Technology Companies Won't Hire/Train Workers Over 40, Says NYT, One Big Reason, Healthcare Costs,

by architek, Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:34:24 AM EST

What do people think about this non-unsurprising revelation?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/weekin review/22lohr.html

Decoupling health care from jobs by instituting a Hillary-style, real universal healthcare plan would take a huge burden off of employers, which would be good at a time when many companies are weighing the benefits of office automation. Lowering the age at which people can receive Medicare to 50 or 45 might be another solution, because it would allow Medicare to be the first insurer for workers over those ages, in effect providing a subsidy which can account for up to 22% of the cost of hiring an older worker.

Another big help would be a government initiative to provide for accredited online degree programs for older workers to get additional credentials. Right now, technology companies are depending on H2 workers to get the math and science skills that US workers don't have. If we spent even 5% of our Pentagon budget on developing an online educational system that would be the envy of the world, we could make up for that huge lack of science and engineering graduates.

The military, now is the only employment option for many skilled younger workers without college degrees, but the shift to robotic technologies is going to reduce the demand for human soldiers dramatically. What are those working class young men and women going to do in the future without access to the basic technical training that the military once provided? Schools would be hoped to take up the slack, but educational districts can't afford the kind of training workers actually need. Instead, they train people in the skills of yester-year and the old yester-economy

The jobs of the future will go to other countries if skilled workers do not exist here. The US will become a technological, uninsured, backwater of angry and bitter people. None of the current Presidential candidates are addressing these issues.


Poll
What can we do to improve older, pre-retirement Americans over 40's access to quality employment (answer as many as apply)
Make healthcare free and universal so that it is not tied to jobs and does not dissapear if you get sick and lose your job
Build a network of online degree granting institutions with quality courseware, using the open source model
Lower the age people can start receiving Medicare to 45, and allow employers to use Medicare as the primary insurer
Encourage work-study programs by providing healthcare to people who work parttime and go to school
Pay off the college loans of people who enter science and engineering fields, and stay, especially women.
Develop a system of open universities with older people teaching young - facilitating mentoring.
Focus only on the employed, and find an island to send the oldsters over 35 to, preferably one that will dissapear during high tides or el-nino years
Send old people out to the mountains with a basket of rice and a blanket, telling them that they are on their own
Keep the current system, even though it is in a state of crisis, while paying lip service to fake universal healthcare that abandons one fifth of our population - those with chronic illness who do not have corporate jobs

Votes: 15
Results : Vote Link : Polls


Tags: universal healthcare, older workers, workers over 30, workers over 40, job shift, postindustrial economy (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 31 Comments :: Post a Comment


Interesting (none / 0)

The most interesting paragraph was:

""The issue of older workers is similar in many ways to the arguments surrounding discrimination against blacks and women in the '60s," Mr. Cappelli said. At the time, he noted, it was widely said that the "market will take care of it," since self-interested companies would want to tap a wider pool of workers with varied skills. But ultimately it took anti-discrimination laws and changes in social attitudes to improve job opportunities for women and minorities."

Libertarians will argue that there is no need for government discrimination laws, because the free market is so competetive that any company that discriminates against competent people because of age, gender or race will fail to thrive and lose out to the company that takes the most productive people, regardless of race, gender or age.  Libertarians believe in privatization of almost everything, because they argue that being forced to compete in the free market is the only way to make sure organizations will be forced to trim fat and cut dead weight.

But traditional liberals will say only government is efficient, and that privatized corporations to an incompetent job. They blame privatization for the problems in executing the rebuilding of Iraq.  


by greenboy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:08:25 AM EST

Re: Interesting (2.00 / 1)

As a liberal/progressive, I have to say that I KNOW government is inefficient.  I KNOW that it is not as efficient as private business.  But efficiency is much less important to me than fairness.  I would rather have a fair, inefficient system (bureaucracy) than an unfair, super-efficient system (free market).  I wonder if any other liberals feel the same way?  Do any of us actually believe government is MORE efficient than private companies?


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:06:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fair under the private insurance model to price (2.00 / 1)

insurance based on risk and cost.

So, even if it sounds 'unfair' to charge someone who has cancer $7,000 a month for health insurance that is a fair price as Obama says and as long as they cannot be turned away of they can pay that money, its 'fair'.

