15 ms·

Hence the somewhat curious (and I think, very American) idea of the "Golden Years". If you put your head down and work hard, taking no vacations, until you're a

Hence the somewhat curious (and I think, very American) idea of the "Golden Years". If you put your head down and work hard, taking no vacations, until you're age 65, then you flip 180 degrees in the other direction and retire into a life of full-time leisure. So if you live long enough, it really won't be a waste; you cash it in all at the end! A Scandinavian psychologist somewhat recently proposed a typically Scandinavian reversal of this: he suggested people should work to age 80, but work proportionally less in all the years up to there. Basically redirect the pension system to subsidize more early-age vacation and less pension. edit: http://cphpost.dk/business/researcher-advocates-25-hour-working-week-%E2%80%93-until-age-80 http://cphpost.dk/business/researcher-advocates-25-hour-work...

VexXtreme 13y ago
> Hence the somewhat curious (and I think, very American) idea of the "Golden Years". If you put your head down and work hard, taking no vacations, until you're age 65, then you flip 180 degrees in the other direction and retire into a life of full-time leisure. So if you live long enough, it really won't be a waste; you cash it in all at the end! And this exact kind of thinking is what the societal overlords want you to subscribe to. Give them the best years of your life to get a degree of freedom later in your life, when the freedom won't matter anymore anyway, cause you'll be pissing in your diapers and be limited to a very small subset of things a healthy young person can do. I see it this way: when you're retired and old, the overall potential of what you can do with your life is much lower than that of when you were in your 20s and 30s. Why is that? Because an old person with the same amount of time and money can do much less with those resources than a young person. When you live your life like a run off the mill robot, living your life according to a set of societal expectations and rules set by other people, what's the point of such a life anyway? PS. OP, I wasn't addressing you, in case you feel I've attacked your point, I am just furthering it :)
- orofino 13y ago
  I always kind of shake my head at this. On a board with many people making 100k+ per year, who are the "societal overlords" you're referencing. Sure there are people that make much more than that, but anything beyond 80k allows a person to save quite a bit and "quit" the rat race earlier if they like.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    This is part of why the "rat race" works/exists. People are always looking up to see who is above them, never down to see how far they've come. "I IPO'd for ten million dollars! Life is awesome!" quickly transitions to "Frank IPO'd for 5x what I did! That's not fair!"
    - VexXtreme 13y ago
      But that's human nature, we're designed to always keep climbing up and striving for more. It is not healthy to constantly compare yourself with people who are worse off. Sure, it induces a sense of gratitude to know that you have clean drinking water and no threat of being killed by a warlord today (unlike many people in Africa, for instance), however if we settled for that, there would never be any incentive to improve our situation further. Imagine what would've happened if every inventor and scientist in the history of mankind had that attitude. Also, not everyone on this board lives in Silicon Valley and works for a startup that spoils him stupid with catered lunches, scheduled massages and a 150K/yr salary. A lot of us are just normal middle class people living in economies that aren't that prosperous and the prospect of losing a job can really threaten our financial security. Also, if you work for a shit company that takes advantage of that, you can be in for a pretty miserable experience. So get off your high horse already.
      - metricman 13y ago
        Come on, human nature? Designed to keep striving? I've heard this referenced as "keeping up with the Joneses" when it's about matching consumption to your neighbors'. I never thought "keeping up with the Joneses" is part of my human nature. Or even my culture. The 'societal overlords' from previous posts you have now ascribed to human nature (??) are really 'society', perhaps influenced by some ultra-elite cadre, sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_up_with_the_Joneses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_up_with_the_Joneses
        dalek_cannes 13y ago
        If anything, Homo Sapiens was designed (read evolved) to be flexible because species that hard-coded their responses to the environment went extinct when the environment changed. So the only thing that could be coded into human behavior was to try to be "better". Better than what was left intentionally blank. At least, that's how I see it.
