Work peak and professional decline (2019)(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Work peak and professional decline (2019)
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/work-peak-professional-decline/590650/
163 comments
young people think they're invincible
i'm only in my 30s and already started my retirement hobby (wordworking)
i'll take this career as far as I can but you never know when the day will come that you've had enough and can't bare to go to work anymore -- it gets harder to just leave a job for another one if you don't like it when you're in your late 50s.
i'm only in my 30s and already started my retirement hobby (wordworking)
i'll take this career as far as I can but you never know when the day will come that you've had enough and can't bare to go to work anymore -- it gets harder to just leave a job for another one if you don't like it when you're in your late 50s.
I'm in my late 20's and I notice my mental energy/sharpness being slightly lower compared to what they were at my peak age of 22. I learned to compensate for this with some behavioral and biochemical kludges, but the reality of the trend is pretty obvious at this point.
Ten years ago I picked up biology and recently added to it ageing research as a hobby, we'll see if it pays off eventually. In mice ... many things one wouldn't believe are possible.
Maybe it's the nature of scientific progress - to provide fantastic life-changing results in rodents, often failing to translate to humans in a clinical setting.
Ten years ago I picked up biology and recently added to it ageing research as a hobby, we'll see if it pays off eventually. In mice ... many things one wouldn't believe are possible.
Maybe it's the nature of scientific progress - to provide fantastic life-changing results in rodents, often failing to translate to humans in a clinical setting.
I'm 47, and I don't feel that much decline, and in some ways I'm far more productive. I'm more targeted, experience makes me wiser than I was in my 20s, and the only thing I really notice is that I definitely have 'on' days where I'm pretty good, and 'off' days (more often than not) where I'm just kind of cloudy in comparison.
I don't remember these on/off days in my 20s, however, I wasn't paying attention at all, instead chasing girls, adventure, and other unmentionables. So I may of had them then too, but I'm inclined to thing they're more pronounced now.
It's also HIGHLY exercise related. The more exercise I get, the better everything works. Someone else mentioned their grandfather says 'keep moving' - This is by FAR the best advice for growing older. Keep going.. when you're a kid you don't need to do that as much, your body is going anyway..
Later in life it takes determined effort.
I don't remember these on/off days in my 20s, however, I wasn't paying attention at all, instead chasing girls, adventure, and other unmentionables. So I may of had them then too, but I'm inclined to thing they're more pronounced now.
It's also HIGHLY exercise related. The more exercise I get, the better everything works. Someone else mentioned their grandfather says 'keep moving' - This is by FAR the best advice for growing older. Keep going.. when you're a kid you don't need to do that as much, your body is going anyway..
Later in life it takes determined effort.
[deleted]
In my twenties, I had an amazing ability to run at a problem. Long periods of great focus. The only trouble was how frequently I was running in the wrong direction.
The gift of aging for me (late 30's) has been the appreciation that an inability to get into flow is usually because I've got buried reservations on a design/approach, and that I need to spend some time trying to surface them.
The gift of aging for me (late 30's) has been the appreciation that an inability to get into flow is usually because I've got buried reservations on a design/approach, and that I need to spend some time trying to surface them.
Regarding my early to mid 20s, I remember the crazy amount of information, which I was constantly attempting to ingest "to catch up", that left my mind scrambled for many years after. It was so pleasant to observe later (in my mid 30s) how gradually I got my clear mind back and my focus improved. If I really had a higher mental ability in my 20s, I surely overdid it.
Sitting at a desk all day will kill you.
Biggest difference I noticed in mental decline was % of sedentary time.
COVID has been a good control since the gyms are closed and I'm in Canada, so the winters forced me inside. Night and day difference between last year or the years before.
Biggest difference I noticed in mental decline was % of sedentary time.
COVID has been a good control since the gyms are closed and I'm in Canada, so the winters forced me inside. Night and day difference between last year or the years before.
I'm grateful that I have a career outside of engineering where I had success and played a sport at a high level and had success. Both of those are in my past now and when they stopped being a huge part of who I was it was really difficult for a while.
However now I'm much better at enjoying things outside of work and sport. I cant imagine what having that realization at 40 or 50 would be like. It would probably feel like the majority of your life was a lie.
However now I'm much better at enjoying things outside of work and sport. I cant imagine what having that realization at 40 or 50 would be like. It would probably feel like the majority of your life was a lie.
Sometimes it's really tempting to tie ones value to their own ability, especially when one's pretty successful at it.
But in the end, the ability of one person on the backdrop of the planet and the universe where it reside is minuscule. I've felt content to just marvel at the surrounding, satisfying my own curiosity, and the world has never been a greater place for that. So much knowledge available over just a click, and so much more to come from talented researchers all over the globe. This is how I will feel peace - when my inevitable decline arrives.
Being an observer is also a lot of fun. I love writing rng based simulations for the same reason.
But in the end, the ability of one person on the backdrop of the planet and the universe where it reside is minuscule. I've felt content to just marvel at the surrounding, satisfying my own curiosity, and the world has never been a greater place for that. So much knowledge available over just a click, and so much more to come from talented researchers all over the globe. This is how I will feel peace - when my inevitable decline arrives.
Being an observer is also a lot of fun. I love writing rng based simulations for the same reason.
Related: The notion of "retirement" is a relatively recent invention.
Traditionally, when you were too old to work the farm or prove the theorem (sorry, cognitive decline is a well-documented thing, and tends to coincide with physical decline[1]), you would "retire" to a productive life in less-demanding pursuits: caretaking of the grandkids, woodworking, food preservation, writing, etc.
It's important to maintain hobbies in your youth such that when the time comes, you can turn those hobbies into productive and enjoyable enterprises. Certainly many would disagree, but such a path seems somehow "better" than popping Metformin in front of a television in a Boca Raton retirement community or tooling around the country in an 8 MPG RV.
[1] Yes, I'm aware that people like Dave Cutler are the exception to the rule. But they are, to be sure, the exception.
Traditionally, when you were too old to work the farm or prove the theorem (sorry, cognitive decline is a well-documented thing, and tends to coincide with physical decline[1]), you would "retire" to a productive life in less-demanding pursuits: caretaking of the grandkids, woodworking, food preservation, writing, etc.
It's important to maintain hobbies in your youth such that when the time comes, you can turn those hobbies into productive and enjoyable enterprises. Certainly many would disagree, but such a path seems somehow "better" than popping Metformin in front of a television in a Boca Raton retirement community or tooling around the country in an 8 MPG RV.
[1] Yes, I'm aware that people like Dave Cutler are the exception to the rule. But they are, to be sure, the exception.
> Related: The notion of "retirement" is a relatively recent invention.
Not really. The idea of old people who could no longer work effectively but still had many years of their life ahead of them is not a recent invention.
The notion of an old age pension -- whether paid by a company or a government -- that "everyone" got is relatively new. But that doesn't mean "retirement" is new. It was just paid for by individual families before. Go read literature and it is chock full of grandparents from the pre-modern era just hanging out at the multi-generational home not exactly doing a whole lot.
People who say retirement is a new phenomenon point to phrases like "In 1880 the majority of men older than sixty-four toiled in the labor force".
But this statement hides a truth: 25% of men over 65 didn't toil in the workforce, so clearly retirement had already been "invented". And, of course, there is the entire other half of humanity -- women -- who also weren't in the workforce. So the reality is that over 62% of people over the age of 65 didn't participate in the workforce in 1850.
Not really. The idea of old people who could no longer work effectively but still had many years of their life ahead of them is not a recent invention.
The notion of an old age pension -- whether paid by a company or a government -- that "everyone" got is relatively new. But that doesn't mean "retirement" is new. It was just paid for by individual families before. Go read literature and it is chock full of grandparents from the pre-modern era just hanging out at the multi-generational home not exactly doing a whole lot.