The reason is that some cancer drugs can cost $10,000 a dose, so even if the insurnce company only pays 50% of that, or has a monthly cap, or whatever, they are still paying a lot of money.. so they justify the high premium by showing that they need to make at least the amount they think they will pay and then also a profit, in order so that the patient can average their monthy expenses. So, the patient knows that they will only have to pay $7,000/mo plus the uncovered costs, instead of $50,000 one month and $2,000 (or $0) the next.

Thats the magic of the marketplace. Many states already have laws saying nobody can be turned away. Insurance is expensive there but at least they can't say, 'we dont want your business at any price'.

The more greedy insurance companies just leave the market and don't operate in those states.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fair under the private insurance model to pric (2.00 / 1)

I want the cost spread out among everyone whether they like it or not.  Whether they think they are going to get sick or not.  Whether they can afford their own insurance or not.  Because sickness is often (but not always, I know) just the luck of the draw.  Wealthy people are often (but not always) lucky in that they inherited money or a great support system or a legacy that gives them admissions to a great college.  Very very few wealthy people work their way into wealth.  So because they have been lucky to be wealthy, they get to pay it forward, so to speak, by paying health insurance so that no one will die too young because of money.  


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:35:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Technology Companies Won't Hire... (none / 0)

Would a single payer system make sense for American business insofar as it lessens the benefit burden?  Absolutely.  It would also increase wages as companies redirect compensation dollars towards salary/ wages.  To that extent, you're absolutely right.

That said, why do you continue to ignore the real political opposition to a nationalized health care system?  It isn't just the insurance industry and Big Pharma that opposes single payer.  Plenty of regular folk fear government management of their health care choices.


by Crookd River Progressive on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:57:44 AM EST

Re: Technology Companies Won't Hire... (2.00 / 1)

I think the answer to that is to educate people on the fact that a tax financed government run system will be answerable to the people (meaning them) as opposed to a for profit health insurance program which is answerable to the share holder.

Now who should they be more fearful of? The one who's interest is keeping them happy or the one who's interest is in maximizing profits by denying care?


by Skex on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:10:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Many people are not getting healthcare now (2.00 / 2)

under managed care. Its not just the high copays and uncovered costs, there is also a huge deterrent in the fact that even small claims in the past, or knowledge that one has a serious condition, can make someone unable to buy health insurance on the open market should they at some later date become self employed or unemployed.

For example, people who have hereditary diseases like Friedrich's ataxia suddenly become uninsurable. Their families become uninsurable too. That creates an underclass of uninsurable people and that knowledge makes many sick people avoid going to the doctor altogether.

This has a lot of extremely bad health implications. In other countries, people go to the doctor, they don't ignore pressing issues because they are afraid they wont be able to get a job or get insurance because of them.

Our system is really sick. Morally, physically, financially, logically sick.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:33:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Many people are not getting healthcare now (none / 0)

Well that comes down to the fact that Insurance is the wrong model. Insurance is supposed to limit liability in the case of catastrophic events. Insurance is just gambling your betting that something bad will happen.

That's how Insurance got started people used to buy a policy "betting" that say a shipment of grain would not make it from it's point of origin to its destination. If the grain made the Insurer (Bookie) would keep the bet if not then the Insured (gambler) would "win" the value of the pot.

The problem is that health care is a maintenance issue. It's not something you might require it's something that you will require if nothing other than regular physicals to catch potential problems early to prevent them from being major issues.

Another problem with our insurance system is that it discourages preventative measures because there  is no interest in the private insurer to eat the costs for said preventative care when the odds are that the benefits will probably be realized by a completely separate company. Sure enlightened Insurers could do it anyway but that would just give a competitive advantage to the companies that didn't.

The real problem is that it takes a long damned time to reprogram people after they've been fed a load of BS for their entire lives.

In the end the only group that benefits from the current system are the stakeholders in the Health Insurance companies.


by Skex on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:21:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because (none / 0)

they are lied to about what happens in other countries. They are sold this fear and the media helps to sell it.

This comment is nonsense: "It isn't just the insurance industry and Big Pharma that opposes single payer."


