There is an age gap in the economy. The perceptions - and realities - of those who have most of their working lives ahead of them are different from those who have already crossed the halfway point.

WHEN management gurus preach the need for 'creative destruction' in the economy, one wonders what the message means for employees.

For the young, it probably spells new opportunities, the promise of virgin terrain where inexperience is no barrier to success.

But among the old - anyone past 40 - I'm guessing that not a few fear it is they who will be creatively destroyed.

There is an age gap in the economy. The perceptions - and realities - of those who have most of their working lives ahead of them are different from those who have already crossed the halfway point.

For the latter group, it may be unnecessarily bleak to think that it's downhill from there on, but there is no avoiding the sense that one's earning power won't last forever. It's not just one's finite shelf life that becomes apparent, but also the creeping sense that even the productive days one is able to contribute are less valued.

There are gurus who tell us that age is just a state of mind, but one would have to be downright delusional to imagine that age does not matter in the workplace.

Of course, there are bright spots. Two of my colleagues are in the midst of researching a story about very old workers who are still going strong. Hearing from the reporters and reading their drafts, one got the sense that few of these employees felt discriminated against. It is probably one of the many secrets of their workplaces' success in retaining them.

It is not easy to avoid being ageist. In comparison, it is harder to get away with gender and race discrimination. For example, when workers get laid off because they are pregnant, the news offends people's sense of decency enough for them to speak up against it. Now, such women even have a celebrity they can relate to, in the form of MediaCorp star Zoe Tay, who hinted recently that she too faced the likely prospect of suffering a loss of income while sporting a baby bump.

When ethnic minorities claim they are being discriminated against, they too can count on some moral outrage from the public. Politicians may dance gingerly around the subject, but at least it is on their radar.

Similarly, gays who encounter unfair treatment from employers are sufficiently aware of their rights to make an issue of it, and they are not short of vocal spokesmen.

However, when workers say that their age cost them their job or a transfer to a less rewarding position, most Singaporeans would not bat an eyelid. Like ageing itself, ageing's effect on employment is seen as something inexorable and natural.

The old are not young, but why should they be seen as automatically inferior? Part of the reason, of course, is the general obsession with youth in our popular culture. Potency and desirability are associated with youth.

There is some good news for older workers in Singapore. The tight labour market and an increasingly ageing population mean that employers have to overcome some of their prejudices if they are to stay in business. Indeed, the employment rate for people aged 55 to 64 hit record highs last year, with 78 per cent of men in their late 50s and 60 per cent in their early 60s holding jobs.

These employment rates for older Singaporeans compare favourably to those in other countries. In Britain, only 54 per cent of males aged 60-64 are working, in the United States 57 per cent, in Taiwan 46 per cent and in Germany 29 per cent.

Singapore's employment rate for women in their late 50s and early 60s also hit record highs, at 43 per cent and 25 per cent respectively. However, it lags far behind corresponding figures for the US (64 per cent and 46 per cent) and for Sweden (77 per cent and 55 per cent). It is clear that older women are finding it hard to retain their jobs or re-enter the workforce. Something concerted needs to be done to overcome their difficulties.

Furthermore, while the current economic boom means a healthy job market for all, young and old, it is only a matter of time before conditions become less favourable. In bad times, will older workers be the first to be let go?

If so, is it because they are the most costly to retain? A Manpower Ministry survey suggests otherwise. According to a ministry study on its website, high wage expectations of older workers is only the fourth most significant reason why companies do not have on their payrolls those aged 50 to 55.

The top three reasons given by firms are that these workers are unable to meet the physical demands of the job (34 per cent); are not flexible and adaptable to changes (around 18 per cent); and are less receptive to training and skills (14 per cent).

These are the same top three reasons for why companies do not hire workers aged 60 or older. The fourth reason for this group is not their high wage expectations but their medical expenses.

If these companies are honest in their responses, the attitudes and abilities of older workers are the chief reasons companies are not enthusiastic about them.

One wonders, however, how many older workers are victims of self-fulfilling prophecies. If bosses perceive them to be unwilling or unable to adapt, do firms then under-invest in training and career planning for older workers because they think it won't be worth the effort?

With seemingly more mouldable young workers knocking at the door, it is the easiest thing in the world to bid farewell to older employees with golden handshakes. And job advertisements - until lately - have often specified the age required for many jobs.

Too often, unionist and Nominated MP Cham Hui Fong tells me, firms ignore those in their late 50s, believing that they are just to be put up with for a few more years. Instead, companies should have invested in their re-skilling in their early 50s so they can continue to be productive beyond 60 or 62.

The human resource philosophies of many companies will require some revamping if older workers are to receive fair treatment. The focus, as advocates have been saying, should be on competencies and behaviour towards tasks at hand. SHL, a company that specialises in assessment tools, says its monitoring of variance in test scores shows that it is often speed that tends to decline with age, not actual performance.

The variation in scores between age groups is insignificant when compared with variations within age groups. More influential factors in determining performance are socio-economic background, education and experiences, not age.

Unless the job requires speed (like Formula One racing) or fine work (like needlepoint), age is less relevant.

Legislation will be in place within five years to make it easier for employers to rehire older workers beyond the official retirement age of 62. But, for the legislation to be meaningful, perceptions need to change. For example, that older workers are not necessarily slower workers.

What about older workers being forced out during bad times? Unions have to be more vigilant against this. And even in good times, will the hiring crunch tempt employers to turn to foreign workers when older workers here are ready and willing to take on the jobs?

In the end, the space that older workers have in the employment scene is a reflection of how society as a whole views them.

If those who are young and in control think the old are there to be merely tolerated, then the old have not much hope. The only solace they can seek is in an old saying: you reap what you sow. The young too will be old someday.

Is this article useful to you?