Over 50, working against time in America's harsh job market

  • Article by: Adam Belz , Star Tribune
  • Updated: February 4, 2014 - 9:25 AM

Older workers face a tough hunt for new jobs in a slow-moving recovery, and the clock is ticking.

  • 169
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
county23Feb. 1, 1410:19 PM

At 56 yrs of age, I left a job I had for 17yrs for a different job that didn't work out. I found it a full time job trying to get anything.. I interviewed for several contract position before landing one, what I found the hardest was, being interviewed by younger 30-40yr olds.. the ones that were more receptive to your experience were the ones in their late 40's to 50's. I was fortunate that I contracted with a company that management appreciated what brought to the table and has offered me a fulltime position.. I hope I can retire from this current company.

158
1
tocquevilleofedinaFeb. 1, 1410:28 PM

Welcome to Obama's recovery, the weakest recovery of the last 10 since World War II. This recover has provide $10,000 less per year for the average family than the average recovery. Plus, thirst recoveries included another recession by now. Wake up people, we need more hope and less spare change!

111
205
manicdrummerFeb. 1, 1410:51 PM

This is yet another reason that America will collapse as a world economic power. Older workers have more experience and possess a greater sense of responsibility. They are not reckless in making decisions like younger workers are. But no, employers don't seem to recognize those qualities anymore.

215
14
luzhishenFeb. 2, 14 5:55 AM

"Welcome to Obama's recovery..." Huh? You mean the recovery hamstrung by McConnell, Boehner and the like? The one whose weakness is directly attributed to the government layoffs promoted by the GOP? I'm sure the worker-friendly policies pushed by each and every Republican candidate since Reagan (that's a joke) would make it easier for older folks to get jobs. Every friend of mine in the private sector - with degrees from schools like Stanford, Harvard, and MIT - somehow just couldn't cut it in their 50s and had to be let go (with resulting loss of pensions, etc.).

156
102
comment229Feb. 2, 14 6:11 AM

I read the article with fascination, because I can relate to much of what was written as can all baby boomers. However, near the end, I got a little angry at the comment by the owner of the Starbucks about "wanting" an older person.... yes, for $7 plus per hour. Is that what the baby boomer generation is good for now; serving in restaurants, stocking shelves, and greeting people at Walmart for a whole $8 per hour and usually, no benefits? You can almost bet, that you will be given 29 hours per week. As far as "Obama's recovery" you are a little narrow minded and near sighted. The question you should be focusing on, is how come we were forced into a "recovery" situation at all, and that all happened pre-Obama.

150
52
comment229Feb. 2, 14 6:16 AM

PS... I fit into the group that that has a small pension and add to that social security, we get along well enough. However, I can relate so much to the cutting back and not going to restaurants and driving a 14 year old car, etc. Bet there are a lot of people reading this, that can relate to that. It is not a bad life, but you now have to live within your means. One fact I did not read, and might have missed, was if the article mentioned if the wife worked and had an income? And finally, if she doesn't work, then I think, perhaps, the interviewer and author of this article should have asked just one more question.... "How do you feel about Obamacare?"

75
18
JKvamFeb. 2, 14 6:20 AM

"Welcome to Obama's recovery, the weakest recovery of the last 10 since World War II. This recover has provide $10,000 less per year for the average family than the average recovery. Plus, thirst recoveries included another recession by now. Wake up people, we need more hope and less spare change!" You may want to check again who was President in 2002 and 2008, the start of the last two recessions and the most massive job losses sincee the 1930's. And this story is about age discrimination and employers discounting laid off and experienced applicants in favor of younger ones, something this President has been imploring companies to correct.

146
41
comment229Feb. 2, 14 6:21 AM

Finally, when I was in the position to hire people to work for me, I always had a choice of hiring high school kids old enough to work by law, and just retired people too. Many times, people told me that I should hire the younger people so they would work for many years. As it turns out, that was true, but not in all cases. Many of the kids joined the military, or went to college, and that was it. I had a couple of older, retired guys, who worked for many more years for something to do, and some spending money.... but also had one who worked one day, and could not stand the physical demands of the work.... not much, but enough. The point I am trying to make; simple, you just never know until you hire them.

109
1
johnnycgoodFeb. 2, 14 6:52 AM

luzhishen - "Huh? You mean the recovery hamstrung by McConnell, Boehner and the like?" -------- So what about the two years he had the majority with Pelosi and Reid?

71
106
wisebookFeb. 2, 14 6:59 AM

Well interestingly, the data trends show that in ten years, employers will be begging these people to work due to a labor shortage from all the boomer retirements. But that does not help for somebody who needs a job today.

100
2

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT