Retired Workers Will Be Wooed to Return

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I think this article is "right on" and I am 67 now - go AGELESS!!

chales kelly of GA 5:17AM March 21, 2012

I'll believe this worker shortage when I see it - and foreclosures go down dramatically.

Carl of MN 5:35PM March 20, 2012

I'll believe this worker shortage when I see it - and foreclosures go down dramatically.

Carl of MN 5:33PM March 20, 2012

Um... did you forget that the 20-somethings are a second baby boom population? There are as many of them as the baby boomers generation. So there may be a smaller amount of 30-50 yr olds, but I'm sure that the 20 yr olds will be happy to fill jobs.

Tamela of CO 3:04PM March 20, 2012

My thoughts on this is after 25 years in the medical field a family illness kept me out of the work place for 7 years. Obviously I need to get current training to update my position as a laboratory technician so I decided to get my degree in clinical laboratory science. But in the back of my mind being 50 plus will I be hired after graduation. I know that employers are not suppose to discriminate but they do.

Kelly Evanitsky of MO 4:50PM December 29, 2011

I want to believe it, because then it means the younger people will have a job available also. But, I don't believe it. I just can't see it. Enough people wanted a United States the looked like Europe, and I do believe they are going to get it.

DD of AR 1:17PM July 11, 2010

I've heard all this before in business school about the composition of workforce of the future. Blah, blah, blah - tell it to someone who will swallow it. I didn't then and I don't now. Companies won't hire older workers any more in the future than they do now, regardless of their experience, ability, or committment to delivering an excellent product or service. Companies will either whine about not being able to find "qualified workers" (bulls***) and demand higher H1B visa quota's, or use it as an excuse to offshore operations even more. Eventually, these companies will wake up and realize they've offshored everything except fast food employees and WalMart greeters.

Bob of CA 4:06PM June 09, 2010

Why all the talk of "extending" Social Security full-benefits age? What would be the point, other than reducing benefits when retirees start before their full-benefits age? When SS was passed in 1935, one of the arguments was that older folks would be encouraged to take their SS and retire, making their jobs available for the unemployed. Why should that be different now? Why encourage the elderly to work if they don't have to? Why take a job that someone else needs desperately? I don't get it.

George Fulmore of CA 1:23AM June 06, 2010

We've heard this all before. The previous comment pretty well sums it up. When I retired, in 1997, Iwas unable to find a susequent position that wouldhave used my experienc. I would have been very willing to take part time employment, but employers wanted complete control of the employees.
Now that I'm older, I really don't care anymore. Those employers who think we older experienced workers (many of us come with benefits eg: retired military) are too expensive, should look at reality instead of preconceived notions based on hearsay instead of facts. They will either end up with vacant positions or go broke. I now say tough toe nails.

N Davis of FL 11:08AM May 12, 2010