A Case Of The Mondays: Vent Your Work Spleen Here

[ginger90]

20 minutes ago, ebk57 said:

I retired - today was my last day.  I might be a little excited...  

 Congratulations!!

[emma675]

Congratulations, @ebk57!

[Gramto6]

8 minutes ago, emma675 said:

Congratulations, @ebk57!

Ditto here! Many Congratulations!!  Enjoy it!!

[RealHousewife]

4 hours ago, ebk57 said:

I retired - today was my last day.  I might be a little excited...  

Wahoo!!! Congratulations!!! 👏

[Browncoat]

Good for you, @ebk57!  Congrats!

[Jeeves]

11 hours ago, ebk57 said:

I retired - today was my last day.  I might be a little excited...  

WOO HOO!!!! Congratulations!!! 🎉

[Cloud9Shopper]

Had a better March on the interview front with three interviews (two first round screens, one second round). Two of the three interviews were duds, as one job couldn’t meet my pay requirements (they wanted to start me at less per hour than what I make now because of their salary equity rules) and the other company seemed completely disorganized and I knew I wouldn’t feel comfortable working there. I’m waiting to hear on whether I’ll advance to the second round for the other position, and I would like this particular role. 

I also have a phone screen coming up on Wednesday, so April is starting off on a decent note. 

I’m still waiting to get my performance review at my current job, and the outcome of that will determine if I keep searching at this passive/slower pace or decide to ramp things up. My goals and desires to move off the phones within the next year have not changed, and ideally I would be fully out of the call center by the end of the year. Of course the latter depends on whether I can get an outside offer or a promotion, but I’ve decided I am not going to settle for just anything just because it’s not call center. I feel at this stage of my life that can’t be the sole criteria for choosing a job, and I don’t want to set myself back on my other life goals (particularly financial and getting out of debt in the next 2-3 years) by taking a lesser paying job or a temp gig. I have my limits and I’m OK with that even if it does take longer to get what I want. In the meantime at least I am building job history and have been able to put project work at my current job on my resume to show I can do more than just take calls.  

[BlueSkies]

On 4/1/2024 at 6:37 PM, Cloud9Shopper said:

Had a better March on the interview front with three interviews (two first round screens, one second round). Two of the three interviews were duds, as one job couldn’t meet my pay requirements (they wanted to start me at less per hour than what I make now because of their salary equity rules) and the other company seemed completely disorganized and I knew I wouldn’t feel comfortable working there. I’m waiting to hear on whether I’ll advance to the second round for the other position, and I would like this particular role. 

I also have a phone screen coming up on Wednesday, so April is starting off on a decent note. 

I’m still waiting to get my performance review at my current job, and the outcome of that will determine if I keep searching at this passive/slower pace or decide to ramp things up. My goals and desires to move off the phones within the next year have not changed, and ideally I would be fully out of the call center by the end of the year. Of course the latter depends on whether I can get an outside offer or a promotion, but I’ve decided I am not going to settle for just anything just because it’s not call center. I feel at this stage of my life that can’t be the sole criteria for choosing a job, and I don’t want to set myself back on my other life goals (particularly financial and getting out of debt in the next 2-3 years) by taking a lesser paying job or a temp gig. I have my limits and I’m OK with that even if it does take longer to get what I want. In the meantime at least I am building job history and have been able to put project work at my current job on my resume to show I can do more than just take calls.  

It can be funny how things work out.  I was out of work when I took the job I had now.  I thought I would be there for a year to get back on my feet and would be out of there.  After a year there I aggressively looked for other jobs but a combination of not really finding any hits kept me where I am now.  I still looked for jobs on the side but it was funny 1 year became 2 years which became 5 years which became 10 years I'm with my current company.  Lol

 

But the synopsis of the few job bytes/interviews I went on over the years:

 

-Interviewed with a company my uncle works for.  It was a realistic good job and at the time seemingly great company to work for.  Lack of experience though doomed me at the time.  I still applied for jobs over the years to this company but no bytes.  All the well though, after Covid happened my uncle told me they really did a way with a lot of jobs at this company.  

 

-Interviewed with another company/building in my industry.  I found out the grass would not be greener at all for me to go to this other company.  

 

-Interviewed for a billing specialist role with a large HVAC company.  I was told I would be replacing a person management was unhappy with but they didn't let know he was going to be fired.  At the time I didn't think much of that but in retrospect that sounded like a bitch move and not a company I would want to be apart of.

 

-Interviewed with an insurance company.  Since this interview 10 years ago this building is now closed.  

 

 

Yeah bottom line is I didn't put as much pressure on myself as I used to with leaving my job and what not.  But I'm still interested in going back to school again.  

[Cloud9Shopper]

My performance review went really well! I’m happy to be in a supportive work environment with good managers and colleagues, as it seems like so few good work environments exist these days.

However, I have decided to at least continue passively searching for now. I was stuck on what to do after my review because I was on a high from getting such good marks, but after I came back down to reality, the two issues I still have are that I’m still in customer service and making average money and would like to grow my career and income. So while I am open to continuing taking on special projects in my current role and will keep an eye on my company’s job board for other openings to apply to, I don’t yet feel like I want to completely close myself off to external opportunities either. 

[Yeah No]

2 hours ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

My performance review went really well! I’m happy to be in a supportive work environment with good managers and colleagues, as it seems like so few good work environments exist these days.

However, I have decided to at least continue passively searching for now. I was stuck on what to do after my review because I was on a high from getting such good marks, but after I came back down to reality, the two issues I still have are that I’m still in customer service and making average money and would like to grow my career and income. So while I am open to continuing taking on special projects in my current role and will keep an eye on my company’s job board for other openings to apply to, I don’t yet feel like I want to completely close myself off to external opportunities either. 

That's great news!  It would be nice if your good review could translate into a decent pay raise, wouldn't it?  Do you think you might have any hope of that happening?

I don't want to discourage you from continuing to look outside the company but these days as I'm sure you know that can be risky.  I did that once and ended up walking into a great place that only months after I got there went straight into the toilet thanks to problems the company experienced that were out of the blue and unforeseeable.  I ended up regretting leaving my former company.  Although the job I got after that was great.

