6 ms·

My CPA/tax guy is 89. He works 20 hours a week, more during tax season. He told me that his friend group all retired at 65-70. They made fun of him, the grou

by e40 4y ago

My CPA/tax guy is 89. He works 20 hours a week, more during tax season. He told me that his friend group all retired at 65-70. They made fun of him, the group of 7 or so guys. Over the next 10+ years they all died and the last few told him he was the smart one, to keep working and have a purpose. The truth is that some people lose their purpose when they retire and some do not. My dad retired at 60 (forced out), he's 88 now. He has a very strong purpose in his life (a sponsor for a bunch of younger men in AA) and he looks as good today as he did 20 years ago. When I take an extended stay-at-home vacation I definitely don't feel as purposeful as I do when I'm working. I actually like getting back to work. However, I'm a founder of a 39 year old company, so it really is my work. Just a small set of data points.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
That's a very American attitude. There's a French expression "Life begins at retirement". Working is something you do for money, it's not the reason for being. It's probably part of the reason why the French live longer than Americans. It's also the reason they riot when the retirement age is raised.
- seizethecheese 4y ago
  And a very natural consequence is lowered living standards over time compared to Americans.
  - westernpopular 4y ago
    By what metric? I'm sure French people don't mind their work life balance, comparatively low inequality, long life expectancy, and good healthcare and infrastructure.
    - propogandist 4y ago
      The PTO my french teams have is incredible. The taxes they have to pay (about 50%) is horrendous.
      - rozenmd 4y ago
        France uses a marginal tax system that stops at 45%, and it only applies on income above 169k euros. We do have to pay social contributions, but in total it's never been more than 30% of my salary.
        propogandist 4y ago
        My colleague was telling me that the general health care system is not very good (unable to get instant attention), so it's typical to pay an extra premium for private health insurance also. He is well compensated, and I suspect he is on the top end of that marginal tax bracket.
  - mym1990 4y ago
    Quality of life between the two is pretty darn close, and probably leans better towards France most of the time. GDP per capita is higher in the US, so Americans can have more stuff, but that's hardly an indication of a happy life. Obesity in America is 40%, and this leads to a host of other healthcare issues...which the healthcare system poorly addresses, either putting patients in massive debt or into drug loops.
borroka 4y ago
Let me add another data point. My grandfather is 93 years old and retired from work between 35 and 40 years ago. He never worked after retirement and enjoys good health for his 93 years. His purpose is to read the newspaper, play cards and watch soccer on television. He also takes coffee with sambuca and drinks between 2 and 4 glasses of wine a day. Plus a liquor after dinner. Maybe it is a matter of genetics, but I myself would gladly stop working tomorrow. It doesn't mean I would get fat on the couch, but I have a lot of interests, dreams and aspirations that have nothing to do with a company paycheck, performance evaluations and wearing a company badge.
- mym1990 4y ago
  I'm sure there are so, so many factors that contribute to longevity, but if that works for your dad, I don't see a reason to stop it!
  - borroka 4y ago
    It is useful to try to quantify processes, even when quantification is challenging. Or even when it is impossible with a reasonable degree of accuracy. We know that longevity, assuming a "regular" life (no 2 packs of cigarettes a day, no handle of vodka a week, moderate exposure to the sun, some exercise, etc.), is strongly influenced by our genes, over which we have very little control, so far. Assuming, for a 60-year-old woman, a gene-determined baseline probability of reaching age 90 in good health of 70% -- which, to simplify things, we take as observed frequencies, i.e., out of 1,000 women with the same set of genes, 700 reach age 90 -- how much behavior or activity x, y, z would move the needle in one direction or the other? Since each man or woman is an island, we cannot know. But you can start thinking and pulling out reasonable numbers, based on observational studies, some intuitions, some quasi-experiments. And I would say that continuing to work until 90 can move the needle in one direction or the other by a maximum of 5% (so, taken the 70% as baseline, we get 65-75%, because for some, like me, working is not exactly hell but at least purgatory, for others it might be the "purpose" that keeps them "alive"). Let's assume that for the woman taken on as a study subject in this comment, continuing to work for, say, 15 hours a week until the end of her life would increase her life span by two years (from 88 to 90 or from 90 to 92). But this entails other costs, less time spent with her husband or friend or children or grandchildren or dogs, which may be costs or benefits to her, since she does not like young children very much after all. Thinking in terms of probabilities, costs and benefits is always helpful.
mym1990 4y ago
Great set of data points and anecdotes, your dad sounds like a great dude.

