2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Well said, Sally.  Quite aside from the (yawn) blaming of liberals versus conversatives, or statistics recitations, or conceptual comments in this thread, this description of life in the trenches is the reality for many folks, even before the great economic unwinding, but especially now.  There has always been age discrimination but in this digital connectivity age, many (not all) of the ever-younger, with their collective narcissism and sense of entitlement, visit this snarkiness on the more wise, experienced (and older) members of our society.  Age discrimination just increases the hiring problems now.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I noted the guest who mentioned how frustrating it is for people to not be able to land jobs because their potential employers say they are "overqualified". When asked by the host to explain what that actually meant in his case, the gentleman said he was actually told during an interview, "We don't want to hire you because your experience makes you too valuable. You will seek work elsewhere as soon as the economy turns around and we don't want to invest time and energy into you."

So in other words, a Catch-22 here. One has to be just smart enough to be interesting to an employer, but not smart enough (in that potential employer's judgment) to be interesting to anyone else. How does anyone walk that tightrope? It's ridiculous. Employers should *value* the broad experience and knowledge of intelligent and/or skilled potential employees. The fact that such prospective employees might eventually seek work elsewhere is no different in the future as it was in the past. And many employers, for the most part, offer zero loyalty to employees, so it's patently unfair in this economy to be filtering for employee loyalty now in their hiring processes.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context