[Cloud9Shopper]

At my company, they don’t tie raises to performance reviews but if a a supervisor wants to give an employee a raise at their discretion as the result of a review, then there is room for that.

I think any change is always a risk, as after all, the last time I made a job change, I got laid off four months after starting. But there are no guarantees in life and I’m not going to use change being risky as a reason to stop my job search, stay complacent and just sit in customer service forever either. You’re not going to see everything in a job interview, good jobs turn bad later, and you can’t predict the future. If I find a good place to go that’s a non-customer service role, then yes I want to try it and not refuse it on the basis of being too scared. 

[Bookish Jen]

On 3/29/2024 at 8:21 PM, ebk57 said:

I retired - today was my last day.  I might be a little excited...  

Congratulations. I'm very happy for you.

As for me. Well, I got some very shocking news yesterday. My boss is no longer with the company. I have no idea what happened or what her departure entails, but so many of us feel like we've been kicked in the gut. I really liked her; she was a really great boss. I can't imagine her leaving for anything petty so I wonder what she might have done to have left. I hope it's something not too nefarious.

At the moment, a member of our team is acting as a interim manager until we can get a permanent replacement. I like this team member, but I'm worried the permanent replacement might not be as good of a boss. I also wonder how this will play out in me getting hired on full time.

I just so freaking tired.

[partofme]

23 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I don't want to discourage you from continuing to look outside the company but these days as I'm sure you know that can be risky.  

That’s not a reason not to look though.  I got laid off in February after twenty years and nothing but glowing reviews with the same company, so staying doesn’t guarantee anything.  One of the reasons I was with my old company so long is because I hate interviewing.  Now I’ve been out of work for almost two months, I’ve had ten phone screens and interviews with six different companies including one that got to the third round (so including the phone screen I met with 5 people) and still have no prospects.  

Edited April 5 by partofme

[Cloud9Shopper]

8 minutes ago, partofme said:

That’s not a reason not to look though.  I got laid off in February after twenty years and nothing but glowing reviews with the same company, so staying doesn’t guarantee anything.  One of the reasons I was with my old company so long is because I hate interviewing.  Now I’ve been out of work for almost two months, I’ve had ten phone screens and interviews with six different companies including one that got to the third round (so including the phone screen I met with 5 people) and still have no prospects.  

It is still a very difficult market. I have to comb through so many listings paying $18-$20 an hour (as I can no longer afford to live on that kind of pay) just to find one or two worth applying to. It also amazes me how companies feel the need to put everyone through 3-5 interviews now regardless of the job title and level you’re applying at. A non-management employee should not need to go through more than a recruiter/HR screen and two other rounds at most. (That’s not even to get into assessments, case studies, presentations and whatever else is thrown into the process.) 

I also got laid off from my old job after being told I’d be getting a stellar performance review and what a quick learner I was and I was taking on more project work. The layoff happened two weeks before Christmas. I’m being picky about my next move to be sure but I’m no longer feeling a misguided sense of loyalty to any employer because they can literally throw you out into the cold at any time and they don’t care how it affects you. 

[Yeah No]

15 hours ago, partofme said:

That’s not a reason not to look though.  I got laid off in February after twenty years and nothing but glowing reviews with the same company, so staying doesn’t guarantee anything.  One of the reasons I was with my old company so long is because I hate interviewing.  Now I’ve been out of work for almost two months, I’ve had ten phone screens and interviews with six different companies including one that got to the third round (so including the phone screen I met with 5 people) and still have no prospects.  

Of course.  When I said I didn't want to discourage her, I meant it.  Just be prepared for anything!  If leaving is that important to you, you'll accept those risks.

[Yeah No]

16 hours ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

It is still a very difficult market. I have to comb through so many listings paying $18-$20 an hour (as I can no longer afford to live on that kind of pay) just to find one or two worth applying to. It also amazes me how companies feel the need to put everyone through 3-5 interviews now regardless of the job title and level you’re applying at. A non-management employee should not need to go through more than a recruiter/HR screen and two other rounds at most. (That’s not even to get into assessments, case studies, presentations and whatever else is thrown into the process.) 

I also got laid off from my old job after being told I’d be getting a stellar performance review and what a quick learner I was and I was taking on more project work. The layoff happened two weeks before Christmas. I’m being picky about my next move to be sure but I’m no longer feeling a misguided sense of loyalty to any employer because they can literally throw you out into the cold at any time and they don’t care how it affects you. 

The salaries are so far out of sync with the cost of living now I have a lot of sympathy for anyone in the job market.  And what's with it being like interviewing for CEO no matter the position?  It's overkill with the number of interviews they put you through.  It used to be 2 max, then it became 3, now it just keeps growing.  And it doesn't even mean you're any closer to getting hired if you make it through all the hoops!  And good for you not having any misguided sense of loyalty - they certainly don't have much loyalty to their employees.

I too was terminated despite several glowing reviews.  So I get it.

One of the problems in my case was that I had worked myself up to such a level in my career that there weren't that many positions available in the salary range I was looking for and I was unwilling to take that much of a pay cut to work my ass off.  Unfortunately as you go up the ladder there are fewer opportunities.  And it depends on the area too.  In my area there just weren't as many jobs available as in bigger cities.  Add to that that I was at the waning end of a large generation so I was competing with a LOT of people for a few jobs all the time.  And the people in those positions refused to retire, that's another thing.  A lot of positions I would have wanted were unavailable because of that.  Of course a lot of those people decided to retire when the pandemic happened, but I had already reassessed my life and decided to cut my budget to the bone to get through to my full SS retirement age without a job.  It hasn't been easy especially as prices have risen.

It was just luck that my husband, who lost his small limo. business in the pandemic was hired as the personal driver to a very rich family in Westport.  They are paying him more than he's ever earned in his life.  He didn't have it easy as an undiagnosed dyslexic for most of his life.  He didn't know until about 10 years ago because back in the stone ages people didn't know about those things.  So anyway because he got that job I was able to decide not to continue to look for a job.  It was getting ridiculous anyway and I was getting nowhere.  Age discrimination is a real thing, especially for women.  Don't let anyone tell you it isn't.  I've had friends that work in HR tell me that!