- eshvk 13y ago
  It is funny you should say this. A friend recently had me interview for his company. He is a great guy, works too much, wakes up in the middle of the nights when he is on call. His boss started off by agreeing that yes, the friend worked too much. He may even have used the word burning out. He then hastened to tell me about his theory in life. Your 20s and 30s are meant to be a time for learning. Apparently, this "learning" involves working on these problems day in and day out. So the burning out was a good thing. Then, in your 40s, you start earning money. I could be a tech-lead or a manager, he said. Then, in my fifties, I could enjoy. He did this. He was happy with it, he said.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    My reply to this: anytime I see 50 year old bold fat guy in a Porsche 911 it's depressing. EDIT: should really be pathetic and sad and not depressing, but I think you get my point. Youth and health are so precious that no amount of money compensates ever.
    - throwaway1979 13y ago
      If even that were true! I really don't see my 40s and 50s being better than now. Personally, my biggest weakness is that I am passionate about the technology and getting my hands dirty. If I start getting practice in management, crafting bold powerpoints, dressing up, etc. I think I'd go far in tech in my later days. But I won't because I love getting my hands on code. sigh
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - brightsize 13y ago
      How about a 50 year-old slim guy with a full head of hair and a 911? Is that pathetic? Why? That would be me (minus the 911). I'm too frugal to buy a 911 but if another guy has socked away two or three million $ (or more) over the course of his tech career, how is this different than a 25yo with a big exit buying a 911? You seem a bit misinformed about age, a bit of an age-ist perhaps: I'm healthy and can bench press more now than in my entire weight-lifting life (since about 22). I agree with you that "kids" (i.e. people 20-30 :-) ) in tech are very often suckered into giving up their young lives to their tech employers. I saw this happening in the mid-90s at M$ and in their Seattle-area wannabes. I never participated in that, my time outside of the 9-5 norm was precious to me. You are right that "no amount of money compensates ever" for those years if they are lost.
noonespecial 13y ago
The "Golden Years" are not what they used to be. The WWII generation likely thought that way, but what I see on the ground now is not working hard to cash in, its working hard in terror of a coming time when you can't work. If you haven't saved enough by that time you die in misery and poverty. Eek over the line and if you don't get an unlucky disease, you get a modicum of comfort. "Enjoy your Golden years" has turned into "Winter is coming."
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  Doubt that the golden years ever were what they used to be.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Unless you are a hedonist, maximum leisure in your prime working years and minimum leisure in old age don't make sense. Personally, I've found work matured both me and my brothers, gave us more perspective, and generally improved us as human beings. Without including the chance to really mature, you are basically talking about extending adolescence, and we already complain about how irresponsible and short-sighted twenty-year-olds are today.
- sown 13y ago
  When you say 'work' you have to be be explicit in what you mean. Do you mean 'work' as it has come to mean in the industrial capitalist revolution way? Or the kind of 'work' that, say, a forager/gather type society would do? It could mean effort towards creating something new and neat, like music or story telling. The reason I ask is because without distinctions, it is difficult to tell what your motivations are and what about what kind of work you find attractive. As a side note, the word 'work' of the industrial revolution sense being combined with notions that it automatically makes you better than people who don't 'work' in the same sense because it makes them more childish was one of those 'white-man's burden' type justifications for imperialism because of that particular poem's observation that non-european first nation people were 'half-devil and half-child'. NOT an accusation of you. Just an observation. :) This is and, will be, a contentious topic in the near future, I think.
  - tankbot 13y ago