by e40 4y ago

bryanlarsen 4y ago

That's a very American attitude. There's a French expression "Life begins at retirement". Working is something you do for money, it's not the reason for being. It's probably part of the reason why the French live longer than Americans. It's also the reason they riot when the retirement age is raised.

seizethecheese 4y ago
And a very natural consequence is lowered living standards over time compared to Americans.
- westernpopular 4y ago
  By what metric? I'm sure French people don't mind their work life balance, comparatively low inequality, long life expectancy, and good healthcare and infrastructure.
  - propogandist 4y ago
    The PTO my french teams have is incredible. The taxes they have to pay (about 50%) is horrendous.
    - rozenmd 4y ago
      France uses a marginal tax system that stops at 45%, and it only applies on income above 169k euros. We do have to pay social contributions, but in total it's never been more than 30% of my salary.
      - propogandist 4y ago
        My colleague was telling me that the general health care system is not very good (unable to get instant attention), so it's typical to pay an extra premium for private health insurance also. He is well compensated, and I suspect he is on the top end of that marginal tax bracket.
- mym1990 4y ago
  Quality of life between the two is pretty darn close, and probably leans better towards France most of the time. GDP per capita is higher in the US, so Americans can have more stuff, but that's hardly an indication of a happy life. Obesity in America is 40%, and this leads to a host of other healthcare issues...which the healthcare system poorly addresses, either putting patients in massive debt or into drug loops.

borroka 4y ago

Let me add another data point. My grandfather is 93 years old and retired from work between 35 and 40 years ago. He never worked after retirement and enjoys good health for his 93 years. His purpose is to read the newspaper, play cards and watch soccer on television. He also takes coffee with sambuca and drinks between 2 and 4 glasses of wine a day. Plus a liquor after dinner. Maybe it is a matter of genetics, but I myself would gladly stop working tomorrow. It doesn't mean I would get fat on the couch, but I have a lot of interests, dreams and aspirations that have nothing to do with a company paycheck, performance evaluations and wearing a company badge.

mym1990 4y ago
I'm sure there are so, so many factors that contribute to longevity, but if that works for your dad, I don't see a reason to stop it!
- borroka 4y ago
  It is useful to try to quantify processes, even when quantification is challenging. Or even when it is impossible with a reasonable degree of accuracy. We know that longevity, assuming a "regular" life (no 2 packs of cigarettes a day, no handle of vodka a week, moderate exposure to the sun, some exercise, etc.), is strongly influenced by our genes, over which we have very little control, so far. Assuming, for a 60-year-old woman, a gene-determined baseline probability of reaching age 90 in good health of 70% -- which, to simplify things, we take as observed frequencies, i.e., out of 1,000 women with the same set of genes, 700 reach age 90 -- how much behavior or activity x, y, z would move the needle in one direction or the other? Since each man or woman is an island, we cannot know. But you can start thinking and pulling out reasonable numbers, based on observational studies, some intuitions, some quasi-experiments. And I would say that continuing to work until 90 can move the needle in one direction or the other by a maximum of 5% (so, taken the 70% as baseline, we get 65-75%, because for some, like me, working is not exactly hell but at least purgatory, for others it might be the "purpose" that keeps them "alive"). Let's assume that for the woman taken on as a study subject in this comment, continuing to work for, say, 15 hours a week until the end of her life would increase her life span by two years (from 88 to 90 or from 90 to 92). But this entails other costs, less time spent with her husband or friend or children or grandchildren or dogs, which may be costs or benefits to her, since she does not like young children very much after all. Thinking in terms of probabilities, costs and benefits is always helpful.

mym1990 4y ago

Great set of data points and anecdotes, your dad sounds like a great dude.