Edited April 6 by Yeah No

[Cloud9Shopper]

4 hours ago, Yeah No said:

The salaries are so far out of sync with the cost of living now I have a lot of sympathy for anyone in the job market.  And what's with it being like interviewing for CEO no matter the position?  It's overkill with the number of interviews they put you through.  It used to be 2 max, then it became 3, now it just keeps growing.  And it doesn't even mean you're any closer to getting hired if you make it through all the hoops!  And good for you not having any misguided sense of loyalty - they certainly don't have much loyalty to their employees.

I too was terminated despite several glowing reviews.  So I get it.

I’m waiting to hear back on whether I make it to the second round with a content writing job in higher ed. The people who make it to the next round come to campus for interviews and have to do a writing sample, as well as provide samples of things they have already written, which is understandable. But then the hiring manager also gives a writing exercise and you have to have that done by your interview and do a presentation for the panel. The job does not require presentations to stakeholders or public speaking or anything of the sort. 

Can you just not take the writing samples and do the interviews and make a hire based on that? You’ll still know how well they write and present themselves. I’ve given writing samples for jobs before but never had to give a speech about them. 

To my understanding, the reasoning for the excessive interviews is because employers are afraid of making a bad hire so they want to involve more people and get a lot of opinions, and “fit” has become more important. A lot of companies do what are called “culture interviews” or “values interviews” now where they determine if your values fit in with the company’s. It’s gotten out of hand. 

[Yeah No]

33 minutes ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

To my understanding, the reasoning for the excessive interviews is because employers are afraid of making a bad hire so they want to involve more people and get a lot of opinions, and “fit” has become more important. A lot of companies do what are called “culture interviews” or “values interviews” now where they determine if your values fit in with the company’s. It’s gotten out of hand. 

I have thought that myself, and I agree it's out of hand.  And I don't think it necessarily works even from their point of view.  Interviewers used to rely on their common sense about who would or wouldn't work in a position.  Now they don't trust themselves and rely on methods that aren't proven to work.  If you ask me these methods end up making them hire the people most able to present themselves positively in every way.  In other words - good actors with good form but not necessarily good substance. 

I am sure I have failed to impress the majority of 6 person panels because of that.  I have been on the receiving end of those "culture interviews".   I'm an introvert and always felt intimidated by those situations.  I never minded a small group of 3 people or so, but large groups around a conference table firing off "gotcha" questions is not my forte, especially when I've already been through the mill and the questions are overkill.  Add overt or unconscious age prejudice to that and it's no wonder I wasn't able to be the winner in those situations.  The more people involved in the interviewing the more those biases have an impact on who gets hired.  If the majority of people on the panel are 20 years your junior they will find all sorts of excuses for why you don't "fit with their culture", which is one of those euphemisms for "you're too old".

I've actually assisted on the hiring end in some of those situations and have seen the group lean toward someone I didn't think was the right choice.  Then those people were hired and didn't work out so well.  Of course I had to keep my mouth shut about it because that wasn't my place.

[isalicat]

14 hours ago, Yeah No said:

Age discrimination is a real thing, especially for women.  Don't let anyone tell you it isn't.  I've had friends that work in HR tell me that!

Age discrimination has nothing to do with whether you are a man or a woman, in my experience in being part of the hiring business for 40 years, unless you are a woman in a business that has to do with appearance (cosmetics, fashion, etc.). Its all about the younger managers feeling psychologically uncomfortable with being able to successfully direct people with significantly more experience in their field than they have, and the perception that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". The latter is unfortunately often true (I think we have all been part of a situation where people in a role for a long time say stuff like "well, we've always done it that way and its worked for us so...."). There are some great (software driven) assessment tools now out on the market that can vet potential employees and their potential hiring managers for these difficulties in advance and mitigate these often unwarranted assumptions through technology. But if you are over 50 and definitely need to keep working, you do yourself a favor by constantly expanding your skill set and always have a second or third option in your "tool kit" for which people might pay you.

And again, let me reiterate that the multiplicity of interviews now required are a direct result of our very litigious culture here in the U.S. - once you make a permanent hire, firing that person "for cause" often opens a firm up for a lawsuit, no matter how specious. And even if the person let go doesn't sue, its very expensive to go through the interviewing process and "on board" people, so companies are influenced by their financial people to *make sure* they have the right person (like that is an absolute possibility) before extending an offer.

Edited April 6 by isalicat

[Yeah No]

15 minutes ago, isalicat said:

Age discrimination has nothing to do with whether you are a man or a woman, in my experience in being part of the hiring business for 40 years, unless you are a woman in a business that has to do with appearance (cosmetics, fashion, etc.). Its all about the younger managers feeling psychologically uncomfortable with being able to successfully direct people with significantly more experience in their field than they have, and the perception that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". The latter is unfortunately often true (I think we have all been part of a situation where people in a role for a long time say stuff like "well, we've always done it that way and its worked for us so...."). There are some great (software driven) assessment tools now out on the market that can vet potential employees and their potential hiring managers for these difficulties in advance and mitigate these often unwarranted assumptions through technology. But if you are over 50 and definitely need to keep working, you do yourself a favor by constantly expanding your skill set and always have a second or third option in your "tool kit" for which people might pay you.

And again, let me reiterate that the multiplicity of interviews now required are a direct result of our very litigious culture here in the U.S. - once you make a permanent hire, firing that person "for cause" often opens a firm up for a lawsuit, no matter how specious. And even if the person let go doesn't sue, its very expensive to go through the interviewing process and "on board" people, so companies are influenced by their financial people to *make sure* they have the right person (like that is an absolute possibility) before extending an offer.

I keep up on this subject.  Age discrimination is worse for women according to many, many articles, some based on research on the subject, and it is not just worse in occupations involving "beauty":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/26/why-age-discrimination-is-worse-for-women/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ageism-worse-women-i-think-were-asking-wrong-question-temple-rocks/

https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2022/women-discrimination-and-mental-health.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/02/business/economy/over-50-female-and-jobless-even-as-others-return-to-work.html

BTW, that NY times article is one of my favorites from when I first started reading on this subject.