    I took "work" to mean purpose, which applies in either case. The problem comes when people limit themselves to a singular purpose and spend the rest of their time being consumers. The don't learn and grow and so end up in this rut for the duration. You're left with aging, atrophied, one-dimensional automatons who don't know anything else besides the grind and T.V. to relax in the evening. Rinse, repeat. When they retire they have no idea what to do with themselves and the thought of figuring it out probably makes them anxious so they stick to what they know. Speaking of which, I gotta go. TMZ is on soon...
bane 13y ago
Weirdly, lots of folks I know at retirement age retire, then simply have no idea what to do with themselves. They've never cultivated a meaningful hobby or interest in the all the years of workaholism. The ones that vaguely remember something they wanted to do in their 20s find themselves fighting off a constant urge to sit in an office and work. A few folks I've known worked until they simply couldn't, then died a few months later. I'm reminded of my own father, who worked like a dog since he was a pre-teen, and simply hasn't been able to come to terms with retirement, choosing to start another job in his elder years instead of writing, painting and fishing which he has an obvious talent and interest in. I tell myself that I won't succumb to this failure to live life and try to overcompensate a bit by traveling a lot, photography and many stalled attempts at writing. I wonder what would happen if I got fuck you money and if I could discipline myself to follow up to my passions instead of trying to fit them into my free time.
price 13y ago
My grandmother basically did that, in rural Texas. She was a nurse, shifted to inspecting nursing homes for the state, and then to consulting for nursing homes, and worked at reduced hours up to six months before she died in her 80s. She had plenty of time for family, friends, and her church, and still got the satisfaction of putting her professional expertise to good use and getting paid. Seemed to work out pretty well for her. Consulting was a critical step. This approach would be hard to pull off in most regular jobs.
- ihaveajob 13y ago
  I think this used to be much more common in the past. My grandfather, a farmer, also worked till about 6 months before passing, when his heart started weakening, at age 92. He would pull 12 hour days, and that's what kept him alive and happy. He would get depressed when he came to visit us in the city with nothing to do. Going from working 40 hours a week when you're 64 to idling all day as you turn 65 is just not healthy.
greenyoda 13y ago
Working until 80 might sound reasonable to a software developer, but if you have a job like a construction worker or a firefighter, you may not be physically capable of doing your job at 80, even part time. So you'd have to switch careers to work into your 80s, which not everyone would be successful at pulling off.
- _delirium 13y ago
  I agree that's an open question. Whether a large proportion of people could work in some job up to age 80 (possibly after changing jobs) is definitely an important part of whether it would produce a plausible system. It doesn't have to be the same job, or to be gap-free, though. If you have a strong retraining/welfare system to cover the gaps, as Denmark has, it's not as big a deal if someone needs to take a year or two off to change jobs. If you can't do your job anymore at some point for health reasons, there is a generous system for disability leave. And, a common unemployment insurance system (a-kasse) covers being unemployed for up to two years, with up to ~$36k/yr salary and retraining / job-finding assistance. As a last resort, there's a floor of ~$22k/yr welfare that anyone can get if they have no other source of income, with no time limits. That's comparable to the low end of U.S. Social Security, so at least nobody would really end up with no income. The wager is that enough people would be productive post-65 to have a significant overall effect.
  - ttflee 13y ago
    > a large proportion of people could work in some job up to age 80 (possibly after changing jobs) It would be an interesting question given most of the aged people change their job. Then those categories of jobs would probably be overrun by aged people seeking those jobs, and hence poor wages and rampant unemployment.
- homosaur 13y ago
  Assuming robots haven't taken over software development
  - sergiosgc 13y ago
dictum 13y ago
>he suggested people should work to age 80, but work proportionally less in all the years up to there. At 70, your body is generally not able to do the same things you were doing at 20/30, at least not with the same ease. A 75 year old man could work as hard as a 25 year old man, but the same amount of work will probably take a greater toll on his health. In a way, seems like his scheme is pretty much geared to make people dread reaching old age, and a reduction in pension payments would come from all the people committing suicide after facing the realization that as their bodies become more tired and less resilient, they will have to work harder.
