I am convinced that my 26 years of editorial experience is working against me in terms of seeking another FT job, especially in today's declining job market.
As to required experience, job ads often indicate that the employer is looking for an editor with perhaps 8 to 10 years, tops.
Anything above that would, in most employers' view, put a very experienced editor way beyond the top of their salary range.
And as someone who has hired and managed editors, even I would admit that I'd probably hire an editor with 8, as opposed to 26 years of experience. If that candidate has been in the field that long and has advanced in her career, she'd fit the bill just fine.
We've heard of job hunters who "dumb down" their resumes by removing post-graduate degrees to eliminate the possibility that they will be viewed, for example, as too smart, over-qualified, and likely to be bored.
I suppose I could delete 10 years or so from my resume. But I value all of it, and it shows a long, accomplished career. I do not want to deny so much of my professional life.