People who say retirement is a new phenomenon point to phrases like "In 1880 the majority of men older than sixty-four toiled in the labor force".
But this statement hides a truth: 25% of men over 65 didn't toil in the workforce, so clearly retirement had already been "invented". And, of course, there is the entire other half of humanity -- women -- who also weren't in the workforce. So the reality is that over 62% of people over the age of 65 didn't participate in the workforce in 1850.
A woman working at home is not retired by any stretch of the imagination.
> 25% of men over 65 didn't toil in the workforce, so clearly retirement had already been "invented"
But were they retired by choice or were they just too frail to work?
> And, of course, there is the entire other half of humanity -- women -- who also weren't in the workforce.
Kind of true, but not exactly retirement either, and most of them weren't not working, they were working inside the household.
But were they retired by choice or were they just too frail to work?
> And, of course, there is the entire other half of humanity -- women -- who also weren't in the workforce.
Kind of true, but not exactly retirement either, and most of them weren't not working, they were working inside the household.
People who are "retired" today also work inside the household. They're still making food, doing laundry, and often looking after grandchildren.
Even though retirement has been "invented", 60% of grandparents provide childcare in the US and 27% of people over 65 are still in the workforce.
There's clearly been some change in the past ~100 years, would be pretty weird if there hadn't!, but I'm not convinced there's really a bright line of "retirement was invented, before and after".
Even though retirement has been "invented", 60% of grandparents provide childcare in the US and 27% of people over 65 are still in the workforce.
There's clearly been some change in the past ~100 years, would be pretty weird if there hadn't!, but I'm not convinced there's really a bright line of "retirement was invented, before and after".
> entire other half of humanity -- women -- who also weren't in the workforce
What on earth? To think the entirety of women of any age group in 1880 did not work is very "not even wrong" territory. They worked all kinds of jobs, inside and outside the home, from a very young age to old age. Many industries employed more women than men.
Flip to page 208 if you want a table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/women/...
What on earth? To think the entirety of women of any age group in 1880 did not work is very "not even wrong" territory. They worked all kinds of jobs, inside and outside the home, from a very young age to old age. Many industries employed more women than men.
Flip to page 208 if you want a table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/women/...
Your reference supports my point. It says that in 1900 under 10% of women over 65 were in "gainful employment". I wasn't talking about women-as-a-whole, since the context we're talking about is people over 65.
> such a path seems somehow "better" than popping Metformin in front of a television in a Boca Raton retirement community
The person who doesn't pop Metformin will obviously have retired earlier and be in that retirement community earlier.
> tooling around the country in an 8 MPG RV.
Once again the the person who doesn't pop Metformin will be crippled sooner and mentally declined sooner. (Assuming you are degrading tv and RV's)
So I have no idea of the point on this bit.
I also think you romanticise what happens to people "too old to work the farm". You can go check it out today in many developing countries.
The person who doesn't pop Metformin will obviously have retired earlier and be in that retirement community earlier.
> tooling around the country in an 8 MPG RV.
Once again the the person who doesn't pop Metformin will be crippled sooner and mentally declined sooner. (Assuming you are degrading tv and RV's)
So I have no idea of the point on this bit.
I also think you romanticise what happens to people "too old to work the farm". You can go check it out today in many developing countries.
Retirement seems like a pretty unimaginative goal. See the Japanese concept of "Ikigai" (ie, raison d-etre or reason to get out of bed in the morning). I don't plan to retire, though I may shift the balance towards my non-economically-oriented interests after putting my children through college.
I think of retirement along the same lines. I plan to remain productive, some of which may be economically oriented, but I simply won't be worrying about the outcome or having someone with power over me telling me how and when I am allowed to do it.
Freedom?
No reason you can't pursue your hobbies and pop metformin :)
For an interesting take on this, see the book Ambition, by Gilbert Brim.