- mattm 13y ago
  And why is the body not capable of doing the same things at 70? Is it because you overworked it earlier on?
  - nsxwolf 13y ago
    No, because it's old.
  - homosaur 13y ago
    Unless you're mining coal, no. It's normally because you ate shit and had a high stress life and pursued sedentary activities and/or alcohol to unwind. If you take care of your body, it rarely breaks down at age 70. Age 90, then I'll give you a pass on being old.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    Because you don't think as clearly anymore, you can't have as much fun anymore, your sense aren't as good anymore. Shit, you can't go to a club and flirt with 20-something hot chicks, ok? Weed and alcohol aren't much fun anymore. Your idea of fun is actually borin*g and you don't even know it because you have difficulty grasping half the stuff that's going around you. You are just old. In pain. Slow. Afraid. SUCKS!
- _delirium 13y ago
  Is it really more impractical for a 70-year-old to work 25 hours, than for a 60-year-old to work 40 hours? The latter is widely expected today, and we expect 60-year-olds to work as hard as 25-year-olds. Otherwise, we'll hire the 25-year-old over them. If that's a problem, we should change it across the board. Note that this proposal is also in the context of a system that provides full support for job retraining and unemployment pay in the gaps (and a good disability and mental-health system), so if you run into serious problems you have options.
minikites 13y ago
There was a recent episode of the podcast Back to Work that mentioned this very thing: http://5by5.tv/b2w/120 http://5by5.tv/b2w/120 At around 42:00-56:00, (I made a note because I liked it so much), they start talking about safety nets and how we think about events changing our behavior. Merlin made the point that if you're not practicing enjoying your weekends now, having a lot of money can give you a more expensive weekend, but not necessarily a more enjoyable one. A more productive strategy is to rehearse how to be happy with what you have, not what it would be like if you didn't have to worry about anything (because that's probably never going to happen).
reinhardt 13y ago
> he suggested people should work to age 80, but work proportionally less in all the years up to there. Here's another crazy idea: become financially independent in your 30s; no hitting the startup jackpot required: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/145360121X/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/145360121X/ref=ox_sc_act_ti...
gexla 13y ago
> Hence the somewhat curious (and I think, very American) idea of the "Golden Years". If you put your head down and work hard, taking no vacations, until you're age 65, then you flip 180 degrees in the other direction and retire into a life of full-time leisure. So if you live long enough, it really won't be a waste; you cash it in all at the end! Also odd is the flip at the other end of the scale. You live your childhood, go to college and don't need to think much about career and then all of a sudden you get sucked into the cycle (graduating from college.) I was working from an internet cafe in the Philippines the other day (my connection at home was down and I needed to knock some stuff out) and while I was busting my ass the the kids (late high school and college aged) in there were playing games or checking Facebook. Occasionally there is someone in there working on homework. The economy here in the Philippines sucks. These kids will graduate from college and be lucky to make minimum wage, which is $5 - $6 per day. A good job where I live in the Philippines is a call center position which pays something like $300 / month. Of course, the call centers require that you have a college degree. Even a lot of cashier positions at the local stores require a college degree. Because labor is so cheap, it's not uncommon to walk into a small store and see a half dozen workers behind the counter where in the U.S. you might only see one or two. That doesn't mean the service is better though. ;) So, talk about slavery. I want to tell these people who are going to college and playing online games during their off-time that they are being conned. They are wasting their time going to college and then wasting their free time thinking college will bring success. What they really need to be doing is exiting the system and plowing their own path. There is nothing preventing them from doing what I do, sitting right next to them making in one day what they might make in a month. Good thing they haven't figured that out yet, I might have a bit of competition!

