Outline ·
[ Standard ] ·
Linear+
Those after 50yo in danger job zone
|
Mixxomon
|
Sep 15 2025, 04:20 PM
|
Getting Started

|
If you're not in leadership position or in a position where decision making or strategic thinking is value or where experience commensurate with your output, then yes, after 40s you're pretty much in danger.
This post has been edited by Mixxomon: Sep 15 2025, 04:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mixxomon
|
Sep 15 2025, 05:04 PM
|
Getting Started

|
QUOTE(hoonanoo @ Sep 15 2025, 05:00 PM) I heard a 50 yo director punya contract not renewed end up have to grab driver with his vellfire Have to see what was his value added proposition he was a director in the first place. A lot of people in directorship position is because of their connection, rather than their strategic know how. Last time I got one guy being made into director simply because he used to work with a major customer. Company hoping he can use his connection to maintain the contract. Mana tau the customer has a major revamp and nuked all the director's contract. Following year no longer a director.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mixxomon
|
Sep 16 2025, 06:18 PM
|
Getting Started

|
QUOTE(netflix2019 @ Sep 16 2025, 03:17 PM) I think here the issue is already 50s' still got multiple kids depending on them. Moral of story here dont make kids after 30. If u do make kid u got to live a tier below your income group. For example T20 salary but live like M40. If u maintain t20 lifestyle u gonna get fucked when u lose your job around 50 y.o I got manager who married late. 55 years old and 2 kids still studying in secondary school, 1 go to Monash Uni. Everyday kena shoot by the big boss, I would've quit if the same language they use on him was used on me. But everyone know hard for him to get another similiar job with that kind of pay, and how badly he need that job, that's why bosses no issue targetting him. This post has been edited by Mixxomon: Sep 16 2025, 06:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mixxomon
|
Sep 17 2025, 03:46 PM
|
Getting Started

|
QUOTE(nihility @ Sep 17 2025, 12:55 PM) There is another pattern forming in silence, one that escapes most people. A generation before us often chanted: “Don’t be loyal, loyalty doesn’t pay off.” This advice was passed down to their younger generation. Because of this conditioning, today’s workforce does not easily stay loyal. The cause and effect of the past is shaping the cause and effect of the present. Now, due to the scarcity of loyalty, SMEs and some corporations have come to value loyalty, especially from capable people—more than anything else. Under current market conditions, those who have remained loyal for 15–20 years find their positions deeply anchored. What dumbfounds me is how this notion of “loyalty” has crossed over into personal human relationships. You can see the same trend running in parallel: modern relationships are no longer as loyal and faithful as in the old days—they mirror the same conditioning we see in the workplace. I wouldn't say conditioning, people are just simply reacting to the environment. They saw how loyalty did not matter during retrenchment. They saw even corporate giants can fail. They saw the consequences of putting all eggs in one basket, and they adapt accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mixxomon
|
Sep 19 2025, 11:04 AM
|
Getting Started

|
QUOTE(olman @ Sep 18 2025, 09:39 PM) Job hunting is never easy. Ageism is a real thing, discrimination happens even at companies that tout to be equal opportunity hire. Even moreso now because of combination ATS + Ai as a first line filter aka Ai recruiter/interviewer...they are moving in this direction. Ageism works both ways. All things equal, why should a 50 year old be given priority over the 25 year old for that Junior clerk position?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mixxomon
|
Sep 19 2025, 12:09 PM
|
Getting Started

|
QUOTE(nihility @ Sep 19 2025, 11:23 AM) There is another dreadful mindset I’ve noticed—some individuals believe that promotion or advancement in rank should come automatically with age, rather than through merit or capability. This kind of thinking is dangerous, both to the individual and to society. For the individual, it creates complacency. They stop learning new tasks or taking on new roles, thinking to themselves: “I’ve reached this level, I’ve already suffered enough; now it’s the younger generation’s turn to go through what I went through.” But without realizing it, they risk being overtaken by younger and more capable peers. For society, I’ve personally seen this in government agencies. Capable people are often held back, while promotions are given out simply based on age. The result is that some retire with the highest possible salary—not because they were the most capable, but because they stayed long enough. To me, this feels unfair to the nation and its people. In the end, we end up paying the highest salaries / pencen by default, not by contribution. Not only in government, in private a lot of boomers in the top management and refuse the idea of even appointing a successor because they want to hold the company hostage to keep their jobs longer. In the end the company get destroyed by the competitor. Anyways those in the top already extracted enough money from the company. Major victims are those in the middle. This post has been edited by Mixxomon: Sep 19 2025, 12:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|