Rachel L. Swarns, writing for the New York Times:
The hard truth, as she has learned it: No one is eager to hire someone of her age — not Lowe’s, not the local nursing home, not the accounting and law firms where she once thrived.
This spring, a friend told her about a temporary position as an elementary school aide in Brooklyn. It paid about $21,000 a year, with no benefits. Ms. Scarino, who once earned $160,000 a year, didn’t think twice.
Some might marvel at her shifting circumstances. Ms. Scarino, whose dreams of retirement have collapsed along with her savings account, is just grateful for the work.
What’s the deeper meaning here, I wonder.
Was the demand for her former employer’s services low enough that it didn’t make sense to keep her on, even in a part-time capacity?
Was her former employer not interested in an employee as expensive as she was — was she replaced by a less expensive, younger worker?
If in fact she was producing $160,000 of value annually, it seems shocking to me that no one would offer to hire her for similar work at a lower rate. Isn’t that what’s supposed to happen when demand lessens?
But of course, I don’t know the specific details in this case.