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:03:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Free? (2.00 / 1)

I have an issue with your poll. There is no such thing as free universal healthcare. Whether you pay it to the insurance companies in the form of premiums or pay it in the form of taxes to the government you will still pay for it. So calling it free is a bit of a misnomer.

Please do not misunderstand I am all for some form of Universal Healthcare, but I think it's misleading to call it free.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:53:08 AM EST

Re: Technology Companies Won't Hire/Train Workers (none / 0)

I've run into too many people who simply have no clue how to use search engines. There are people under 40 who fit this category of course, but you'll find more of them in the 40+.


by MNPundit on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:18:37 AM EST

Re: Technology Companies Won't Hire/Train Workers (2.00 / 3)

I DO hope that was a snark.

a lot of 40+ people WROTE the search engines.


by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:38:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Technology Companies Won't Hire/Train Workers (none / 0)

Of course they did (actually didn't 60+ write them?). But I'm talking about those soccer moms and such. You have a major subset in the 40+ that did a  lot of the work, and another subset that are permanently clueless. You should not attempt to join these permanently clueless with Technology companies because these people do not understand (and simply cannot) the technology.

However even 40+ who built the internet (Jon Postel's Ghost, I'm looking at you!) who might not be as a good a fit with IT companies, from Google to M$, to IBM. Of course others like Vint Cerf (who weren't hippie internet cowboys) fit in better.


by MNPundit on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:14:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Technology Companies Won't Hire/Train Workers (none / 0)

Think Ms. L from this story.


by MNPundit on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:18:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Technology Companies Won't Hire/Train Workers (2.00 / 1)

"The issue of performance versus cultural fit came into play when Brian Reid, of Palo Alto, California, joined Google in June 2002 as a director of operations. Reid, who was a professor at Carnegie Mellon University's California campus before joining Google, was fired two years later and sued the company, seeking an undisclosed sum in damages.

I don't think that many people realize that a full professor with tenure basically has a guaranteed position until retirement. So, he joined Google and then two years later, lost both his job and the stock options he had been promised as a hiring bonus. Thats pretty harsh.

"What is at stake in Reid's case?  Reid had 119,000 options to buy Google shares at a strike price of $0.30, which were taken from him when he was fired. With Google's current offering at around $108 to $135 per share, Reid lost out on approximately $4 million dollars. "

What do people think about this? Was it fair?

"Reid apparently did not fit into the culture of Google, a high flying, high energy company. Over the two years he was with the firm, Reid claimed that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment, including complaints from executives that he was "lethargic" and "lacked energy," up until his employment was terminated early this year. "

Older people are slower than young people. Many technology companies routinely expect exempt employees to work 60+ hour weeks. Thats increasingly hard as you get older, have family committments, etc. Many people with children also complain they are put on a dead-end ccareer track.. "the mommy track" but it can also apply to dads..  is that a legitimate complaint - if someone can't stay late at crunch time because they have to pick up a child.. many would say yes.

Others would say no. Is it legitimate for companies to fire people who develop serious diseases, a few years ago, people would have thought that unfair, now, its routine. But insurance is still tied to jobs.

"
Reid claims that when he was fired in February it was without warning or notice. He was unsuccessful in obtaining another position at the company and claims that he was told he was "not 'compatible' with Google culture, which was one of youth and energy," according to his complaint.

His complaint, filed in California courts, alleges that the average age of male employees at Google is 29.7 years and the average age of female employees is 28.4. Of Google's 1900 employees, only 30, or less than 2%, are over 40.  

Reid is likely to have a difficult time with his age discrimination claim because he was hired only two years ago, said Alexandra Bodnar, an employment lawyer and partner at Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP, in Los Angeles, which is not involved with the case.   "It is not like they hired him as a young man and then fired him as an older man," she said. Further, he walked with his eyes open into a company that was high energy and high flying. Presumably, he knew what he was getting into.

Reid also has sued under California's disability laws, claiming that he fired because he was diagnosed with diabetes shortly after he joined Google.  Reid may have a better chance with the disability part of his claim because of California's strict disability laws, but even there challenges remain, Bodnar said.  "Diabetes is a disability and he will need to prove that the firing decision was based on that protected characteristic and not a legitimate business reason such as his performance," she said."