VexXtreme 13y ago

orofino 13y ago
I always kind of shake my head at this. On a board with many people making 100k+ per year, who are the "societal overlords" you're referencing. Sure there are people that make much more than that, but anything beyond 80k allows a person to save quite a bit and "quit" the rat race earlier if they like.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  This is part of why the "rat race" works/exists. People are always looking up to see who is above them, never down to see how far they've come. "I IPO'd for ten million dollars! Life is awesome!" quickly transitions to "Frank IPO'd for 5x what I did! That's not fair!"
  - VexXtreme 13y ago
    But that's human nature, we're designed to always keep climbing up and striving for more. It is not healthy to constantly compare yourself with people who are worse off. Sure, it induces a sense of gratitude to know that you have clean drinking water and no threat of being killed by a warlord today (unlike many people in Africa, for instance), however if we settled for that, there would never be any incentive to improve our situation further. Imagine what would've happened if every inventor and scientist in the history of mankind had that attitude. Also, not everyone on this board lives in Silicon Valley and works for a startup that spoils him stupid with catered lunches, scheduled massages and a 150K/yr salary. A lot of us are just normal middle class people living in economies that aren't that prosperous and the prospect of losing a job can really threaten our financial security. Also, if you work for a shit company that takes advantage of that, you can be in for a pretty miserable experience. So get off your high horse already.
    - metricman 13y ago
      Come on, human nature? Designed to keep striving? I've heard this referenced as "keeping up with the Joneses" when it's about matching consumption to your neighbors'. I never thought "keeping up with the Joneses" is part of my human nature. Or even my culture. The 'societal overlords' from previous posts you have now ascribed to human nature (??) are really 'society', perhaps influenced by some ultra-elite cadre, sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_up_with_the_Joneses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_up_with_the_Joneses
      - dalek_cannes 13y ago
        If anything, Homo Sapiens was designed (read evolved) to be flexible because species that hard-coded their responses to the environment went extinct when the environment changed. So the only thing that could be coded into human behavior was to try to be "better". Better than what was left intentionally blank. At least, that's how I see it.
eshvk 13y ago
It is funny you should say this. A friend recently had me interview for his company. He is a great guy, works too much, wakes up in the middle of the nights when he is on call. His boss started off by agreeing that yes, the friend worked too much. He may even have used the word burning out. He then hastened to tell me about his theory in life. Your 20s and 30s are meant to be a time for learning. Apparently, this "learning" involves working on these problems day in and day out. So the burning out was a good thing. Then, in your 40s, you start earning money. I could be a tech-lead or a manager, he said. Then, in my fifties, I could enjoy. He did this. He was happy with it, he said.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  My reply to this: anytime I see 50 year old bold fat guy in a Porsche 911 it's depressing. EDIT: should really be pathetic and sad and not depressing, but I think you get my point. Youth and health are so precious that no amount of money compensates ever.
  - throwaway1979 13y ago
    If even that were true! I really don't see my 40s and 50s being better than now. Personally, my biggest weakness is that I am passionate about the technology and getting my hands dirty. If I start getting practice in management, crafting bold powerpoints, dressing up, etc. I think I'd go far in tech in my later days. But I won't because I love getting my hands on code. sigh
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - brightsize 13y ago
    How about a 50 year-old slim guy with a full head of hair and a 911? Is that pathetic? Why? That would be me (minus the 911). I'm too frugal to buy a 911 but if another guy has socked away two or three million $ (or more) over the course of his tech career, how is this different than a 25yo with a big exit buying a 911? You seem a bit misinformed about age, a bit of an age-ist perhaps: I'm healthy and can bench press more now than in my entire weight-lifting life (since about 22). I agree with you that "kids" (i.e. people 20-30 :-) ) in tech are very often suckered into giving up their young lives to their tech employers. I saw this happening in the mid-90s at M$ and in their Seattle-area wannabes. I never participated in that, my time outside of the 9-5 norm was precious to me. You are right that "no amount of money compensates ever" for those years if they are lost.

noonespecial 13y ago

The "Golden Years" are not what they used to be. The WWII generation likely thought that way, but what I see on the ground now is not working hard to cash in, its working hard in terror of a coming time when you can't work. If you haven't saved enough by that time you die in misery and poverty. Eek over the line and if you don't get an unlucky disease, you get a modicum of comfort. "Enjoy your Golden years" has turned into "Winter is coming."

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Doubt that the golden years ever were what they used to be.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Unless you are a hedonist, maximum leisure in your prime working years and minimum leisure in old age don't make sense. Personally, I've found work matured both me and my brothers, gave us more perspective, and generally improved us as human beings. Without including the chance to really mature, you are basically talking about extending adolescence, and we already complain about how irresponsible and short-sighted twenty-year-olds are today.

