Crunch the Numbers
When you do the math, hiring older applicants makes a lot more sense
They say that numbers don’t lie and there comes a time in your job search when you can use those numbers to your ultimate advantage.
Let’s start with the younger competition. Shockingly, college career counselors today are advising graduates not to stay at their jobs more than 3-5 years. For the employer, that means that at first blush the company may save some money hiring a younger candidate by paying a lower salary, but if that young employee leaves in 3-5 years, how much has the organization gained?
Factor in the cost of replacement. According to the National Association of Working Women, mature men and women have an 88 percent lower turnover rate than younger workers.
Why is this important? The Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) estimates that – for a manager making $40,000 a year – to recruit and train that manager’s replacement, the cost to the organization is between $20,000 – $30,000. Spend that amount to replace younger workers every 3-5 years and pretty soon, you’re talking real money.
Last, let’s factor in the chronological realities of today’s workforce. With most workers staying on the job past age 65, it’s not unrealistic to expect that a new hire between the ages of 50-55 could stay on the job 15-20 years. National Public Radio reports that one of every two age 50-55 workers fully expects to still be working at age 70. In such cases, the organization saves a considerable sum in replacement costs… not to mention higher productivity, more experience, etc., etc.
With younger workers leaving at a faster clip and the high cost of replacement, now it is financially advantageous for the organization to hire the older applicant.