It’s been posted to HN before, and led to interesting discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10967206
It’s been posted to HN before, and led to interesting discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10967206
It’s too bad electric RVs aren’t much of a thing. They have a lot of roof space for solar panels, often have unfurling extensions that could also have solar, plus RV hookups are essentially 12kW Level 2 chargers which is plenty for a full charge after staying there for a day (although there’d need to be >250kW charging stations on the road) even with a massive battery.
And because of the high fuel consumption of RVs, you’d get greater cost/energy advantage with electric than you would for a small efficient commuter.
And because of the high fuel consumption of RVs, you’d get greater cost/energy advantage with electric than you would for a small efficient commuter.
You should compare ICE RV vs ICE commuter emissions on a year. ICE RV makes sense if it's emission is at least x2 because it needs huge amount of batteries. I expect x0.5 due to it's rarely used.
In this context, the RV would be used a lot. Also, I normally think vehicle-to-grid is silly, but because electric RVs may not be on the road too much AND may have lots of built-in solar, it may actually make sense to do V2G with an RV.
If somebody is as illiterate as I am: metformin is type II diabetes medicine.
It’s commonly prescribed as an anti-aging drug, which is maybe what the OP meant, though I can laugh either way!
not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but not knowing what a medicine does is a plus in my book. you have no use for it.
It has also been withdrawn from the market.
Many (but not, I think, all—there keep being new announcements) individual makers have extended-release metformin have recalled recent batches and at least temporarily stopped selling it due to detected unacceptable levels of a known carcinogen in the tablets.
Another interesting fact about metformin: it increases lifespan and healthspan in lab mice [1]
1. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3192.pdf
1. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3192.pdf
Wow, I keep hearing people like Tim Ferris and Dr. Peter Attia talking about using Metformin. I had no idea it is a diabetes medication. From what I keep hearing on random SV related podcasts, it's some anti-aging drug [1].
https://peterattiamd.com/metformin-and-exercise/
https://peterattiamd.com/metformin-and-exercise/
While I share your antipathy for low-efficiency vehicles, why is traveling around the national parks of the west a sad way to spend your retirement years?
> low-efficiency vehicles
Tangent: Are these actually low efficiency? Sure, 10 mpg (this is a more typical average, BTW, not 8 mpg) is terrible gas mileage ... for an average car. But a portable house that can drive down the interstate isn't just a car. Per pound, it doesn't seem that bad.
Tangent: Are these actually low efficiency? Sure, 10 mpg (this is a more typical average, BTW, not 8 mpg) is terrible gas mileage ... for an average car. But a portable house that can drive down the interstate isn't just a car. Per pound, it doesn't seem that bad.
Yea, they are. If for example, you look at the Ford chassis that is the basis for a majority of Class C RVs, the engine tech is a good decade or two behind what Ford is putting in their new trucks and larger SUVs.
Unfortunately the RV industry is one where products are built to be sold, not to be used, and what's under the hood is not a selling point compared to how fancy the interior is.
When reading a review of Ford's new hybrid F-150 a couple months ago, one of the comments at the bottom of the article really stood out to me - "Ford needs to get this in their RV platform ASAP". I tend to agree that that's actually a super clever idea - most RVs already have a standalone generator separate from the drivetrain, and rolling that into a hybrid system makes a lot of sense.
Unfortunately the RV industry is one where products are built to be sold, not to be used, and what's under the hood is not a selling point compared to how fancy the interior is.
When reading a review of Ford's new hybrid F-150 a couple months ago, one of the comments at the bottom of the article really stood out to me - "Ford needs to get this in their RV platform ASAP". I tend to agree that that's actually a super clever idea - most RVs already have a standalone generator separate from the drivetrain, and rolling that into a hybrid system makes a lot of sense.
And when compared to air travel and hotel stays (which come with large water and heat costs associated with daily laundry) it's actually less of a carbon footprint.
mind showing your work?
https://stanfordmag.org/contents/when-is-flying-greener-than...
