4 ms·
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 a
by 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 agoMy 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 agoMost 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.
- watwut 7y agoWhat would they gain by retiring, exactly?
- commandlinefan 7y agoAnd what would the students gain? I mean, I get that younger people want to become professors, but the students are better off being taught by somebody who’s been teaching and researching the field in question as long as possible.
- Thiez 7y agoIt is said that science advances one funeral at a time. As a student I would prefer someone with a medium amount of teaching and research experience.
- analyst74 7y agoWouldn't that encourage more risk taking from younger generation, if they have no realistic shot at top jobs until decades later?
- dx87 7y agoOnly if they already have money or some kind of safety net, otherwise they are forced to take whatever job they can get.
- thrower123 7y agoIt's really striking how many of the top people in different fields are essentially the same today as they were twenty or thirty years ago. Look at politics. Look at Hollywood. Look, though to a lesser degree, but still markedly more so than in previous eras, at sports. Nobody ages out and opens up their spot anymore. It's a problem when that means the pipeline gets stalled, and causes a lot of problems when the old guard does finally retire or die off, and there are not enough suitable candidates waiting in the wings to pick up, because they have gotten tired of waiting around.
- perl4ever 7y agoI don't really believe in this generalization, but I was struck recently by how a local "classic rock" station is playing the same songs as they did 30 years ago. You'd think that "classic" would have advanced by a few decades. But come on, is your claim really supported by Tom Brady being 42 and not 38? Or by the falling US life expectancy? Or by social security retirement age changing from 65 to 67?
- s1artibartfast 7y ago>This means those occupying the "top" jobs have a much, much, much longer tenure than their predecessors. It seems like tenure would only increase if the "top" positions were staffed with individual of an age consistent with the past. At face value, I think it is equally plausible that tenure has stayed to same but entry age to the top positions has increased.
- war1025 7y agoFor a more cultural example, look at the Queen of England. At this point Prince Charles is so old that he may well just abdicate his kingship to his son. Maybe not. But for most purposes he has been eclipsed by his son.
- gowld 7y agoThe only reason the queen hasn't abdicated is that her children are terrible at royalty.