Ageism in employment begins earlier for women than men.  Over 40 as opposed to older ages for men.  In many occupations a man with graying hair is seen as "mature", "responsible" and "distinguished".  Those adjectives are not applied to women in general.  it is worse for women in some fields than others.  I was not surprised to find that it is especially a problem in administrative work of all kinds.

Also, I live in an "at will" state, which means that you can be terminated for any or no reason at any time without any explanation at all, which makes lawsuits on the basis of ageism difficult and employers know this so they're not worried about it.  I know, I was terminated without cause while on workers' comp. having fallen on company property and broken my arm.  Pretty much the only reason I had a good lawsuit was that it's illegal to terminate someone while on workers' comp.  So I won a wrongful termination lawsuit on that basis.  But if I didn't have that, forget it, the law firm that represented me (one of the best in the state) told me ageism is very hard to prove and they probably wouldn't have taken me on as a client.

 

[partofme]

I may have an interview with a company that has no information on Glassdoor or anywhere else.   I was wondering if this is a red flag?  They do have a profile on LinkedIn.  I think they’re a relatively new company within the last few years.  I didn’t even have a phone screen, the hr person just emailed me saying that the hiring manager wants to interview me and asked for my availability and then after I replied sent me information about how I have to set up the Teams interview, and it’s not even clear to me if I would be scheduling the interview for a future time or being interviewed right away, so I’m going to set this up in the morning when I’m dressed in my suit with hair and makeup done and everything I need in front of me just in case, but I’m willing to do the interview because the listed salary is good.

Also a job that I interviewed for has been re-listed, which is really annoying because it means they didn’t choose someone who was better than me, they just didn’t like me despite the fact that I’m fully qualified to do the job. 

Edited April 10 by partofme

[Yeah No]

16 hours ago, partofme said:

Also a job that I interviewed for has been re-listed, which is really annoying because it means they didn’t choose someone who was better than me, they just didn’t like me despite the fact that I’m fully qualified to do the job. 

I had that happen a few times either after interviewing or just submitting an application. It always pissed me off because I would see the same jobs posted over and over again, so they were rejecting everyone on a continual basis.  WTF were they looking for?  I had all the qualifications and then some.  Of course I was also over 60 when this happened, so that didn't help.

[isalicat]

On 4/11/2024 at 7:18 AM, Yeah No said:

I had that happen a few times either after interviewing or just submitting an application. It always pissed me off because I would see the same jobs posted over and over again, so they were rejecting everyone on a continual basis.  WTF were they looking for?  I had all the qualifications and then some.  Of course I was also over 60 when this happened, so that didn't help.

Or they had an internal candidate that they were ready to move into the role or promote into the role, and needed to interview outside candidates to justify the internal transfer/promotion....or there were personal characteristics that are not in the job description that they were looking for that you don't have...there are lots of potential explanations. Or they have not approved the budget that includes the salary for this position, but if they get a candidate that is truly a perfect fit, the hiring manager will use that to "go to bat" to fund the job. All these things happened with candidates of mine when I was a headhunter so I know the possible explanations in this situation are more than you might imagine.

[BlueSkies]

On 4/10/2024 at 6:07 PM, partofme said:

I may have an interview with a company that has no information on Glassdoor or anywhere else.   I was wondering if this is a red flag?  They do have a profile on LinkedIn.  I think they’re a relatively new company within the last few years.  I didn’t even have a phone screen, the hr person just emailed me saying that the hiring manager wants to interview me and asked for my availability and then after I replied sent me information about how I have to set up the Teams interview, and it’s not even clear to me if I would be scheduling the interview for a future time or being interviewed right away, so I’m going to set this up in the morning when I’m dressed in my suit with hair and makeup done and everything I need in front of me just in case, but I’m willing to do the interview because the listed salary is good.

Also a job that I interviewed for has been re-listed, which is really annoying because it means they didn’t choose someone who was better than me, they just didn’t like me despite the fact that I’m fully qualified to do the job. 

IMO that depends on how big the company is.  Smaller or newer companies might not have much of an online presence.  

[partofme]

On 4/12/2024 at 4:09 PM, isalicat said:

so I know the possible explanations in this situation are more than you might imagine.

This is fair, but it doesn’t make me feel any better when I’m unemployed and without health insurance and can and have done everything listed in the job description.  

4 hours ago, BlueSkies said:

IMO that depends on how big the company is.  Smaller or newer companies might not have much of an online presence.  

I think it may have been a scam of some type though I’m not sure what the purpose was.   They had me set up the Teams meeting without saying what time worked for them and then no one showed up.  I emailed the recruiter asking what time works for them but never heard back.  

[partofme]

I had another phone screen on Thursday that was nothing but red flags.  First the salary is ten thousand lower than what is listed in the ad.  Then the recruiter told me that the hiring manager got mad that the last person in the role would ask her questions when she could just google the answers.   The hiring manager thought the last person in the role was too quiet, didn’t speak up enough in meetings and didn’t participate enough in their online conversations about non-work related stuff.   The whole thing just sounds like a toxic work environment to me.  

[Yeah No]

On 4/12/2024 at 4:09 PM, isalicat said:

Or they had an internal candidate that they were ready to move into the role or promote into the role, and needed to interview outside candidates to justify the internal transfer/promotion....or there were personal characteristics that are not in the job description that they were looking for that you don't have...there are lots of potential explanations. Or they have not approved the budget that includes the salary for this position, but if they get a candidate that is truly a perfect fit, the hiring manager will use that to "go to bat" to fund the job. All these things happened with candidates of mine when I was a headhunter so I know the possible explanations in this situation are more than you might imagine.