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:47:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Brian Reid- Fired. Was It Fair? (none / 0)

What about the people who hired him?  If he wasn't a good "fit", shouldn't they have determined this before offering to hire him?

I was not familiar with this individual, but his resume, according to Wikipedia, was exceptional.  He was an innovator in the computer field, with Adobe among his creative works.

However, he was not tenured at Carnegie Mellon, having just been there a few yrs.

Apparently, the case is still working its way up the CA judicial system.


by susie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:44:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh. (none / 0)

". . . a technological, uninsured, backwater of angry and bitter people."
Indeed, welcome to my life.
"If you don't care about everybody, you don't care about anybody." --Ethan Mordden
by prodigal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:12:12 AM EST

As a 39 year old programmer... (none / 0)

...I don't have to worry, right?

I wish...


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:45:49 AM EST

Re: As a 39 year old programmer... (none / 0)

Heh, have fun fixing all the websites when Microsoft introduces the next Internet Explorer demands compliance with web standards.  I expect it to be like Y2K all over again, with HUGE opportunities for jobs.

I don't know nearly as much about this as I should, but it will be interesting.  Supposedly IE8 does still allow you to use it in IE7 mode (I think), but it is likely to be the last version that does.


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:14:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think programming is a thankless job.. (2.00 / 1)

The future is in code generation.. raw coding is definitely an endangered field.

Also, the economy is now global. Job creation in a field may happen but it may be elsewhere.. for example, costs are lower in India, (although the skill leval may not be as high..and there are other barriers..)

Its a complicated issue..

I actually think that if you are flexible, you can often roll with the punches, but there is definitely an inexorable push towards a workless, automated future..

'the technological singularity' some call it.

I don't believe machines will achieve human intelligence... but they dont have to to be able to do 99% of all human jobs in 10 or 20 years.. they just have to keep getting better and cheaper at the rate they have been.

Better save your money, you are going to need it!


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:53:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am (none / 0)

the same age as Obama. I work for a good company that allows me a lot of flexability in my work schedule and what work I do. I am one of the lucky ones, even tho my commute sucks.

My g/f, who is the same age, was laid off a year ago and is currently being "retrained" (she was in the music industry). She is currently in college and is the first person in her family to ever go to college. It has not been easy financially. She is very nervous about her prospects once she finishes college.
On top of that, she has no insurance because of losing her job.


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:01:15 PM EST

Nervous sbout her prospects (2.00 / 2)

Unfortunately, she has reason to be nervous.
However, what other choice does she have but to give it the best effort?  At least she has the option of being "retrained". - Some aren't given that option.
Let's face it, the entire US labor force is under the gun.  Everyone needs to cover themselves the best they can at this point.

by susie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:26:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We should all stop spending money... (none / 0)

start trying to save as much as we can and watch every penny. Try to build as many relationships with others to help each other out, and return to the kind of lifestyle we enjoyed as college students, financially. If we did that, and at the same time, tried to be as flexible we could in our existing jobs, (if we had them) making ourselves indespensible as we could, we could probably save enough to weather the long periods between work.

If we really do enter a depression, it will count who contributes the most to society. Those people will always be able to survive. Its when you give up hope, thats when you die.

Things may never be the way they were five or ten years ago. We should accept that and adjust. Rich people get rich because they find a need and fill it. We will never be rich but we may be able to be happy if we accept that the world is changing and try to figure out ways to change thinsg pragmatically. If Obama doesn't change much, or if things get worse, we can always move to some other country. Thats what smart people do, adapt.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:00:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tech Companies Won't Hire Workers Over 40 (2.00 / 1)

Hell, are you kidding?

They won't even hire AMERICANS

...never mind the over 40 part.


by wblynch on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:14:35 PM EST

Thats because of the high cost of living here.. (2.00 / 1)

If you can lower your cost of living, then you can get by on less. I live on very little, I don't even own a car.

Healthcare is the one thing I can't control, and its a biggie. I think its obscene what they charge for healthcare and drugs.

I would not expect either candidate to change things much.. they might even get worse.. (probably will) as people have less and less 'clout'.

There isn't the level of public outrage that there would need to be for change to happen. They have been preparing for this for years and they have us literally by the balls.