sown 13y ago
When you say 'work' you have to be be explicit in what you mean. Do you mean 'work' as it has come to mean in the industrial capitalist revolution way? Or the kind of 'work' that, say, a forager/gather type society would do? It could mean effort towards creating something new and neat, like music or story telling. The reason I ask is because without distinctions, it is difficult to tell what your motivations are and what about what kind of work you find attractive. As a side note, the word 'work' of the industrial revolution sense being combined with notions that it automatically makes you better than people who don't 'work' in the same sense because it makes them more childish was one of those 'white-man's burden' type justifications for imperialism because of that particular poem's observation that non-european first nation people were 'half-devil and half-child'. NOT an accusation of you. Just an observation. :) This is and, will be, a contentious topic in the near future, I think.
- tankbot 13y ago
  I took "work" to mean purpose, which applies in either case. The problem comes when people limit themselves to a singular purpose and spend the rest of their time being consumers. The don't learn and grow and so end up in this rut for the duration. You're left with aging, atrophied, one-dimensional automatons who don't know anything else besides the grind and T.V. to relax in the evening. Rinse, repeat. When they retire they have no idea what to do with themselves and the thought of figuring it out probably makes them anxious so they stick to what they know. Speaking of which, I gotta go. TMZ is on soon...

bane 13y ago

Weirdly, lots of folks I know at retirement age retire, then simply have no idea what to do with themselves. They've never cultivated a meaningful hobby or interest in the all the years of workaholism. The ones that vaguely remember something they wanted to do in their 20s find themselves fighting off a constant urge to sit in an office and work. A few folks I've known worked until they simply couldn't, then died a few months later. I'm reminded of my own father, who worked like a dog since he was a pre-teen, and simply hasn't been able to come to terms with retirement, choosing to start another job in his elder years instead of writing, painting and fishing which he has an obvious talent and interest in. I tell myself that I won't succumb to this failure to live life and try to overcompensate a bit by traveling a lot, photography and many stalled attempts at writing. I wonder what would happen if I got fuck you money and if I could discipline myself to follow up to my passions instead of trying to fit them into my free time.

price 13y ago

My grandmother basically did that, in rural Texas. She was a nurse, shifted to inspecting nursing homes for the state, and then to consulting for nursing homes, and worked at reduced hours up to six months before she died in her 80s. She had plenty of time for family, friends, and her church, and still got the satisfaction of putting her professional expertise to good use and getting paid. Seemed to work out pretty well for her. Consulting was a critical step. This approach would be hard to pull off in most regular jobs.

ihaveajob 13y ago
I think this used to be much more common in the past. My grandfather, a farmer, also worked till about 6 months before passing, when his heart started weakening, at age 92. He would pull 12 hour days, and that's what kept him alive and happy. He would get depressed when he came to visit us in the city with nothing to do. Going from working 40 hours a week when you're 64 to idling all day as you turn 65 is just not healthy.

greenyoda 13y ago

Working until 80 might sound reasonable to a software developer, but if you have a job like a construction worker or a firefighter, you may not be physically capable of doing your job at 80, even part time. So you'd have to switch careers to work into your 80s, which not everyone would be successful at pulling off.

_delirium 13y ago
I agree that's an open question. Whether a large proportion of people could work in some job up to age 80 (possibly after changing jobs) is definitely an important part of whether it would produce a plausible system. It doesn't have to be the same job, or to be gap-free, though. If you have a strong retraining/welfare system to cover the gaps, as Denmark has, it's not as big a deal if someone needs to take a year or two off to change jobs. If you can't do your job anymore at some point for health reasons, there is a generous system for disability leave. And, a common unemployment insurance system (a-kasse) covers being unemployed for up to two years, with up to ~$36k/yr salary and retraining / job-finding assistance. As a last resort, there's a floor of ~$22k/yr welfare that anyone can get if they have no other source of income, with no time limits. That's comparable to the low end of U.S. Social Security, so at least nobody would really end up with no income. The wager is that enough people would be productive post-65 to have a significant overall effect.
- ttflee 13y ago
  > a large proportion of people could work in some job up to age 80 (possibly after changing jobs) It would be an interesting question given most of the aged people change their job. Then those categories of jobs would probably be overrun by aged people seeking those jobs, and hence poor wages and rampant unemployment.
homosaur 13y ago
Assuming robots haven't taken over software development
- sergiosgc 13y ago

dictum 13y ago

>he suggested people should work to age 80, but work proportionally less in all the years up to there. At 70, your body is generally not able to do the same things you were doing at 20/30, at least not with the same ease. A 75 year old man could work as hard as a 25 year old man, but the same amount of work will probably take a greater toll on his health. In a way, seems like his scheme is pretty much geared to make people dread reaching old age, and a reduction in pension payments would come from all the people committing suicide after facing the realization that as their bodies become more tired and less resilient, they will have to work harder.