Oh I know all the reasons both bogus and unfair that they may have had for not hiring me or anyone else, I figured all that out long ago.  What I was talking about is when they don't hire me but never hire anybody and keep posting the same position over and over again for months or even years!  It just makes you ask why they're even interviewing if they never actually hire someone.  Are they really looking for anyone?  Are they never satisfied with anyone?  I always had my doubts about that.  I had heard of the budget reason before and was also told that sometimes they keep a job posted that's already been filled  just to see if they can get anyone "better".  The position itself may not even be a real one.  I was told all this years ago when I was interviewing by friends who had been down the same road (and had even interviewed for some of these same positions as me) and people in HR.  So I'm aware, but even knowing all of that still begs the question of WTF they're looking for!!  Are they looking for the Holy Grail?

I just feels like being scammed, deceived and wasting your time, but I guess that's the shitty world we live in today.  I'm so glad I don't have to go through that anymore.  I feel sorry for those of you that do.  I detested it so much toward the end I ended up sacrificing a lot of money and perhaps some security in my retirement in order to not have to deal with it. 

After a while and at a certain age I got to the point that I said "F#%@$ this shit!"  My mother was a legal secretary and got to that point at around the same age I did.  She ended up collecting Social Security early in order not to have to go back to work.  I won't do that but as it turns out in both her and my case we came out OK in spite of everything.  My parents always told me to get in with companies that gave good benefits. I sacrificed a lot to do that but in the end it was worth it because I actually have some money saved for retirement.  And I didn't make a lot of money but put as much as I could away anyway.  Remember that commercial, "Life comes at you fast"?  Well it does, so my advice is save for retirement even if you think you can't afford it, it will be here sooner than you think.  Even if it's just a little bit saved every week it adds up over the years.

[Bastet]

12 hours ago, Yeah No said:

Remember that commercial, "Life comes at you fast"?  Well it does, so my advice is save for retirement even if you think you can't afford it, it will be here sooner than you think.  Even if it's just a little bit saved every week it adds up over the years.

Especially with pensions having gone the way of the dodo.  You do not want to have to live on just social security, or depend on a partner's money supplementing yours since they can die or leave at any time.

There are way too many people who can't put anything, or just a small amount, aside with any regularity because wages haven't kept pace with the cost of living, our disastrous for-profit healthcare system means medical expenses wipe a lot of people out, etc. 

But you're right, there are people who could be saving but aren't.  And, unless they die before they get to this point, they're probably going to wish they had.  People made fun of me for having an IRA as a teenager, but now think I was a genius (I wasn't, I just listened to the "Pay yourself first" advice of a dad who'd clawed his way out of abject poverty into what eventually became a nice upper-middle class existence, who kept living below his means).  In my first job that offered a 401(k), right after college, I became friends with a manager in Payroll who told me she and I were the only non-executives who did the max 16%, and even most of the execs only did six percent (which was the cap on company match). 

I had the game-changing fortune of graduating with no student loan debt, as my parents were able to pay for my education (they started a college fund - good ol' U.S. Savings Bonds - before I was even born), and housing costs were not so obscene back then, so even on my meager starting salary, I could live below my means and save while still having room to treat myself (primarily travel and good food & drink).  I was profoundly lucky to start on second base, and not many of us are.  Some friends similarly blessed financially but spending every penny they brought in, just because they could, again laughed, but it wasn't long before they no longer had the money to do everything they wanted and I did.

Edited April 14 by Bastet

[BlueSkies]

The after effects of a paper jam late Friday.  I was stuck in the office late Friday trying to get a printer/copier to work that kept jamming.  I even had overtime.  It felt like a real life Office Space scenario.  I couldn't get it going and just decided to split.

 

I was trying to help somebody who was waiting on an important fax as to why I tried to fix it.

 

So tomorrow I see the after effects of this all I suppose.  

[Yeah No]

10 hours ago, Bastet said:

Especially with pensions having gone the way of the dodo.  You do not want to have to live on just social security, or depend on a partner's money supplementing yours since they can die or leave at any time.

There are way too many people who can't put anything, or just a small amount, aside with any regularity because wages haven't kept pace with the cost of living, our disastrous for-profit healthcare system means medical expenses wipe a lot of people out, etc. 

But you're right, there are people who could be saving but aren't.  And, unless they die before they get to this point, they're probably going to wish they had.  People made fun of me for having an IRA as a teenager, but now think I was a genius (I wasn't, I just listened to the "Pay yourself first" advice of a dad who'd clawed his way out of abject poverty into what eventually became a nice upper-middle class existence, who kept living below his means).  In my first job that offered a 401(k), right after college, I became friends with a manager in Payroll who told me she and I were the only non-executives who did the max 16%, and even most of the execs only did six percent (which was the cap on company match). 

I had the game-changing fortune of graduating with no student loan debt, as my parents were able to pay for my education (they started a college fund - good ol' U.S. Savings Bonds - before I was even born), and housing costs were not so obscene back then, so even on my meager starting salary, I could live below my means and save while still having room to treat myself (primarily travel and good food & drink).  I was profoundly lucky to start on second base, and not many of us are.  Some friends similarly blessed financially but spending every penny they brought in, just because they could, again laughed, but it wasn't long before they no longer had the money to do everything they wanted and I did.

You were lucky.  I started out with what would be the equivalent today of $40,000 in student loan debt because my parents didn't pay for most of my education and back then I somehow didn't qualify for that much financial aid despite the fact that we were not at all well off, more like lower middle class, and that was even though my mother went back to work full time when I was nine.  (Both of my parents were Depression children who came from total poverty and my Dad worked for the military and non-profit which don't pay so well.)  Add to that living in NYC where the cost of living was super high and my rent was almost half of my net income and you get the picture.  To say that it was a struggle is an understatement and I lived from paycheck to paycheck.  And yet I somehow saved for retirement.  I did without a LOT.  

The only way I was lucky was that my first job was at a university and some of that retirement savings was paid by the school.  It wasn't all my contribution.  But my income there was low and that was so long ago now that it doesn't amount to all that much every month.  And I did get an actual pension in one later job but I am collecting just about the same amount from that as the annuity because I got laid off from that job after some years.  I would have stayed at that company until retirement if I could have.  Between both of those sources I only get enough to cover maybe a car payment, insurance and a little leftover.  But I'm really glad I have them in addition to the 401Ks that I later had and rolled over into an IRA.

