7 ms·

> Why are so many people in top positions, whether in the public or private sector, so old? ... because they're the most experienced? When in human history ha

> Why are so many people in top positions, whether in the public or private sector, so old? ... because they're the most experienced? When in human history has this not been the case? And what in the world makes you think this isn't the way it should be?

djtriptych 7y ago
I think the question here is whether it's easier to take risks now versus a generation ago.
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  Then they should be comparing where people in previous generations were at the same point in their life. Not where previous generations are at the same point in time.
- romaaeterna 7y ago
  This sort of generational change has happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Generation Also see Pareto on foxes and lions.
  - GFischer 7y ago
    First time I see the foxes and lions thing, thanks for sharing. Found this link: https://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2017/3/6/paretos-two-types-of-elites-lions-and-foxes https://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2017/3/6/paretos-two-types-of...
- shams93 7y ago
  If we get rid of student loans this could change overnight, we have fashioned a society that punishes risk taking on so many levels but the student debt is the strongest driver I can see its basically a return of the indentured servitude culture of the 18th century when most people came to this country under the auspices of indenture.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  A lot of the young engineers I work with are definitely weighed down by their college debt, super high housing cost and health cost. A generation ago buying a house was much more affordable. So was college. So I'd say, yes, a generation ago it was easier to take a risk because today you don't have much less margin of error.
Psyladine 7y ago
Think about how much has changed in the past 30 years. The average american is 10x the productivity of his equivalent, but at a cost of specialized skills. That "experienced" human being also came from a generation that could scoff at, say, learning to type ("i'm not a secretary!") which on the surface makes them look more inept, but that's only true if they were starting out today. Instead they were able to invest in skills and opportunities invisible to a modern workforce largely in debt largely uncertain and, in contrast to the author's posit: >Who wants to work on mastering a complex task for 10 or 15 years, with no real guarantee of commercial success?
zbobet2012 7y ago
The thing that's different in now vs then, is that the span of the average human life (and the underlying span of healthy operation) has increased an enormous amount... in a single lifespan. This means those occupying the "top" jobs have a much, much, much longer tenure than their predecessors. This is coupled with massive consolidation in industry and politics meaning there is less and less of those jobs in the first place. Hence much of the dissatisfaction of the younger generation.
- BossingAround 7y ago
  > This means those occupying the "top" jobs have a much, much, much longer tenure than their predecessors. "Much, much longer tenure" is a bit of a stretch. This is more about scarsity of certain jobs. We require a lot of 'on the ground' workers, e.g. software developers, and orders of magnitude fewer CEOs, CIOs, directors, etc. It's similar to someone wanting to get into a management position. Once the position is filled, and the person is doing at the very least "slightly above awful" job, you won't hire a manager for that team for quite some time.
- dx87 7y ago
  My wife tutors at a college, and she said the same thing about the professors there. She said that most of them looked well past retirement age, and some could barely stand up on their own or talk loud enough for a class to hear them. Meanwhile, the younger people who want to teach are stuck being adjunct professors with no job stability or benefits, or working as tutors grading papers and picking up the slack for teachers that refuse to retire.
  - commandlinefan 7y ago
    > well past retirement age I'll be working well past retirement age, not necessarily because I won't want to retire, but because there's no way I'll be able to afford it.
    - imtringued 7y ago
      Most pension systems assume x years of payments. Just because people are getting older doesn't change the fact that the money won't last. Therefore the retirement age gets adjusted upward until it is average life expectancy - x years of retirement.
zelly 7y ago
> When in human history has this not been the case? Let me take you on a walk down Soma. Age and income are inversely correlated.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  Sorry, you lost me there... Soma, Japan?
  - zelly 7y ago
    Sorry, south of Market (where there happen to be a lot of offices for startups)
    - Scoundreller 7y ago
      (San Francisco)

djtriptych 7y ago

I think the question here is whether it's easier to take risks now versus a generation ago.

TallGuyShort 7y ago
Then they should be comparing where people in previous generations were at the same point in their life. Not where previous generations are at the same point in time.
romaaeterna 7y ago
This sort of generational change has happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Generation Also see Pareto on foxes and lions.
- GFischer 7y ago
  First time I see the foxes and lions thing, thanks for sharing. Found this link: https://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2017/3/6/paretos-two-types-of-elites-lions-and-foxes https://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2017/3/6/paretos-two-types-of...
shams93 7y ago
If we get rid of student loans this could change overnight, we have fashioned a society that punishes risk taking on so many levels but the student debt is the strongest driver I can see its basically a return of the indentured servitude culture of the 18th century when most people came to this country under the auspices of indenture.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
A lot of the young engineers I work with are definitely weighed down by their college debt, super high housing cost and health cost. A generation ago buying a house was much more affordable. So was college. So I'd say, yes, a generation ago it was easier to take a risk because today you don't have much less margin of error.

Psyladine 7y ago

Think about how much has changed in the past 30 years. The average american is 10x the productivity of his equivalent, but at a cost of specialized skills. That "experienced" human being also came from a generation that could scoff at, say, learning to type ("i'm not a secretary!") which on the surface makes them look more inept, but that's only true if they were starting out today. Instead they were able to invest in skills and opportunities invisible to a modern workforce largely in debt largely uncertain and, in contrast to the author's posit: >Who wants to work on mastering a complex task for 10 or 15 years, with no real guarantee of commercial success?

zbobet2012 7y ago

The thing that's different in now vs then, is that the span of the average human life (and the underlying span of healthy operation) has increased an enormous amount... in a single lifespan. This means those occupying the "top" jobs have a much, much, much longer tenure than their predecessors. This is coupled with massive consolidation in industry and politics meaning there is less and less of those jobs in the first place. Hence much of the dissatisfaction of the younger generation.

BossingAround 7y ago
> This means those occupying the "top" jobs have a much, much, much longer tenure than their predecessors. "Much, much longer tenure" is a bit of a stretch. This is more about scarsity of certain jobs. We require a lot of 'on the ground' workers, e.g. software developers, and orders of magnitude fewer CEOs, CIOs, directors, etc. It's similar to someone wanting to get into a management position. Once the position is filled, and the person is doing at the very least "slightly above awful" job, you won't hire a manager for that team for quite some time.
dx87 7y ago
My wife tutors at a college, and she said the same thing about the professors there. She said that most of them looked well past retirement age, and some could barely stand up on their own or talk loud enough for a class to hear them. Meanwhile, the younger people who want to teach are stuck being adjunct professors with no job stability or benefits, or working as tutors grading papers and picking up the slack for teachers that refuse to retire.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  > well past retirement age I'll be working well past retirement age, not necessarily because I won't want to retire, but because there's no way I'll be able to afford it.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    Most pension systems assume x years of payments. Just because people are getting older doesn't change the fact that the money won't last. Therefore the retirement age gets adjusted upward until it is average life expectancy - x years of retirement.

zelly 7y ago

> When in human history has this not been the case? Let me take you on a walk down Soma. Age and income are inversely correlated.

commandlinefan 7y ago
Sorry, you lost me there... Soma, Japan?
- zelly 7y ago
  Sorry, south of Market (where there happen to be a lot of offices for startups)
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    (San Francisco)