[q845712]

but there's a premium on our youth -- The people who complain that it's harder to find a job in their 50s and 60s can't _all_ be wrong or mistaken. I feel like we like to imagine that these treatments would extend our 20s and 30s, but what if they extend our 60s instead?

[blagie]

They can't all be wrong or mistaken, but there can be a very strong sample bias.

I can go into a longer diatribe here, but the short story is:

1) Most people have a hard time finding jobs at any age. Recent college grads can't all be wrong. :)

2) There is always a strong reversion to mean

3) Most of the people in their 50s or 60s whom I hear complaining were an outlier for employability for their age group in their 20s and 30s (e.g. straight out of Stanford).

Most older people I know are /very/ employable, and don't complain. Another pathway:

- Finish a state college. Have a very hard time finding a first job.

- Work up the career ladder, and build up a resume, reputation, and track record.

- Much easier time finding jobs in their 50s and 60s than straight out of college or early career.

Some of this also has to do with bust/boom cycles. People who entered the workforce during recessions had a hard time finding a job in their 20s, and then found things comparatively easy. People who entered during a boom cycle are the opposite.

[zachthewf]

Most people I know in their 60s would way rather be in their 60s than dead

[osigurdson]

That is kind of what I am saying. I think it would be better if we had 25 years of preparation, followed by 75 productive years followed by 25 years of retirement. The current 25,35,15 split isn’t very efficient.

Ageism might still exist but significantly pushed back.