The one thing I think is important to remember is that retirement savings is tax deferred so it lowers your taxable income.  I benefitted from that at tax time.  So it doesn't feel like as much of a bite out of your pocket.  Then when you do collect the money it's taxed at a lower rate than regular income.  Another bonus.  So even if you only put away enough to offset the tax benefit it's better than saving nothing at all.  And it adds up.

Unfortunately, though, with some of it depending on how the stock market's doing there is some risk involved.  I don't think my accounts have gone up much since 2021 because of that despite being managed by one of those big financial firms.  Which sucks when you get to be this age and rely on that money.

A friend's 32 year old daughter just got a job with a big company that offers fantastic benefits.  At first she hated it and complained about how much work she was expected to do but she is starting to see that it's worth it in the end.  It's a company I would have loved to get in with myself and applied to as recently as 5 years ago.

[StatisticalOutlier]

13 hours ago, Yeah No said:

The one thing I think is important to remember is that retirement savings is tax deferred so it lowers your taxable income.  I benefitted from that at tax time.  So it doesn't feel like as much of a bite out of your pocket.  Then when you do collect the money it's taxed at a lower rate than regular income. 

As far as I know retirement account distributions/withdrawals (like a 401(k) or a non-Roth) are taxed as ordinary income at the time they're taken. 

People often end up paying less in tax on the distribution than what they would have paid on that amount when they earned it, but that would be because generally, people's income after retirement is lower than when they were working, and the distribution could be in a lower marginal tax bracket than it was when they were working.  But I don't think there's a separate rate of taxation for retirement withdrawals.  (On the federal level, anyway.  I have no idea what individual states that impose income taxes do.)

[Yeah No]

50 minutes ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

As far as I know retirement account distributions/withdrawals (like a 401(k) or a non-Roth) are taxed as ordinary income at the time they're taken. 

People often end up paying less in tax on the distribution than what they would have paid on that amount when they earned it, but that would be because generally, people's income after retirement is lower than when they were working, and the distribution could be in a lower marginal tax bracket than it was when they were working.  But I don't think there's a separate rate of taxation for retirement withdrawals.  (On the federal level, anyway.  I have no idea what individual states that impose income taxes do.)

I'm going based on something my tax accountant told me but you might be right that he might have been talking about my particular Federal tax rate after deductions.  I know for sure that Social Security income is taxed at a lower rate than other income sources, which makes it better to take out less from your other sources than Social Security so you're taxed less.

[StatisticalOutlier]

20 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I know for sure that Social Security income is taxed at a lower rate than other income sources,

A semantics issue:  social security income is taxed as ordinary income, just like distributions from retirement accounts.  It's included with your other income to arrive at "combined income," and the tax on that total is calculated using the usual tax table, at the end of the instructions. 

Where the difference comes into play is how much of your social security income is taxed, and once you calculate that, you add it to your other income and use the same tax table you use for everything else.  Up to 85% of social security income can be subject to tax, and it depends on how much other income you have.  It's not like there's a special X% tax rate for social security income.

This is in contrast to long-term capital gains, which ARE taxed at a different rate--either 0%, 15%, or 20%.  The rate is dependent on your taxable income, but the long-term capital gains don't get lumped in with your income.  Retirement account distributions get lumped in with your income in determining your tax, and a portion of social security benefits gets lumped in with your income in determining your tax.  And short-term capital gains get lumped in with your income in determining your tax.  All of these use the same old tax table we're used to using to calculate the tax, and are therefore taxed at the same rate.

The long-term capital gains tax, because it does have a separate rate, gets calculated independent of the tax table, but you still use the tax table to calculate the tax on ordinary income (wages, retirement distributions, short-term capital gains, a portion of your social security income, etc.).

How to manage distributions to fund retirement is a case-by-case situation, and of course depends on accurately predicting how long you'll live.

[Cloud9Shopper]

I was applying for a job tonight and saw them ask for an age range on the application. Because nothing says “this must be a great place to work” like an employer basically saying they practice age discrimination. I could have just picked the “prefer not to answer” option and tried my chances in an interview, but it was such a red flag I just decided to close the application before submitting.

I’m still waiting to hear back on a position I interviewed for last week. From what I understand second round interviews were wrapping up today. I applied to this company last year and made it all the way through the process but they went with an internal candidate in the end. I’m hoping this time I can break through. Last week was a week where I really felt this need to get off the phones soon, and this would be a non-call center role. I still have my eyes open for opportunities at my current employer but we have no openings at the moment. I’ll keep looking… 

[Yeah No]

3 hours ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

I was applying for a job tonight and saw them ask for an age range on the application. Because nothing says “this must be a great place to work” like an employer basically saying they practice age discrimination. I could have just picked the “prefer not to answer” option and tried my chances in an interview, but it was such a red flag I just decided to close the application before submitting.

I've seen that a few times myself.  Only when I saw it there was no option to decline to answer and you couldn't move on unless you answered it.  So like you, in those cases I just closed the applications.  But even if you were able to decline to answer would that in and of itself clue them in that you were hiding your age for a reason?  Probably.

I've also seen applications where they make you tell them the years you attended college or whatever schools you've put down, which pretty much gives away your age.  And again, there was no way to leave it blank and move on to the next question. 

Edited April 17 by Yeah No

[Yeah No]

16 hours ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

A semantics issue:  social security income is taxed as ordinary income, just like distributions from retirement accounts.  It's included with your other income to arrive at "combined income," and the tax on that total is calculated using the usual tax table, at the end of the instructions. 

Where the difference comes into play is how much of your social security income is taxed, and once you calculate that, you add it to your other income and use the same tax table you use for everything else.  Up to 85% of social security income can be subject to tax, and it depends on how much other income you have.  It's not like there's a special X% tax rate for social security income.

I understand what you're saying but no matter what formulas the tax accountants use to figure it out it basically comes out to the same result - if only a percentage of one's SS income is taxed at the regular rate most people end up paying less on that than on regular income and it can basically be converted into a lower tax rate on thatSS income.  And that was basically my point.  So potato/potahhto.

