Ageism on MN

[RockingMyFiftiesNot]

Ok so I expect this thread to be deleted because in part it will be a thread about several threads and mainly because MN has been turning a blind eye towards ageist posts.

Today I learned from MN that over 40s are elderly.
I've also learned that over 50s have lived their lives already and need to step aside to allow the younger generation to live.
I hate the daily mail but actually hope one of their journalists pick this up as MN doesn't seem to care

@IrmaFayLear - I have never policed the S&B threads but I respectfully disagree that the language used to describe unfashionable things as "granny" or "old lady" is irrelevant. These terms are used in a derogatory way therefore they become negative. Thus "old lady" is a term of abuse rather than something we should accept. If we are hoping to live into our 80s and beyond then we will become "old ladies". Why should this be a negative thing.?

I certainly wouldn't choose S&B as a hill to die on, but so many things that seem innocuous feed into societal norms and can perpetuate the idea that anything other than youth is undesirable.

This is definitely a thing! I always chuckle when anyone over 45 behaving strangely is met with "could it be dementia?"

I'm one of those silly people on S&B who challenge 'granny' and 'old lady'. Often they're not even used to mean old fashioned but just straight out ugly. I don't always do it because sometimes I just want to talk about clothes. But then clothes are my thing, I like thinking and talking about them, it makes me happy so yes, it's my hill. And when people then go on the defensive about it, well that tells me even more about them.

@IrmaFayLear

There is ageism and ageism.

Avoiding interviewing let alone hiring someone of 50 - unacceptable. Denigrating the opinions of the middle aged - well, hasn’t youth always been like this? - so depends. But there are pressure groups for no age barriers at all, so for say a heart transplant it would be first-come-first-served, even if top of the queue were someone of 90.

As for those policing the Style &Beauty threads and hectoring anyone who dares to describe shoes as “granny” or “old lady” - that’s just silly. Pick a better ageism hill to die on.

Why do we have to pick any particular hill? Would you say the same about racism? Ageism is ageism and where words such as granny or old lady - as they frequently are - used on S&B as a negative unpleasant way of describing something, that is ageism. And I will call it out. It's indicative of the same attitudes that prevent older women from getting jobs ie that they are of little to no value.

Ageism is ageism

^This

Those situations might seem ridiculous but they make the point that it is perfectly acceptable to treat people differently based on their age

But theres a difference between treating people differently for good reasons (and those reasons might partly be about age), and treating them differently simply because of age, and assumptions about age.

A contributory pension scheme, for example, works by someone paying in over X number of years.

I think the example of someone of 90 being top of the list for a heart transplant is trickier - but again, I would expect a judgment to be made on clinical grounds. Age might be part of a calculation of risk, but there shouldn't be a flat assumption that at a certain age, a person's life is not of sufficient value.

skirk64

Whilst we have certain ages we are allowed or not allowed to do certain things which are for our own good. You wouldn’t want a 10 year old watching a horror movie or any extreme example but what about an accountant not being able to get a job in their late 50s
Or a waiter not getting a job because he is 64
There is a widening gap between older people 60+ being able to find employment in their usual career and the pension age.

@bythemillpond So what types of things are allowed? Ageism is allowed before you are 18. Even though you can become a parent and legally responsible for another child, you are not legally responsible for yourself. And cannot decide whether or not to leave school and get a job at 14, even though you might be just as capable if doing the job as a 64 year old. (Reminds me of a song.)

I do wonder what the difference in percentage of unemployed is. Comparing the 55 to 70 for example with 16 to 31? Obviously not including those who choose not to work.

I do wonder what the difference in percentage of unemployed is. Comparing the 55 to 70 for example with 16 to 31?

Ah, what's tricky about that is...
Most people retire about age 63. But they often 'retire' and start drawing pension from one job while taking on other paid work PT going forward. Some retire because they want to and some because they have to (health problems). Some because they can't get the jobs they want & retirement is an option. So they need to be out of the pile of those being counted in the denominator -- of those who want to be working.

Some ONS data but they stop counting at age 64?

People age 18-30 AND age 55-70 often want to work PT. So you can't compare their raw hours & find out if there's meaningful discrimination or inequity in opportunity.

The right way to ask people "Are you working as many hours as you want" or "Do you have the opportunity to work as many hours as you want..." It's tricky.