mattm 13y ago
And why is the body not capable of doing the same things at 70? Is it because you overworked it earlier on?
- nsxwolf 13y ago
  No, because it's old.
- homosaur 13y ago
  Unless you're mining coal, no. It's normally because you ate shit and had a high stress life and pursued sedentary activities and/or alcohol to unwind. If you take care of your body, it rarely breaks down at age 70. Age 90, then I'll give you a pass on being old.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  Because you don't think as clearly anymore, you can't have as much fun anymore, your sense aren't as good anymore. Shit, you can't go to a club and flirt with 20-something hot chicks, ok? Weed and alcohol aren't much fun anymore. Your idea of fun is actually borin*g and you don't even know it because you have difficulty grasping half the stuff that's going around you. You are just old. In pain. Slow. Afraid. SUCKS!
_delirium 13y ago
Is it really more impractical for a 70-year-old to work 25 hours, than for a 60-year-old to work 40 hours? The latter is widely expected today, and we expect 60-year-olds to work as hard as 25-year-olds. Otherwise, we'll hire the 25-year-old over them. If that's a problem, we should change it across the board. Note that this proposal is also in the context of a system that provides full support for job retraining and unemployment pay in the gaps (and a good disability and mental-health system), so if you run into serious problems you have options.

minikites 13y ago

There was a recent episode of the podcast Back to Work that mentioned this very thing: http://5by5.tv/b2w/120 http://5by5.tv/b2w/120 At around 42:00-56:00, (I made a note because I liked it so much), they start talking about safety nets and how we think about events changing our behavior. Merlin made the point that if you're not practicing enjoying your weekends now, having a lot of money can give you a more expensive weekend, but not necessarily a more enjoyable one. A more productive strategy is to rehearse how to be happy with what you have, not what it would be like if you didn't have to worry about anything (because that's probably never going to happen).

reinhardt 13y ago

> he suggested people should work to age 80, but work proportionally less in all the years up to there. Here's another crazy idea: become financially independent in your 30s; no hitting the startup jackpot required: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/145360121X/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/145360121X/ref=ox_sc_act_ti...

gexla 13y ago

> Hence the somewhat curious (and I think, very American) idea of the "Golden Years". If you put your head down and work hard, taking no vacations, until you're age 65, then you flip 180 degrees in the other direction and retire into a life of full-time leisure. So if you live long enough, it really won't be a waste; you cash it in all at the end! Also odd is the flip at the other end of the scale. You live your childhood, go to college and don't need to think much about career and then all of a sudden you get sucked into the cycle (graduating from college.) I was working from an internet cafe in the Philippines the other day (my connection at home was down and I needed to knock some stuff out) and while I was busting my ass the the kids (late high school and college aged) in there were playing games or checking Facebook. Occasionally there is someone in there working on homework. The economy here in the Philippines sucks. These kids will graduate from college and be lucky to make minimum wage, which is $5 - $6 per day. A good job where I live in the Philippines is a call center position which pays something like $300 / month. Of course, the call centers require that you have a college degree. Even a lot of cashier positions at the local stores require a college degree. Because labor is so cheap, it's not uncommon to walk into a small store and see a half dozen workers behind the counter where in the U.S. you might only see one or two. That doesn't mean the service is better though. ;) So, talk about slavery. I want to tell these people who are going to college and playing online games during their off-time that they are being conned. They are wasting their time going to college and then wasting their free time thinking college will bring success. What they really need to be doing is exiting the system and plowing their own path. There is nothing preventing them from doing what I do, sitting right next to them making in one day what they might make in a month. Good thing they haven't figured that out yet, I might have a bit of competition!