Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

I was laid off two years ago. I tried to find representative work for one year without any luck. I sent out around 30 applications I qualified for and received only one interview. I didn't receive as much as a "sorry, but" communication from the rest. I have all but given up with this game. I'm 59 years old and must face the realization that I've reached retirement age. Fortunately, my 28 years at Chevron, my disciplined investing strategies and my "living within my means" lifestyle since joining the company has paid off. I am completely debt and mortgage free and can manage well while I wait for early social security. I still am very active and will likely look for a part time job that can use my education and skill set. No need to do it, but at times I do get bored not working. Chevron laid me off when I still had much to contribute. Their loss, not mine, is my attitude.

So true 1makp. If you are a pale skinned male over 30, don't waste your time applying for a job at CVX. If you a woman, black or brown skinned male or female or if you self identity as LGBT, the door is wide open. I'm both lucky and grateful I don't need to work another day in my life. I especially thank Chevron for the 26 year run I had, because without the pay and benefits I received and socked away in good investments, I am able to retire at last. But for everyone else still needing to work another 15 or more years, I pray you are able to endure the pitiful place to work that Chevron has become. I personally don't think I could take much more of it. So long Chevron. If I get bored someday I'll take a cushy part time job at Home Depot or elsewhere just to pass the time and earn extra beer money.

Get a certificate in HR, that is your ticket to a long career at CVX. Not valid if you are 50 or older and considered pale.

1 year laid off (April 2016) still no job. Industry job postings have picked up recently, but still no bites. End of April, I'll have no rope left.

Efyq, Yes, SS does increase significantly after age 62, as well as 8% per year after FRA if you delay, much more than working more makes a difference per year. The final years of contribution if you already have 25 years or so near the max do not add much to your calculated PIA. The calculation is set up to benefit lower income earners, the final 30% of your addition toward the max annual or the last 10 of the 35 years do not add significantly, as you alluded to. Do the math. It's clearly explained at the SS website.

I've never heard a dead person say "I'm sorry that I delayed taking social security". however, I have spoken to many early retirees who said that they probably should have waited, for both them and their spouse's consideration.

Given that this thread in the end has slid into scapegoats and conspiracy one can assume the answer to the OP is that there has been no jobs out there for laid off oil industry workers and prospects continue to look bleak as companies continue layoffs. This downturn is a bad one.

All who are complicit in this conspiracy to deprive American citizens of jobs and a way to earn a living have blood on their hands. The love of money is indeed the root of all evil. Prepare yourselves. Things will only get harder for unemployed Americans.

Thanks for the YouTube video link, Ekpq. It was really a blow to the gut to see how some law firms participate with greedy big corporations to find a "legal" way to by-pass US workers who are qualified to be hired, but instead are pushed aside in order to get H1B visas issued to foreigners on the basis they are need because there is no qualified Americans available to fill the positions. Where's the Congress and our Representatives when such blatant behavior is going on in front our our eyes? Outrageous!

Just saw this on another lay off board. This is why tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of laid off people are not able to find new jobs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU

Assuming your not on the financial edge this early/late SS start discussion really all boils down to the same discussion as the lump sum vs the retirement annuity....although the relative balance of choices is a bit different I will grant you. If you likely to die sooner take the payments asap, if you expect to live a long time delay the start. If you think that market will have 1990s like returns the next 30 years, then take the money sooner and invest it. If you think the system is unstable such that you will soon be means tested out start as soon as you can. If you expect that SS is likely to continue to function more or less as currently planned, then it is one of the few inflation adjusted annuity like vehicles out the that can be maximized by delaying your start date as much as possible. Your choice! Not sure what all the ranker is about.

I started taking SS payments last year at 62. My monthly payment is 27% less than if I waited until age 66. I was laid off last year and have almost zero chance of ever being professionally employed again in the oil industry. I did the math on this and found out that it would take 11 years of full benefit payments to offset the 4 'extra' years at a reduced benefit. Taking reduced benefits from 62 through 77 equals full benefits from 66 through 77. Also, as the previous post mentions, I could die next week, future income will not change my benefit, future SS benefits may be cut so why wait. Remember, the SSA wants you to die as early as possible. A long life is not in their best interest.

I plan on taking early social security at 62 for several reasons:

1) I really don't need SS Benefits to survive, but it's mine, so I want it asap.

2) I don't know if I'll die at 63 or 163, so I'll take it sooner rather than later.

3) I'm retired and no longer working, so my SS benefit will not grow that much by waiting past 62.

4) I figure if I start SS at 62, I'll be collecting many more (smaller) payments rather than far fewer (larger) payments if waiting to start later on.

5) I figure if I start receiving SS at 62 and the government decided to adversely change the rules by increasing the minimum age, scaling back the benefit amounts or making any other change, I would be "grandfathered" and not be affected by any change.

