30 has been the younger generation's "god your old!" cut off point for a long time. I seem to recall some folks that used to say "Never trust anyone over 30"; I am not sure what happened to them though. I can only assume that some of them are involved in the producing, packing and marketing of Amy Winehouse...

What a bunch of morons.

I know, I know. We have to deal with reality. And sometimes that means not telling the truth, because the truth will not only not set you free, it will bind you in chains strong enough for Hercules.

But I don't have to like it. And I especially don't have to like the unapologetic practitioners of the "younger is better" credo.

that it took me so long to get ALL my act together. I didn't finish college until my early 30's, after which I immediately went to grad school. Therefore, my resume makes me look much younger than I am, since so many of my nontraditional peers actually finished college in their early 20's, but didn't apply to grad school until their 30's. I was told this would help me, and in viewing my other similarly aged counterparts, it appears it has.

And I agree, I think it's a money issue, not age per se.

and she's got emphysemia at 24; who's old?

You certainly made that clear. Hope you enjoyed your dance class otherwise.

are those who can produce the resume/personal history/charisma equivalent of a block buster move is going to have very few people in it who have any kind of a life.

This is not just and issue for women, or the entertainment/marketing industry. Middle aged men in just about any tech field, and in other fields are routinely discriminated against, in most job categories except top management. This really started in the 80's, but accelerated in the 90's to the present.

You are in a double bind-- Your experience is not recognized as relevant to the latest "revision," or change of vocabulary and terminology, which seems to occur every 6 months to one year. If you are under 40 or so, it is automatically assumed you "get it." Over 40, and you don't "get it."

In fact, when it's time for cutbacks, it's also age, and the potiential health care costs, before youth that gets the axe, no matter how much you contribute.

In many fields that involve sales (e.g. marketing, entertainment) the desired demographic is the 18-34 year-olds. It is understandable, if perhaps wrong-headed, that employers would prefer candidates closer to this age range because they're more likely to be "in touch" with what's "cool", and therefore better at knowing what to sell and how to sell it to this group.

In tech fields, technology has been changing very rapidly. Younger candidates are more likely to have been formally-educated more recently in the latest technologies, which is of obvious benefit to the employer. Also, there is the (perhaps mis-)conception that younger people are less set-in-their-ways/more adaptable to change, which makes them more capable of responding when the next big thing comes along.

It didn't start in the 1980's. It's been the preferred mode at academic institutions for much longer. Those would be the same institutions where the professors routinely come out in favor of laws against age discrimination. The institutions that, especially in their technical departments, support the myth of "peaking" in intellectual ability around 30-35. Studies have shown this to be an inadvertent measure of burnout, caused by the tenure system, but so what? If it supports hiring fresh grads, it's a good myth, and at elite institutions where you can hire your own former grad students, so much the better for consolidating power.

And at corporations, listen to all the talk about bringing in fresh new blood and young ideas and expect to find your project downgraded and personnel shifts leading to a perfectly innocuous cut in the number of projects that just so happens to shitcan everybody in the division over 45 -- yeah, right, did you know you are a member of a protected class if you are over 40? You can think about it all that means on the way to the unemployment office.

It's not just discrimination in new hires, although I thought that was well known, it's also being put out to pasture. Companies have been "laying" off older men for years for one reason, and it aint skill sets or looks...it's $$$. 20/25 years of experience means more than likely you are carrying a large salary and guess what, companies feel they can get someone younger (cheaper) to do the same job. So make sure your saving, cause you can't pay the bills bagging groceries.

. . . a few years younger than my actual age (66). But even so, about twenty years ago I realized that my resume needed trimming. I started dropping jobs way back then. I've been lucky that, once I get to the interview, I usually get hired.

But that's for accounting ~~ I doubt I'd pass the age test in anything that the powers that be think requires youth.

First of all, as a boss, I can tell you that if someone is giving me a CV or a resume without a college graduation date, I KNOW they are afraid of seeming old. And in fact, that usually makes me think they're alot older than they are----why else would you hide it?

Also, if you supply your graduation date and then having gaps in your work experience, that is a huge red flag. So dropping early work experience is just stupid.

Finally, if their first job seems way too advanced to be a first job, then I know they are hiding their entry levels.

What if you work in an area (like academics) in which your publication record is a key aspect of your hire-ability. There are dates there. Odd as it may be, there has been pressure in those areas forever, because really, the issue is not whether or not you are old---it's whether or not you are a wunderkind. Have you achieved by age 30 what most people don't achieve until age 50?

It seems to me that is the key issue here and THAT is what we need to be addressing. Americans are unrealistic in their expectations of life and work.