Are people under 25 still allowed to be paid a lower wage than age 25+? This gives them a slight employability advantage, but not necessarily one they like.

Somehow you'd want to ask

"Are you seeking work, are you in work, or Would you like to be working?" (Yes)
"Are you physically able to work, and do your care or study duties allow you to work?" (Yes)
"Have you fully retired already?" (No)
(sum of those with preceding answers = X & Y)
"Do you have as much paid employment as you would like" (Yes or No)

and then count the Nos as %s of X & Y to compare any 2 groups. Maybe!

Most people retire about age 63. But they often 'retire' and start drawing pension from one job while taking on other paid work PT going forward. Some retire because they want to and some because they have to (health problems). Some because they can't get the jobs they want & retirement is an option. So they need to be out of the pile of those being counted in the denominator -- of those who want to be working

I wonder how many people want to retire or are they forced to retire?

Isn’t State pension age 68

So what happens between 63 and 68 if you don’t have a company pension

I retired (voluntary early exit scheme) a couple of years ago just before my 58th birthday

a) because I wanted to
b) because I could afford to
c) because my job within the organisation was disappearing due to restructuring. I guess they would have found me a role had I really not wanted to go.

I don't have any regrets.

No one I know can afford to retire at 63. Too big a gap before state pension age now, and drawing down their private pension will leave the pot too depleted for later.

But having been shoved to the front of the redundancy queue and on statutory redundancy, I know people who once it has run out, are on benefits. Or if they had savings squirrelled away for retirement, are forced to use them.

Isn’t State pension age 68

It's between 65 and 68 depending when you were born.

[quote Tryingtryingandtrying]@alsohuman but you can't complain about ageism against you and then do it to others (ie those older than you)[/quote]
I haven’t, have I?

Ageism is allowed before you are 18.

I wouldn't see this as ageism, but as a set of social conventions, laws, and customs which are designed to protect children because they have limited experience of the world, and often little by way of power or money, and can be vulnerable to being manipulated or abused.

www.lovemoney.com/gallerylist/75682/real-retirement-ages-around-the-world-revealed

if you get hold of any 'real people' survey data, real world retirement ages tend to be a few years before statuatory pension ages. I dunno how people fund it.

ps: actually I DO a little know how they fund it. They call themselves retired, but often work PT at a completely different job for a few more years. That way, with mortgage paid off, dual income no kids some savings, they can afford to pay enough of their bills until state pension is available (which let's face it, isn't much).

@alsohuman No sorry, it should have said people can't... I was referring to all the people claiming they were however many decades old but were not old etc.

@lljkk I would be really interested to know the actually stats as you have outlined it. I see people of all ages struggling to find work. But for different reasons.

Reasons people might struggle to find work.
Lack of relevant experience (age?)
Carers commitments

Atm Dh is unemployed. He is 64 and has been unemployed for 2 years

He has had a few job interviews because of his qualifications and experience but not a sniff of a job offer. The inference is he is too old. Whilst he says they never would say it explicitly the wording when they talk is that they want some one younger
In one case he had 3 separate interviews for a role culminating with the final interview with the director of the company who told him he was the only person who had applied who had the relevant experience and qualifications. But then he sees the job advertised again and again.
It is a very tricky post to fill and because of the problems within the company it needs someone who knows the systems that need putting in place and has had extensive experience of the type of issues they are dealing with and being able to smooth it all out and you are not going to get someone like that under 50 for the amount they are paying.

Dh is on UC and will probably never work again.
What little he had in his private pension went on cancer treatment and living expenses when he was off work recovering from cancer and 2 years of living when he was made unemployed.
What is he supposed to do between the ages of 62 - 66.
Too old to work, too young for retirement.

What's wrong with being elderly? You say it like it's a bad thing, OP

It does reflect real life though OP.

At 20 did you not think 45 was totally different to how it actually is?

The problem with being judged as elderly means you get treated in a certain way.

Dfil wasn’t able to get treated for his cancer because he was elderly snd he died.
Dh also wasn’t able to access cancer treatment. We did wonder if it would have been different if he had been 30 not 60
We know that a certain operation was given to certain people but they were younger.
Dh had to pay to have the same operation which we think has saved his life.