6) I understand that no matter when a person starts collecting SS, the total amount of money the person would accumulate would be nearly the same during the person's lifetime if that person lived until the year the Social Security Administration has calculated based on average mortality statistics. It really comes down to whether you are lucky enough to outlive the years the SSA has calculated for you. Few people will come out ahead by taking SS at 62 and a few at 70, but the great majority will see no significant difference.

So, don't think the SSA is running a lottery system by favoring one age group over another. If you are still working or plan to continue looking for work, it's best to not start SS until you definitely are out of the workforce. Start at 62 if you are retired and postpone SS if you are still working.

Waiting until 70 delivers the highest low risk return available anywhere.

Duqo, I have done an extensive amount of research into all of the SS options and am quite familiar with the detailed downloadable calculator, AnyPIA including the optional Trustee's reports benefits increase assumptions. I just read Cvdb's post and the information she or he provided, although not detailed, is 100% accurate. However, the previous poster cited, Cdvn, has a slight misunderstanding about how the benefits are calculated and the effects on his/her benefits besides being disgruntled and anger-ridden. Feel free to elaborate on your claim. Cheers!

There are only two reasons to take SS before age 70. First, if you need the money early and don't have a choice really. Second, if you expect to live into your 80s and can therefore achieve a higher NPV by waiting for the bigger checks.

Oh boy, Cvdb. You better do some research if you are no longer working by the time you hit 62 and expect to retire forever after that age. I certainly did. Some simple math in an Excel spreadsheet is all it takes. For everyone else reading this post, don't go for the flawed info that Cvdb is peddling.

@Cyzn, If I told you something and you didn't hear me the first time, I'd say you were deaf. But, I spelled out in my post why I would take social security at 62. So, if you couldn't read it properly or didn't re-read it again, then I'd call you a moron... which you appear to be.

Let me repeat my point once more, for the hard-of-comprehending. I am deciding to take early Social Security at 62 because I'm retired and have no intentions of working after 62. It's more advantageous for me to start collecting my benefits then, although reduced at 62, than to wait a few years later. The rationale being that the very slight increase for waiting more years will be lost out because by not working after age 62, my highest 35-year average wage base would not have increased one iota. I would have only wasted time not collecting my age 62 benefit.

Now if you still can't understand that simple explanation, you are either being a troll or you are a flat out imbecile.

Adgl, you apparently were not disciplined enough and did a poor job investing if you need to take SS early to make ends meet. No need for a BS success story snappy come-back. We know better. You apparently failed to do your research yourself but think you are in a position to lecture others. Keep it to yourself, we don't need any advice on how to be a failure.

I have found a pretty good job in sales in a different field. I make a little less but the benefits are good. And since the topic is SS, no, there's no way I will need or want to take it at 62, bad idea. I am not that desperate. I will have more than enough and will look forward to the increased payments when I really need it and my ability to think and manage finances fade. To each his own.

I do not really need the money but I have been doing work for people in my neighborhood and enjoying it. Small construction projects. It's a blast. I meet new people, have something to do, work my own hours, make a little extra beer money, life doesn't get much better. I will never go back to a major or regular job after this. Too much fun and no stress.

I don't know about all the politics but I agree that the COLA'd SS payment is better utilized if you can hold off. The larger payments are worth it if you have a spouse who inherits it and your older years are better off with the constant payment that you don't have to monitor, etc. Of course, it takes longer to break even but if you make it that far, there's more to look forward to. I never met a dead person who said they regretted delaying SS. The goal of SS is not to max how much money you can milk from the program but to maximize it's "utility value", which means, don't take it early unless you absolutely need it. Of course everyone's case is unique. The CVX pension is not COLA'd, like SS. Nice safety net. For the poster who didn't know, FIRE is a term used in many retirement communities and means "Financially Independent Retired Early". It is not a derogatory term at all, just the opposite.

Wow, that's an Obummer about working for Chevron for that long and having to take early social sec. I hope that I don't end up that way, pretending to be all high and mighty on an anonymous forum and having to take early SS like a loser. I don't depend on the government and didn't vote for loser Hillary either.

@LgYH0qJ-Adgl , You sure sound like a pathetic dweeb is right. We are all so sorry that you did not properly prepare for your future and have to take an early tiny reduced SS payment at 62 instead of the full amount. Can't say they didn't tell you so. Your pathetic financial situation is no one's fault but your own. If you had a job with CVX, you had the opportunity, but just decided to flounder it away. Pardon me if I don't cry you a river.

You're the same dweeb that likes to bring up that FIRE crap all the time. Play with fire and you may get burned. Yes, I'll likely be taking my social security at 62, since I'm not working anymore and no longer building an increasing base average wage. BTW, do your research. You'll be amazed that financial independence at 59 is not always possible, even for long term Chevron employees. I gained my FI through disciplined savings and investing. It wasn't overly difficult, but wasn't easy either.

