I've been thinking about a contradiction that's playing out in workplaces right now. Some workers over 50 are being pushed out the moment they mention retirement. Others, sometimes in their 70s, are being described as indispensable by their colleagues. What separates these two realities? And what can we learn from both?
The Man Who Said Too Much
There's a story making rounds this week about a man who told his employer he planned to retire at 63. Within days, he found himself out of work, not on his terms, but theirs. He thought he was being transparent and professional. Instead, he'd handed them permission to replace him early.
It's becoming an increasingly common story that no one wants to tell. We share our timeline, thinking we're doing the right thing, and suddenly we've made ourselves expendable. The research backs this up: over half of workers aged 50 and older are pushed out before they planned to retire, often after decades of loyalty to a single company.
The lesson here isn't cynicism, it's awareness. Your timeline is yours to protect.
The 70-Year-Old They Can't Replace
On the other end of the spectrum, I came across a post this week defending a team member over 70. A former CTO who's made millions, still solves hard problems, never complains about compensation, and freely shares advice with colleagues. The poster called ageism "complete rubbish" and described this person as one of the best employees they've ever worked with.
It's a small story, but it matters because it reminds us that age doesn't determine value. Contribution does.
What the Research Actually Shows
This isn't just anecdotal. Harvard Business Review highlighted research showing that older hires often bring lower turnover and greater stability, natural mentoring ability and institutional knowledge, and high value in roles requiring judgment and complex problem-solving.
This isn't about older workers being "just as good" as younger ones. In many contexts, we're better suited for the work.
The numbers support this shift too. Workers 65 and older are now one of the fastest-growing segments of the U.S. workforce, a trend that's been building for over two decades. According to Pew Research, adults 65 and older will account for 57 percent of labor force growth between 2022 and 2032.
Even regulators are taking notice. The NCUA now requires all federally insured credit unions to have written succession plans, effective this month. It's a recognition that experienced workers hold knowledge that can't be easily replaced.
The Choice Factor
Not every departure is forced, of course. There was an amusing piece in Newsweek this week noting that some baby boomers are retiring specifically to avoid working with Gen Z. Take that with a grain of salt and maybe a smile. Generational friction goes both ways, and sometimes the decision to leave is about fit, not failure.
Making Sense of the Contradiction
So how do we make sense of these two realities existing simultaneously? Some of us are being pushed out while others are being held onto. The difference often comes down to how we're positioned and how we position ourselves.
The man who announced his retirement timeline made himself a target. The 70-year-old CTO remained valuable because his contribution was undeniable and his attitude was collaborative. One shared too much too early. The other let his work speak for itself.
It's not fair that we have to think strategically about something as basic as planning our own retirement. But it's the reality we're navigating.
If you're in that vulnerable space right now — uncertain whether you're closer to the 63-year-old who got pushed out or the 70-year-old they can't do without — you're not alone. Most of us are wondering the same thing. The key might be focusing less on our age and more on our contribution. It shouldn't have to be this way, but understanding the game helps us play it better.
Cheers,
Max
If you wish to listen to the full audio podcast, go to: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2451398/episodes/18590203