The end of retirement
thewalrus.ca
The end of retirement
1–10 of 99 posts
Re: The end of retirement
#2Ok, so you cant retire if you dont save enough to stomach a tiny downturn.
Re: The end of retirement
#3> Every generation lives longer than the one that came before—nothing new there
No, that's completely wrong and this is a lie that keeps being repeated. Life expectancy has only been increasing because child mortality has decreased to almost zero. The upper end has not shifted much at all.
Re: The end of retirement
#4Retirement seems like a pretty crucial process in the economy. If we set things up so that people can’t retire, that will slow down the process of getting the next generation into their positions.
I do know some folks who have, instead, semi-retired (go in one or two days a week). People at the end of their careers have lots of experience to pass on. And it seems to keep them active and healthy. I wonder why we haven’t seen a growth in 1-2 day a week mentorship roles.
Re: The end of retirement
#5Retirement seems like a pretty crucial process in the economy. If we set things up so that people can’t retire, that will slow down the process of getting the next generation into their positions. I do know some folks who have, instead, semi-retired (go in one or two days a week). People at the end of their careers have lots of experience to pass on. And it seems to keep them active and healthy. I wonder why we haven…
> I wonder why we haven’t seen a growth in 1-2 day a week mentorship roles.
If I had to hazard a guess I would say that most people in this position feel like they should get paid 50% of their previous salary for doing 20% of the work (and limiting their scope largely to mentorship rather than IC work), and with the combined scope reduction of both time and work performed, their employers would rather pay them even less than what a strict accounting of hours worked would indicate.
Not to mention the fact that if your organization is so lop-sided that you only have experts near retirement and juniors who actually need 20% or more of their time being mentored, you're facing an existential staffing crisis.
Re: The end of retirement
#6Retirement seems like a pretty crucial process in the economy. If we set things up so that people can’t retire, that will slow down the process of getting the next generation into their positions. I do know some folks who have, instead, semi-retired (go in one or two days a week). People at the end of their careers have lots of experience to pass on. And it seems to keep them active and healthy. I wonder why we haven…
I wonder if the fixed costs associated with employing an individual make that more challenging in some regulatory environments?
Re: The end of retirement
#7> Every generation lives longer than the one that came before—nothing new there No, that's completely wrong and this is a lie that keeps being repeated. Life expectancy has only been increasing because child mortality has decreased to almost zero. The upper end has not shifted much at all.
Are we talking about the top 5% or the top 0.01%? Because it seems to me the top 5% is definitely going up. I don’t think people regularly aged to 8x in the 1500s (mostly due to higher prevalence of disease).
Re: The end of retirement
#8> Every generation lives longer than the one that came before—nothing new there No, that's completely wrong and this is a lie that keeps being repeated. Life expectancy has only been increasing because child mortality has decreased to almost zero. The upper end has not shifted much at all.
In most models, falling child mortality is responsible for about half of the life expectancy growth in the past 150 years. But the other half is indeed longer lives at all age groups[1]. So I don’t think this is a lie, or even misleading (since the author made no claim about non-childhood causes being disproportionate).
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortalit...
Re: The end of retirement
#9> Every generation lives longer than the one that came before—nothing new there No, that's completely wrong and this is a lie that keeps being repeated. Life expectancy has only been increasing because child mortality has decreased to almost zero. The upper end has not shifted much at all.
“It’s not just about child mortality, life expectancy increased at all ages”
https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortalit...
Re: The end of retirement
#10> Every generation lives longer than the one that came before—nothing new there No, that's completely wrong and this is a lie that keeps being repeated. Life expectancy has only been increasing because child mortality has decreased to almost zero. The upper end has not shifted much at all.
Where do you get that information? I realize that the reduction of infant mortality has been a major factor in the change in expected lifespan, but there have also been gains in expected remaining lifespan at 65.
For example, this study reported on in 2018:
The researchers looked at birth and death data for people above age 65 from 1960-2010. They found that the average age of death in those who live to be older than 65 increased by three years in every 25-year period, which means that people can expect to live about six years longer than their grandparents, on average.
Furthermore, this trend continued at a relatively stable pace over the entire 50-year period and in all 20 countries that they analyzed. Factors like medical breakthroughs caused minor fluctuations in how quickly lifespans increased, but these variations averaged out over time
https://news.stanford.edu/2018/11/06/lifespan-increasing-peo...