McCain's planning to sneakily lock us into WTO on healthcare and then getting out will be very costly.. Obama is better but he isn't as much better as most people think because there will still be no limit on premiums. One fifth of Americans will be left out of everything.

Most of Obamas proposals will require renegotiating WTO - its going to be very hard and take years.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:07:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NOT Hillary-style (2.00 / 1)

We need HR 676, Medicare for all. Conyers is sponsoring it and it has 90 cosponsors.

It ends all connection between health care and employment, killing a major incentive for age discrimination.


by Alice Marshall on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:48:17 PM EST

Yes.. (none / 0)

that would be very good..


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:08:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Technology Companies Won't Hire/Train Workers (none / 0)

Its not the healthcare.

High tech work takes a long time to learn.

As such its largely a young man's game.  With the value of 40+ employees largely being the experience of being technical through their 20s and 30s.  The person starting at 40 doesn't have that experience till 50s and 60s and then they retire relatively quickly after 50 or 60.

People who want to become technical at 40 make as much sense as people who want to become doctors at 40 with a liberal arts background.  The schooling/education just takes too long assuming the person has what it takes to begin with.  Most of this education occurs AFTER they start their first technical job.

In technology you are not ready to go when you exit college or grad school as shown with salary trends vs years worked.  It takes years of on the job experience before you really have what it takes to be mega valuable to the company.

Technical fields are set up as a team system with most members of the team not fully carrying their weight in some aspect of their jobs at any given time.  So for example, as an engineer I rely on the purchaser to buy things for me and some engineers rely more heavily on this support than others, likewise drafting, testing engineers, experts etc.  A large company can afford a small number of people who rely on purchasing, drafting, experts, test engineers etc to do the bulk of their job and don't bring much value to the team themselves but by an large companies need each and every member of the team to bring something to the team that offsets how they rely on others.

Examples:  The best super expert can expect to have less exprerienced or less gifted engineers do much of the grunt work for them.  An engineer who likes doing that grunt work may find themselves welcome even thought they have less skill and will never be the expert.  But companies work very very hard to try and hire the engineers who will be the expert because thats the hard part to replace and thats the part that creates new products  or features that generates new sales.

Having tons of 40 year old ex liberal arts workers enter the technical world will just depress salaries because they will be unable to add the value needed to create new sales.

The "easy" jobs in the technical world are filled by technical people who didn't have what it took to do the harder aspects of technical jobs and the 40+ workers will depress this market segment and in so doing make engineering LESS desirable at the college and grad school level and actually hurt our ability to compete.

Currently a student entering engineering knows they may make mega bucks if they are super bright and relevant and start a new google or microsoft or HP but even if they are not so bright they will have a good life making wiring diagrams or some such not so taxing job.  If in the future the value proposition is they may strike it rich or they may find themselves making $15 an hour making wiring diagrams because an army of 40+ non tech types have flooded the market then you will discourage some of the Gates, Wozniak (apple co founder), Hewlett and Packard types from entering the technical field.

My 2 cents.


by dtaylor2 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:52:44 PM EST

You are right.. (none / 0)

So called technical/vocational education is a joke. It takes a relatively long time to develop the technical context you need to fully understand many scientific/technical fields. In some ways, you need to be a generalist. The most important skill is the willingness and ability to immerse yourself in a project. It helps tremendously if your main motivator is a love of the technology itself because the desire for money will only take you so far.

Learning continues until the day you die.. If Americans could learn that lesson.. if we could preserve the love of learning that children have instead of being so obsessed with beating it out of them, there is nothing we could not do.

But we would have to let go of our fear of flying..


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:16:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

is there (none / 0)

a class action lawsuit in the works for age discrimination?


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:06:23 PM EST

Its my understanding that age discrimination (none / 0)

is no longer illegal.. (this is a recent change)

If its based on not being able to think fast enough, or work 60 hr weeks, they like younger people..

They demand less, ask fewer questions, work more.

Businesses don't owe people jobs.  Businesses are in the business to sell what they do/sell and do that as well and as cheaply as possible.

people are a means to an end, not the end..

If we don't like that, we have to think of another structure that we like better and implement it.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:20:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: