3 ms·

I wonder what percentage of the worlds billionaires are over 50? Over that age the ability to assimilate and do "new stuff" drops of considerably I should think

I wonder what percentage of the worlds billionaires are over 50? Over that age the ability to assimilate and do "new stuff" drops of considerably I should think, along with drive and determination as well. As the article suggests hopefully some of the Zuckerburgs and co will help remedy this.

binarymax 14y ago
This is straight up ageism. When I am 50 I will have 15 more years of knowledge and experience under my belt - and will be just as excited and determined as I am now.
- k__ 14y ago
  can't say this for most of the +50 I know.
  - dasil003 14y ago
    The only difference between over 50 and under is that young people have more time ahead of them to delude themselves that they will eventually act on their big ideas. In terms of actually doing things, young and old people have very similar moment to moment potential.
    - k__ 14y ago
      I don't say all are like this... but most :\ At the company I work are 2 +50 people I work with. The dev is like "give me any programming language and I will programm with it" The admin is like "I give you the IDE I choose and you use it!"
  - CodeCube 14y ago
    yeah, but most of the +50 crowd grew up in a time where computers (and more specifically, programming computers) wasn't exactly commonplace. My son (9) plays minecraft everyday where he "programs" traps into his buildings with a combination of redstone and switches. There's a whole generation of kids (ie. just about all his friends) that will grow up speaking software as a second language. Of course, they will still be in the minority against the population at large ... but I'm really truly excited to see what they come up with, if I can live long enough to see it ;)
  - VLM 14y ago
    can't say that for most of the -50 I know either. The undiscussed metastory aside from the opinions about good or bad, is probably that neophilia, or STEM fixation, or citizen science, or whatever you want to call it, apparently does not correlate with wealth. Not an amazing cultural observation, I'm sure any starving PHD student would tend to agree, the world's full of ramen eating phd students and $25K/yr nontenured postdocs. Academia/STEM-ish workers have replaced religious orders as the cultural place for vows of poverty, with a couple rare exceptions such as applied science (especially CS). Also lots of managers, who work at STEM companies, and perhaps may have even started as STEM people long ago, get confused as currently being STEM people. There is an interesting effect that is also not being discussed which is most of the billionaires are paper net-worth billionaires. Most of them don't have a billion cash equivalent on hand, for example if they sold 50% of their company stock, the stock price would crater enough because of sudden volume to take their net worth down quite a notch. Its quite possible to end up in a situation where you own a billion sized fraction of a multibillion dollar company, but you can only sell a couple million per year without cratering your net worth. Your net worth does not necessarily equal what you can spend today.
    - k__ 14y ago
      Maybe the STEM-fixation isn't because those "newer" academic branches are just "in" but because they get stuff done the "older" ones didn't in hundrets of years. I don't wanna know how much brain power is burned for no good in other academic fields... (Yes there is also burnd much of in the STEM fields, but somehow they still get stuff done)
- kybernetyk 14y ago
  I don't know man. I'm not sure about me. I'm 30 and I notice that I start to get into the 'old fart' attitude. I'm more skeptical about new tech and in my head this skepticism is logical. Until I step aside and take a look. Most of the time I even don't bother taking a detailed look at the new stuff and just discount it as "stupid hipster crap". I try to combat that behaviour but it gets harder. And I don't know how I will act in 20 years. (God, I'm old.)
rexreed 14y ago
Ahem... Ray Kurzweil? Dean Kamen? and one if one stretches way back, Thomas Edison or Nikola Tesla, both who were prolific inventors and creators throughout their lifespan? There's no demonstrable evidence that innovative thinking, inventive proclivity, or capacity to innovate decreases with age.
- BerislavLopac 14y ago
  In that case, don't forget Da Vinci. ;-)
- zimpenfish 14y ago
  Edison was more of a prolific thief (of Tesla) and an elephant killer. Also I heard that he liked to touch ferrets.
jusben1369 14y ago
Ouch on the ageism! Actually, in the context of this argument I would say most folks under 50 are more self absorbed and most over 50 become more concerned about their legacy and the broader world for their children. Bill Gates would be the poster child for this.

binarymax 14y ago

This is straight up ageism. When I am 50 I will have 15 more years of knowledge and experience under my belt - and will be just as excited and determined as I am now.

k__ 14y ago
can't say this for most of the +50 I know.
- dasil003 14y ago
  The only difference between over 50 and under is that young people have more time ahead of them to delude themselves that they will eventually act on their big ideas. In terms of actually doing things, young and old people have very similar moment to moment potential.
  - k__ 14y ago
    I don't say all are like this... but most :\ At the company I work are 2 +50 people I work with. The dev is like "give me any programming language and I will programm with it" The admin is like "I give you the IDE I choose and you use it!"
- CodeCube 14y ago
  yeah, but most of the +50 crowd grew up in a time where computers (and more specifically, programming computers) wasn't exactly commonplace. My son (9) plays minecraft everyday where he "programs" traps into his buildings with a combination of redstone and switches. There's a whole generation of kids (ie. just about all his friends) that will grow up speaking software as a second language. Of course, they will still be in the minority against the population at large ... but I'm really truly excited to see what they come up with, if I can live long enough to see it ;)
- VLM 14y ago
  can't say that for most of the -50 I know either. The undiscussed metastory aside from the opinions about good or bad, is probably that neophilia, or STEM fixation, or citizen science, or whatever you want to call it, apparently does not correlate with wealth. Not an amazing cultural observation, I'm sure any starving PHD student would tend to agree, the world's full of ramen eating phd students and $25K/yr nontenured postdocs. Academia/STEM-ish workers have replaced religious orders as the cultural place for vows of poverty, with a couple rare exceptions such as applied science (especially CS). Also lots of managers, who work at STEM companies, and perhaps may have even started as STEM people long ago, get confused as currently being STEM people. There is an interesting effect that is also not being discussed which is most of the billionaires are paper net-worth billionaires. Most of them don't have a billion cash equivalent on hand, for example if they sold 50% of their company stock, the stock price would crater enough because of sudden volume to take their net worth down quite a notch. Its quite possible to end up in a situation where you own a billion sized fraction of a multibillion dollar company, but you can only sell a couple million per year without cratering your net worth. Your net worth does not necessarily equal what you can spend today.
  - k__ 14y ago
    Maybe the STEM-fixation isn't because those "newer" academic branches are just "in" but because they get stuff done the "older" ones didn't in hundrets of years. I don't wanna know how much brain power is burned for no good in other academic fields... (Yes there is also burnd much of in the STEM fields, but somehow they still get stuff done)
kybernetyk 14y ago
I don't know man. I'm not sure about me. I'm 30 and I notice that I start to get into the 'old fart' attitude. I'm more skeptical about new tech and in my head this skepticism is logical. Until I step aside and take a look. Most of the time I even don't bother taking a detailed look at the new stuff and just discount it as "stupid hipster crap". I try to combat that behaviour but it gets harder. And I don't know how I will act in 20 years. (God, I'm old.)

rexreed 14y ago

Ahem... Ray Kurzweil? Dean Kamen? and one if one stretches way back, Thomas Edison or Nikola Tesla, both who were prolific inventors and creators throughout their lifespan? There's no demonstrable evidence that innovative thinking, inventive proclivity, or capacity to innovate decreases with age.

BerislavLopac 14y ago
In that case, don't forget Da Vinci. ;-)
zimpenfish 14y ago
Edison was more of a prolific thief (of Tesla) and an elephant killer. Also I heard that he liked to touch ferrets.

jusben1369 14y ago

Ouch on the ageism! Actually, in the context of this argument I would say most folks under 50 are more self absorbed and most over 50 become more concerned about their legacy and the broader world for their children. Bill Gates would be the poster child for this.