Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

No country for old workers

There's some evidence that gainfully employed congressfolk are recoiling from extending unemployment benefits because they've trouble believing that anyone wouldn't be able to find a job after more than a year. To some degree, this reflects a view of the recession that's national rather than regional. In fact, some states, like North Dakota, have very low unemployment, while some areas, like Detroit, have incredibly high unemployment. If you're stuck in Detroit with a house you can't sell, then it's entirely possible that you still can't find a job.

But another factor that we're increasingly hearing about is age discrimination. We're used to that in firing, but we're seeing it now in hiring, too. This is coming up in a lot of anecdotal accounts of the recession, in which workers who are older than 50 relay their experience being turned down for jobs that they're vastly overqualified for, and that they're willing to take a massive pay cut to get. In effect, they're too young to retire, but too old to get hired. And the numbers back them up:

The unemployment rate for over-55s is at the highest level since 1948. Since the recession started, both the number of older people seeking work and the rate of unemployment for over-55s have increased more sharply than for all other demographic groups. And older workers comprise a high share of the long-term unemployed. In May, the average duration of unemployment for older job-seekers climbed to 44.2 weeks, 11 more weeks than the national average. Nearly six in ten older job-seekers have been out of work for more than six months. [...]

Incidences of age discrimination in firing are much clearer to see [than hiring discrimination], and have risen along with the recession. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says age discrimination cases have jumped 17 percent since the start of the recession, and climbed 30 percent between 2007 and 2008. But virtually all of those cases involve layoffs, rather than the lack of job offers.

Still, evidence of age bias in hiring is accumulating in academic research and anecdotal reports to the EEOC, Commission on Civil Rights and AARP. In one famed 2005 study, a Texas A&M economist sent out 4,000 job applications for entry-level positions. (The resumes were only women’s.) Older workers were 40 percent less likely to receive a response back. And of the letters sent to Congress last week, a vast majority mentioned age, many coming from older workers who had applied for hundreds of positions, to no avail.

Because a higher proportion of the older unemployed drop out of the workforce, you'd actually expect unemployment duration to be lower among older workers. The fact that they're much more likely to be stuck in long-term unemployment is strong evidence that something seriously worrying is going on here.

By Ezra Klein  |  June 17, 2010; 3:40 PM ET
Categories:  Economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Why Ben Nelson thinks we're ready to move on to the deficit
Next: More Carter apologias

Comments

Where is Eric Holder? Why not some couple of 'high profile' age discrimination law suits are filled?

I thought Democrats were masters at discrimination law suits....

Posted by: umesh409 | June 17, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

In addition to the age gap, add the (not surprising) race gap. According to data out this month, cities such as Minneapolis have a 3:1 ration of black:white unemployment.

In a progressive state (well, sorta-progressive nowdays) with a total unemployment rate 2 points r so lower than the national rate, there is some deep disparity in getting people of color hired or re-hired as we slowly recover.

See StarTrib:
http://www.startribune.com/business/96016354.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

Posted by: RalfW | June 17, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Don't you know that older unemployed are expected to exit the workforce regardless whether they can afford to or not? Why do you think AARP starts taking members at 50. Sorry, couldn't resist throwing in some sarcasm. The big guns don't devote much attention to disadvantages which older unemployed workers face. If the one-size-fits-all policy approach doesn't work, shrug.

Posted by: tuber | June 17, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

It's not just over 55, in Silicon Valley it's anyone over 40. It's even worse if you have a visible disability. I can't retire, I'm not even old enough to join AARP, but I'm still seen as too old, too crippled, or too "overqualified" to do a geek job.

Posted by: LJL_Geek | June 18, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

This is why the current idea circulating amongst the pundit class to increase the SS retirement age to 70 seems so ignorant to me. And of course it ignores the possibility that people that old might not even be able to work.

Posted by: julie18 | June 18, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

What About Old Farts? http://ping.fm/ZCxIr

Posted by: maureensharib | June 19, 2010 7:23 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company