Intel’s Layoffs: What Will Happen to Older Workers?
Intel is about to lay off 12,000 people. This is a company with an enormous amount of intellectual horsepower within its folds. Many with very serious intellectual merit will be out.
The semiconductor industry has shrunk, and there arent many employers who can absorb that many highly qualified people.
Last summer, Intel had a layoff, although significantly smaller. Intel has a lot of employees in Oregon, and the cuts impacted that state dramatically. Mike Rogoway (@rogoway) at the Oregon Live did some investigative journalism that highlighted the fact that older employees were let go more easily:
Proportionately, employees in their 50s were three times more likely to lose their jobs than workers in their 30s, according to a document obtained by The Oregonian/OregonLive that tallies every Intel employee in the United States. The company was nearly five times more likely to lay off workers in their 60s than those in their 30s.
Looking at the impact, in this case only, it clearly has disproportionately affected older workers, said Portland employment attorney Matthew C. Ellis. But he said thats not necessarily illegal, nor is it unusual.
Mass layoffs tend to skew older, according to Ellis. Older workers tend to cost more because theyve accumulated years of raises, and in theory those raises reflect accumulated experience.
In practice, though, the skill sets an employer needs may have changed - or a company may see eliminating older workers with larger salaries as the most expedient way to reduce costs.
This means, soon, thousands of highly skilled, gifted, intellectually capable, technically savvy professionals in their forties and fifties will be out on the street with nowhere to go.
more...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sramana-mitra/intels-layoffs-what-will_b_9771880.html
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Suddenly unemployable -- except in the "gig economy," where you scramble from job to job, always competing against, and being underbid by, much younger workers.
I'm retired now and still get the occasional "gig" to supplement Social Security. But I have two younger friends -- both with impressive resumes -- who are in their mid 50s and haven't held a regular "job" in a couple of years. One has no health care because he can't even afford Obamacare. The other has health care only because he gets it through his wife.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)they need to move somewhere where they can still use their skills or they will lose them.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)It's called "austerity."
The only people -- oddly enough -- who can walk into almost any country they want and get a job are shepherds. Believe it or not. Shepherds are wanted everywhere and get immediate residency.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)A classic Kiwi invention.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)who's found another "regular" job. They're constantly told they're "overqualified" for the jobs that are available. Basically, they went from "highly valued" to "unemployable" overnight. Some have given up looking.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)No 30-something hiring manager is going to hire someone his father's age.
Even younger hiring managers want to hire youngsters who are willing to work incredible hours under terrible conditions -- not some mature person who has been around for a while.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Employers are looking for someone cheaper and possibly more easily cowed.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)age should be raised.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)to automation, so if we followed your advice more people would never get Social Security at all.
No, we need to shift to some system that recognizes that we're shifting towards automation of most current jobs at an exponentially increasing rate .
by midcentury or before we'll have computers as smart as people
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I mean they can't sell just scrapping the whole thing, so instead they go for incremental devolution. After all the alternative would be to adequately fund it, and if people realized how easy that would be, why shit they might even want to increase the benefits!
No, sensible centrists agree, raising the retirement age is the best way to go.
brush
(53,795 posts)Lars39
(26,109 posts)brush
(53,795 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)brush
(53,795 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)Downwinder
(12,869 posts)After they spend down their savings, sell off all their assets and get sick. Then if they have enough current quarters they will get SSDI. If they do not have the current quarters they will get SSI which brings Medicaid. When they are eligible for SS early retirement they will get kicked off SSI an lose Medicaid and have no medical until they are 65.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)If we transformed to a universal system not means tested or tied to employment there would be no huge stick to threaten workers with. And if there were no penalties for staying home and getting well when seriously ill, the loafers and free loaders would be lining up for a cancer or a heart attack or a serious automobile accident. It would create a perverse moral hazard that would demotivate people from keeping their noses to the grindstone every waking moment of their short and miserable lives. No, sensible centrists agree, keep the system we have and make it incrementally worse.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)While you still have medical insurance to prove up the disability. Before the retirement benefits are cut. If you are receiving benefits before the bankruptcy, they are more likely to continue.
None of which I did, but should have.
Warpy
(111,292 posts)because they've shrunk so much. Choking off the demand side of the consumer equation by driving wages down for over 40 years is now in the end game.