No disrespect, I have something that is pressing on my heart.
I am absolutely mind blown by reading the comments here. You are afraid of what will happen to your job when you reach 40? Ask yourself this: how do you think people managed to live and have a job a hundred years ago when they hit 40 or 50?
OK, perhaps this is a cultural thing. I am from eastern Europe where a "normal" annual income, for a single person, can be $12,000. So a couple can bring $24,000 I assume this would be devastating in US. Just like the news the other day with the president of a university (in UK?) where he was complaining of having to deal with an €220,000 annual income.
$300 / month "FULL-TIME wordpress plugin and theme developer from Pakistan and India only."
Please, if you are being laid off at 40 and in the case you are not suffering from a company downsizing, bankruptcy or you don't have medical issues (another interesting topic to talk about) it means that you are either an incompetent or a lazy individual.
No disrespect, please just wake up from your dream.
EDIT: I just realized from the feedback to this message how completely and utterly naive I am to not taking into account that HN is in no way representative of the average worker in US. Here, the absolute majority seems to be only people from IT which don't quite appreciate the opportunity and privilege actually to be able to code and think that only > $60,000 salaries are worth their time and effort.
If we take the global perspective the quality of the state funded safety nets combined with the local culture and job market greatly affect what the implications of a lay-off are. And they can vary drastically.
For instance in the USA the economically worse off are in relative terms considerably more worse off than in countries with lower income inequality.
I don't think I argued that - but that the amount of economic options available to individuals should not be deduced from comparing GDP or such. I think in eastern europe most countries are still civilized enough to offer basic medical care without insurance?
Any way, I have no local knowledge of either issue ... I'm located in northern europe.
Madam or mister, it seems you don't understand from my message the essence of it.
A valuable, reliable person with a salary that is not massively higher then it was 3 years ago (so I am mainly talking about inflation correction) will not be let off. As a younger man and when I did IT maintenance I had often found employes over 50 on jobs which were good enough to allow them to still keep their kids in colleges, allow them to be dressed nicely at work and so forth. They were on jobs which younger employes refused to take. They were desk jobs varying from constructions (estimates and offerings) to accounting to work safety management to human resourcing etc.
And just for your record, food here can and IS more expensive than in US. Clothes and electronics have the exact same price or are more expensive. Cars too are equally or more expensive (taking into consideration maintenance as well).
Please don't bring the economic aspect into discussion. You have a higher standard of living. That is a fact. Lower your standards a little if you are incompetent or lazy and you will be happy no matter what.
You live in a different culture. What works in your culture may not work in another culture. I don't think you quite understand the concept of income inequality.
> What works in your culture may not work in another culture.
Here, if you are not performing you are being sent away. So you have to perform in order to keep your job. Obviously, being able to perform beyond a certain age does not work in the US according to you.
Thank God the other massive part of US is not composed of people like yourself. If US doesn't understand the need of hard work (Okies and the Dust Bowl simply pops in my mind) that I don't know what other country does.
You and all of the people giving me negative feedback are in no way representative to US I believe.
One issue is that in most companies in the US most employees get annual salary increases, 5-6% is a common baseline for people who are doing their jobs well in a company that is successful. Sometimes people get much more.
This means that someone who had been getting annual increases for 20 years is paid approximately 4X as much as a new hire. In addition, their annual increases, being a more or less constant rate, are also 4X as much... and if the pattern continues, by the time they've been working 40 years they'll be making 16X as much as a new hire. Are older workers really that much more valuable? And if they are, as I think is often the case, will management see it when looking at their payroll expenses?
You might think one solution is too stop giving them raises, or even cut their pay, but there's a strong reluctance to do that, even if the employee is willing. Add to all of this a culture of youth, which exists in tech, and you can see a potential problem.
Note, however, that it's not universal. I'm 45 and have no concern about my employability. I work with many people who are much older than me, up into their late 60s, even. In my experience, good software engineers can find employment regardless of age, though it does get harder as your income rises. At some point people may need to either move into management or switch to freelancing, trading steady employment for a much higher wage, working for people who judge your cost against what you achieve for them.
Note that I've dramatically oversimplified the annual salary increase situation, but it's a useful approximation.
I respectfully disagree: most corporations offer 2 to 3 % increase for a good year end review. In other words, stay in line, and we'll match inflation. Consequently, you'll often find the new hire for a given job title making just as much as the guy that has been there for 5 years.
In contrast, you often only get a "real" raise when you change positions, or if your employer genuinely fears your chances in the current job market - for the moment. But then the problem with that is when the job market tanks, management will look to adjust the salaries of those they had to pay a premium to keep, usually by making it unbearable for them to stay.
Given I'm an Australian, I'm merely pointing out to you that as you don't live in the U.S., it's very presumptuous for you to know what happens in a society you don't live in.
Basically your response confirms it. You really don't know what you are talking about.
I am absolutely mind blown by reading the comments here. You are afraid of what will happen to your job when you reach 40? Ask yourself this: how do you think people managed to live and have a job a hundred years ago when they hit 40 or 50?
OK, perhaps this is a cultural thing. I am from eastern Europe where a "normal" annual income, for a single person, can be $12,000. So a couple can bring $24,000 I assume this would be devastating in US. Just like the news the other day with the president of a university (in UK?) where he was complaining of having to deal with an €220,000 annual income.
But of course, you are aware of this discrepancy. Otherwise why would these kind of job offerings exist: https://www.elance.com/j/wordpress-plugin-theme-developer-mo...
$300 / month "FULL-TIME wordpress plugin and theme developer from Pakistan and India only."
Please, if you are being laid off at 40 and in the case you are not suffering from a company downsizing, bankruptcy or you don't have medical issues (another interesting topic to talk about) it means that you are either an incompetent or a lazy individual.
No disrespect, please just wake up from your dream.
EDIT: I just realized from the feedback to this message how completely and utterly naive I am to not taking into account that HN is in no way representative of the average worker in US. Here, the absolute majority seems to be only people from IT which don't quite appreciate the opportunity and privilege actually to be able to code and think that only > $60,000 salaries are worth their time and effort.
Good luck then!