I was laid off in late 2015 and tried hard to find a reasonable job for 12 months after leaving Chevron. I soon learned it was my age, not my capable skills and experience that was holding me back. I came to terms that working for a company as an employee was no longer something for me. I thank my lucky stars every last day of the month. That's when I receive my Chevron pension annuity payment direct-deposited to my checking account like clockwork. I am now retired and have no need or desire to work anymore. I'm 59 years old and financially secure. I can do practically anything I want to do. I like traveling and seeing new places and meeting interesting people. I have been doing some of that around our beautiful country, but plan to travel overseas when I start taking my social security in 3 to 6 years. Thank God I'm fine and don't need to take distributions on my 401k and IRA accounts until much later on when I'm 70.5. Life beyond work has grown well on me. I wish the same to everyone else.

YES started my own business and very successful. Looking at the people running Chevron made me not want to go back to Corporate America. The ROM's are fixed and the leftovers are leftovers... Chevron is doing worse than ever before because they let experience walk out the door. I have seen it in Houston, California, New Orleans and Pennsylvania, they keep the wrong people. Then they have inexperienced HR running the organization. Anthem BC/BS s---s, but I guess with all the cuts, you have to downgrade, just like they did in the ROMS , downgraded the talent. Thank goodness they gave me money and time to start my own business. I suggest if you are waiting for a job, go work for your self..

I have a part-time job making a fraction of what I made before with no benefits. I do not need the money, because I don't spend much, not because I'm wealthy. It's fun, in the construction industry, gives me some spending money, sometime to break up my days/weeks and I enjoy it. I am mid-50's. I feel like I am "back in the world" again. I didn't know what I was missing all those years working in cube-city!

No, I'm still looking after 1.5 years with some 40 applications and 2 interviews. At 59, I am resigned to the fact that I'm too old for the jobs I want and overqualified for the jobs that pay half the amount I once earned. It has not been good looking for work so far.

yes. I got a job after 6 months at 30% salary what I was making. it is very tough out there.

To those that think employees with less than 5 years of experience had/have an easier time finding jobs are mistaken. I was laid off and have about 4 years of experience. I applied to around 130 jobs before I was finally offered a position. I would estimate that only 5-10% of the jobs I applied for did I actually satisfy the experience requirements. The rest of the jobs usually required 5-10 years of experience. So it seems to me that the sweet spot is really the 5-10 year range. Or rather they at least had the most jobs to apply for--whether or not those jobs were actually filled is a whole different story...

Wow. That's an Obummer. Sorry about that.

@7fjd, you must mean "One is enough". Like it's said very often... Can't live with them, can't live without them. But surely, one is enough, right?

Haven't found a job yet, still looking. Don't need a woman, got that, one is too many - LOL!

7fmh... I like your post. So much so I could have written it myself, although at 55. My values have certainly changed for the positive. Thanks.

Why do all the jokers and hecklers have to ruin every thread? The OP has a very pertinent and interesting question.

I have been unemployed for about a year or so and have not been looking for a job. 51 YO. I would have preferred to work a little longer but don't fancy fighting for the few available jobs in the O&G industry. I do not need the money since I planned well. no debt. I may end up doing a low-paying job for fun or volunteer. I enjoy working, just not the stress of the corporate environment. I also don't mind living frugally and kind of enjoy it. You get more out of life. You notice the things that are more important, that money can't buy, without the distractions. I can afford to travel as much as I want but don't often. Been to many countries. Been there, done that. Good luck to everyone who got laid off.

...Beware of covetousness for a man's life consists not in the things he posesses, for we brought nothing into this world and it is certain we can bring nothing out....

I am a laid off chevroid and still haven't found a job that I like, just a little part-time work. Low paying, but enjoyable at least. And I agree with the poster who says that a million is not quite enough to retire unless you have very low expenses in a low cost area. And that person who says he's a millionaire(usually indicative of first million, multimillionaires are rarely boastful, most are not arrogant pricks), most likely just made it. Typical forum etiquette. however, with the right planning, you can retire at 65 with 3 or $400k, and SS but not in many parts of the country and with the typical modern conveniences that a Chevroid would be used to. That's the problem, most chevroids are used to living the good life and don't know what cutting back is all about.

And then will a company want to hire a worker who has been out of work for 2+ years???

In December of last year Chevron announced a 2017 CAPEX budget of $19.8 billion. This is the 4th consecutive year of budget cuts and is a 15% reduction from the 2016 budget and a 42% reduction from 2015 budget. The 2018 budget amount is currently projected to be about the same as 2017. Just think about that - a 42% reduction from just 2 short years ago. If you are over 40 and out of work, you are in deep doo-doo. Finding another job that is relevant to your background will be like winning the lottery. Real, sustained hiring can easily be 2 more years away. The whole situation just really s---s.

@5tiw, it's not surprising to me that most laid off energy workers are still out of work. It doesn't take a university study to figure that out, because most energy workers who lost their jobs were older than 45. Those in their 50's or older won't find a permanent job anywhere paying more than 60% of their previous pay. Never.