AND.....I lifted this straight from the Charles Schwab website:

Quote

Social Security income is taxed at a lower rate than income from other sources, such as traditional retirement accounts. So, you may want to consider the following strategies to help potentially reduce your income from those accounts. That way a greater portion of your income is derived from Social Security.

 

https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/social-security-is-taxable-how-to-minimize-taxes#:~:text=Social Security income is taxed,is derived from Social Security.

[emma675]

I thought it was illegal (in the US) to ask a person's age during job applications/interviews? 

[isalicat]

16 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I've also seen applications where they make you tell them the years you attended college or whatever schools you've put down, which pretty much gives away your age.  And again, there was no way to leave it blank and move on to the next question. 

And frankly, if you leave that information (your degree dates) off your resume, the person reviewing your resume is most likely going to immediately "roundfile" it (i.e. throw it in the trash). During the last big recession, when I was still headhunting full time, a lot of my candidates were leaving that off in order to "conceal" the fact that they were over 40 (or over 50 in many cases)...its a red flag unfortunately and its best to just be forthcoming and trust that if a company is going to discriminate up front against middle aged potential employees, then you don't want to work there anyways. Yes, it will eliminate you from consideration at a lot of places (tech companies are notorious in this regard) but from what I can tell, just sending out resumes is really not working for most people these days - you have to get some sort of inside contact going and worm your way to the hiring manager or a decision maker directly. It is clearly very discouraging outside service jobs right now 😿

[partofme]

4 minutes ago, isalicat said:

And frankly, if you leave that information (your degree dates) off your resume, the person reviewing your resume is most likely going to immediately "roundfile" it (i.e. throw it in the trash). During the last big recession, when I was still headhunting full time, a lot of my candidates were leaving that off in order to "conceal" the fact that they were over 40 (or over 50 in many cases)...its a red flag unfortunately and its best to just be forthcoming and trust that if a company is going to discriminate up front against middle aged potential employees, then you don't want to work there anyways. Yes, it will eliminate you from consideration at a lot of places (tech companies are notorious in this regard) but from what I can tell, just sending out resumes is really not working for most people these days - you have to get some sort of inside contact going and worm your way to the hiring manager or a decision maker directly. It is clearly very discouraging outside service jobs right now 😿

I’ve managed to get interviews without my graduation date on my resume.   Getting hired is another story.

[isalicat]

7 minutes ago, partofme said:

I’ve managed to get interviews without my graduation date on my resume.   Getting hired is another story.

Yes, its not an absolute (the person initially reviewing your resume may not think it is important if you have all the "other stuff" the company wants, or may have not even noticed there was no date...) but in my experience the people I knew that did this, got an interview and went in clearly being, say over 50 years old (this was pre-Covid when interviews actually happened in person *all the time*) was given very short shrift, as they say. That is why I tell people to forge a consulting career or self employment if they get laid off after a certain age - its just such an uphill battle to get hired permanently, even if you know you have another 10-15 years of full effort to give.

[Yeah No]

14 hours ago, emma675 said:

I thought it was illegal (in the US) to ask a person's age during job applications/interviews? 

Apparently not.  I remember googling this when it happened to me a few years back.  It's supposed to be against the law in the US to discriminate based on age but not ask that question on a job application.  

A quick search turned up this very interesting article on the subject from AARP:

https://www.aarp.org/work/job-search/employers-age-job-applications/

Since I applied for a job, as of 2021 my state (Connecticut) has actually banned asking for birthdate on job applications as well as dates of graduation and that article says it might encourage other states to follow suit.  They also said that CT has the 6th oldest employment population in the country.  It doesn't seem to stop employers from avoiding older employees, though.  I don't know if banning these questions is going to help much.  Employers will just resort to other methods to determine your general age bracket.  But it's at least a step in the right direction.

[Cloud9Shopper]

It’s honestly sad how we treat older workers in this country and how many employers have a preference for only hiring the young. I never really did get a chance to get my career going and am now only a year away from 40, so knowing I will be punished for a lot of forces outside of my control is shameful.

I will say when I worked at a law firm a few years ago both of the assistants I worked with were in their 40s or 50s, one of them had been hired only a few months before I came along. So at least some industries still don’t practice age discrimination. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

12 minutes ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

I will say when I worked at a law firm a few years ago both of the assistants I worked with were in their 40s or 50s, one of them had been hired only a few months before I came along. So at least some industries still don’t practice age discrimination. 

I was close to 50 when I interviewed and got the job at the firm I am at today. Will celebrate six years this summer. And I wasn't asked what my age range was on the application or during the interview process.

[Yeah No]

2 minutes ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

I will say when I worked at a law firm a few years ago both of the assistants I worked with were in their 40s or 50s, one of them had been hired only a few months before I came along. So at least some industries still don’t practice age discrimination. 

I agree with that, although it does depend on the company and the area of work.  I find that legal admins. are always harder to find and thus more in demand which probably makes employers more flexible about age.  My mother was a legal admin. over 40 years ago and had no problem finding work after the age of 50, especially because she was trilingual in French, Italian and English.

As an executive assistant working in product companies I didn't start really experiencing obvious age discrimination until about age 60 or so.  Another problem for me was the lack of jobs available on my level.  I had worked myself up to the higher levels of admin. work, working for exec. VPs of major companies, and there are only so many of those positions in my area and the people in them tend to stay there forever, even past retirement age. 

I found another problem with getting older is that if you work your way up the ladder in a particular career you can work yourself into a corner career-wise where companies will consider you overqualified to work on a lower level and not want to consider you.  Plus there would be a significant pay cut involved.  

[Cloud9Shopper]

Even in my late 30s, I am not willing to take a major pay cut unless I were to become unemployed again and had to do something to survive. Life has just gotten too expensive. I’ve been contacted by jobs paying $16-$18 an hour or less than $40,000 a year, or even $20 an hour when I make more than that, and they will not budge on salary or say the highest they can go is $22 or $23 when I make over $25. I know that to a lot of people, that’s no big deal on paper and they may think I’m stupid for not accepting $22 or $23, but I also want to save money and pay off debt. I think it’s reasonable at this point to want a job that can equal or increase my salary. 

