Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

TheMastersNemesis

(10,602 posts)

9. I Ran Into An Article A Long Time Ago I Cannot Find -- Corporate Actuary -- 42 Is The Age That ----

Reply to DearHeart (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 03:23 AM

Dec 2012

corporate America sees as the age of a worker becoming a burden.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Welcome To The Reagan Revolution Economy -- 50+ And You Are Out Of A Job Permanently [View all] TheMastersNemesis Dec 2012 OP

Exactly right. And it isn't just the GOP anymore, unfortunately. Lionessa Dec 2012 #1

Japan went through it too - in the 90s. They had a name for it. banned from Kos Dec 2012 #2

I already have to wait until 67 for full SS benefits subterranean Dec 2012 #3

Those were the days, you got paid less in order to have a retirement. No, wait. Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #4

living it now.... KG Dec 2012 #5

Ronnie screwed this country over royally. Manifestor_of_Light Dec 2012 #6

I agree, but I'm thinking the age is more like 45+ DearHeart Dec 2012 #7

I Ran Into An Article A Long Time Ago I Cannot Find -- Corporate Actuary -- 42 Is The Age That ---- TheMastersNemesis Dec 2012 #9

Wow! I knew that 50+ was hard & knew from my own experience that 45+ is harder than ever, but 42! DearHeart Dec 2012 #10

I guess I still haven't come to grips with this job/age correlation yet R B Garr Dec 2012 #11

kr HiPointDem Dec 2012 #8

There must be a sweet spot then because they aren't picking up young people just out of college. dkf Dec 2012 #12

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Welcome To The Reagan Rev...»Reply #9