because that is not the general view by any metric I’ve seen. That’s “proof” you claim often has more to do with years worked than anything else, which is why when downsizing occurs you’re the first to go on a work done/pay ratio.
A lot of us started out with a phonebook and a promise from management. Work hard and starve for 3-5 years then you will be set. Technology and the do-not-call list have definitely changed that scenario and looking back it’s incredible that the system even worked, for a small percentage of the many people that attempted it, but it did.
There is what is referred to as ‘deadwood’ in every industry. Every industry also has issues between older and younger workers (we used to call them ‘whippersnappers’). The average age of an insurance agent is quite high; the industry obviously needs to replace those who are leaving.
I completely agree. There are certainly older people who are great at what they do, just as there are younger people who are very talented. The only time things become a problem is when the older generation feel like their experience automatically makes them better than everyone in the younger generation. Merit has to be proven, it’s not just something you’re entitled to because you’ve been doing it for 20 years. Just like any career there are plenty of people who worked hard for a few years when they started and have just been coasting, and some of the posters on this board who protest excessively any time millennials or younger workers are brought up just reek of that particular kind of desperation.