An entry in the New York Times Magazine’s annual Year in Ideas issue tackled the “reputational stigma” that penalizes people over 45 in today’s brutal job market. When economists pitted "seniors" (over 50) against "juniors" (under 30) in a set of decision-making tasks, the older group proved only “very slightly less” competitive. They also cooperated better, leading to the welcome conclusion that the ideal workforce consists of workers of all ages.

That’s the subtitle of a Newsweek article by contributing editor Eliot Cose, which cites bleak employment statistics for workers over 55, a jump in age-discrimination complaints, and a recent Supreme Court ruling that weakens the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

That’s Truthdig’s headline for Ellen Goodman’s column, more moderately titled “The benefits of working longer” in the Boston Globe. Goodman points out the mixed message going out to older Americans:  keep working to lighten the load on the next generation / retire to make room for the young. While it’s true that workers in their 20’s are most vulnerable to layoffs, the notion that the employment of one group comes at the expense of another is a fallacy - and a persistently ageist one.  Furthermore, as recession looms, the notion that older workers are at liberty to choose whether or not to keep working on feels almost quaint, akin to the presumption that working mothers bail on bottle duty on a whim rather than out of economic necessity.  Goodman shrewdly calls out the policy-makers “revving up generational conflict” and calls on the baby boomers to “to make a virtue — or a revolution — out of the necessity of working longer.”  That’s doable.