[Yeah No]

3 hours ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

Even in my late 30s, I am not willing to take a major pay cut unless I were to become unemployed again and had to do something to survive. Life has just gotten too expensive. I’ve been contacted by jobs paying $16-$18 an hour or less than $40,000 a year, or even $20 an hour when I make more than that, and they will not budge on salary or say the highest they can go is $22 or $23 when I make over $25. I know that to a lot of people, that’s no big deal on paper and they may think I’m stupid for not accepting $22 or $23, but I also want to save money and pay off debt. I think it’s reasonable at this point to want a job that can equal or increase my salary. 

I hear you.  You can't go backwards, it sets a precedent.  My last interview, which was sometime in 2021, was with a division of a bigger company.  They made it sound like this position was very important and supported 2 of the highest people in that division.  They didn't mention salary but I figured for the first interview I wouldn't ask.  If they called back then I would ask. 

They did call back and sounded very motivated to have me come in again and meet more of the team, etc.  I got the impression they were ready to hire me at that point.  So I asked what the salary range was for the position.  I couldn't believe it!  They wanted to offer me $45,000.  WOW, what a pay cut that would have been!  I politely told them that that was way under what I had been paid in my previous position and I wouldn't be interested in going any further without knowing if they could raise it.  They kept me on the hook for a while telling me they would "check with HR and find out if they could offer more".  I later got a call from HR that they were not willing to come anywhere near the ballpark of my previous salary.  I was pissed off, because they should have known what I was getting paid in my previous positions.  They saw who I supported and where.  I know I was asked to put that down on the application.  I got the impression they thought they could take advantage of someone over 60 that was desperate for a job.  I wasn't that desperate.  I was still receiving unemployment, pandemic unemployment and stimulus money and my husband had already gotten his present job, so forget that.  That was the beginning of the end of it for me.  It left a bad taste in my mouth. 

I later got called back to another organization I interviewed with just before that and was put through several interviews with "firing squad" style panels.  I thought for sure after all of that I would get the job because they seemed very interested, but no such luck.  And before that I had been through several similar situations with more companies.  I had gone on so many interviews it was getting ridiculous.  Forget it, I was done.  By that time I was close to exhausting my unemployment insurance anyway so I was just as happy not to have to continue looking for a job.

At the end of 2021 I exhausted my unemployment benefits.  It was the first time in many years that I had no income (except for my Ebay sales) and had to be mostly supported by my husband.  Fortunately I had my own money from my wrongful termination lawsuit to help me through.  And I was able to sell my late father's apartment.  This year I started collecting my little pensions.  So I'm OK and will be OK until I collect Social Security in a year and a few months.

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 4/17/2024 at 7:45 AM, Yeah No said:

And that was basically my point.  So potato/potahhto.

Agree.  And as I said, it's a semantics issue.  But if there's an accurate way to express something, especially when it comes to taxes and the like, I'll always push for the accurate wording. 

People generally pay lower tax on retirement income, but that's because after they retire, they're usually in a lower income tax bracket than when they were working.  But not always.  Say you made $50,000 a year while working, and on the day you retired you inherited $2,000,000 in cash, which generates $100,000 a year in income.  You'll be in a higher tax bracket than when you were working, which means you'll be paying more tax on retirement money you socked away than if you'd paid tax when you earned it.  That's because the retirement distributions are taxed as ordinary income, and that wouldn't be the case if they were "taxed at a lower rate."

On 4/17/2024 at 7:45 AM, Yeah No said:

AND.....I lifted this straight from the Charles Schwab website:

Well, Charles Schwab is who fucked up my Roth IRA conversion, resulting in my having to pay tax on the entire amount in one year instead of spread over five years.  I'd calculated that my income was going to stay below the next marginal tax bracket even if I converted my IRA if I took the option to spread the conversion over five years.  But Schwab fumbled the paperwork and the entire conversion was pushed into one year, which did put me into a higher tax bracket and is something I never would have chosen to do.

[Cloud9Shopper]

Saw this article today about why job searching, particularly for remote work, has gotten so insane. Apparently you have a better chance of getting into Harvard than finding a remote job:

https://www.businessinsider.com/remote-wfh-jobs-application-odds-tech-market-rto-2023-9

I am open to both in-person and remote work, for what it’s worth. It’s an even tougher search when you can’t relocate to a better market. I’m sure my job search would be better if I could move to NYC or Pittsburgh or something like that but I don’t have the funds either. 

On the bright side, I have an interview for a legal assistant job on Monday. :) It would require going back to the office but I’d do that for the right position. 

[RealHousewife]

I like my new job so far, but my supervisor is the worst when it comes to responding to emails. She is the person in charge of training me, so it is frustrating. 

Have any of you had this happen? I know she has other stuff on her plate, but it feels weird that she's so slow to respond or doesn't at all. Does she see my emails and just chooses to ignore them? I can't figure it out. 

[partofme]

1 hour ago, RealHousewife said:

I like my new job so far, but my supervisor is the worst when it comes to responding to emails. She is the person in charge of training me, so it is frustrating. 

Have any of you had this happen? I know she has other stuff on her plate, but it feels weird that she's so slow to respond or doesn't at all. Does she see my emails and just chooses to ignore them? I can't figure it out. 

I actually did have a manager like this who never replied to emails.  She was one of the nicest managers I ever had, the day to day was great but she wasn’t a very effective manager.  My situation was a little different in that I didn’t need her to train me on anything though, I had been in the position before she became my manager and I understood the job better than she did.  We got a lot of emails and I know she didn’t respond to my colleague’s emails either.   This was pre Covid and I had to go into her office if I sent her an email that I needed her to reply to urgently.  I did like reporting to her on a day to day basis as she was easy going, I always got whatever time I wanted off, if I needed to leave early or come in late it was never an issue, but she was ineffective as a manager in that she was always promising me promotions and stuff and there was no follow through.