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-...
"In addition, Sivak suggests carpooling, as having three or more person in a vehicle “completely” changes the comparison with flying. Indeed, with a few people in the car, “driving becomes less energy intensive than flying (even after taking into account the increased weight that the vehicle needs to carry).”"
Edited to add quotes.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-...
"In addition, Sivak suggests carpooling, as having three or more person in a vehicle “completely” changes the comparison with flying. Indeed, with a few people in the car, “driving becomes less energy intensive than flying (even after taking into account the increased weight that the vehicle needs to carry).”"
Edited to add quotes.
The comment was comparing two people taking an RV, not a commuter car, to air travel and hotel stays. I failed to mention it but was most interested in how the hotel laundry carbon footprint was a big factor.
There are plenty of rvs that get similar fuel efficiency to cars. Anything on the sprinter chassis gets over 20 mpg typically.
The laundry footprint is a large factor when considering hotel stays. If we add up both the carbon costs of the hotel stay and airfare added together it seems like it adds up to more than the RV option. That's all I was trying to highlight, I haven't done a research paper on it, just my perception.
The laundry footprint is a large factor when considering hotel stays. If we add up both the carbon costs of the hotel stay and airfare added together it seems like it adds up to more than the RV option. That's all I was trying to highlight, I haven't done a research paper on it, just my perception.
People don't stay in hotels getting daily laundry for months at a time
You haven't worked in consulting huh?
They do if they are on the kind of cross country tour that they'd otherwise make in an RV.
Otherwise the argument becomes "Staying at home is better for the environment than traveling", which is true, not not really a fair comparison.
Otherwise the argument becomes "Staying at home is better for the environment than traveling", which is true, not not really a fair comparison.
People absolutely do this.
Some people literally live in hotels.
Some people literally live in hotels.
The average room takes 2 loads of laundry, which would be in the neighborhood of 10kw of electricity. 1 gallon of gas represents the same energy (ignoring losses) as 33kw.
The average 2017 car in the US got 25mpg. So with a 15+mpg difference, you'd need to either drive 5 miles or less per day (0.3g difference), OR average 100 miles per day and have the hotels wash the laundry 20x as much.
The average 2017 car in the US got 25mpg. So with a 15+mpg difference, you'd need to either drive 5 miles or less per day (0.3g difference), OR average 100 miles per day and have the hotels wash the laundry 20x as much.
Are you not including the air travel component of the travel (which often results in the passenger choosing to travel much farther than a typical RV trip)?
There are a lot more costs (both paid and environmental) associated with hotels than just laundry? Staff, lighting, heating. Plus eating out, taxis, and air travel.
Also, retirees roaming around the country in an RV generally sit in one place for a week or two at a time.
Also, retirees roaming around the country in an RV generally sit in one place for a week or two at a time.
Missing a lot of costs for hotels, also missing the air travel which is the single largest contribution to emissions in this scenario.
Now I’m dreaming of a recreational dirigible. Imagine drifting from town to town at low altitudes, relative quiet, and with a comparably low fuel consumption. This sounds like heaven.
A sailboat is 95% of this but you're floating around the oceans instead of the air. In both cases you'd need to be worried about storms and hitting stuff, and in both cases you're pretty fuel efficient.
Why hasn't EV tech hit the RV world? How many batteries could one of those Greyhound bus size RV's, or smaller ones, hold? Maybe it has and I'm ignorant.
I get that corporate shipping industries would benefit but a lot of delivery vans are the same platform as an RV. I think a Ford F350 is the size of those 25 ft uhaul rentals - about same size as a decent sized RV.
RV's typically park somewhere for days, campgrounds could be good places for charging stations. If you have a stay booked for 5 days, it could even slow trickle charge over that time.
I get that corporate shipping industries would benefit but a lot of delivery vans are the same platform as an RV. I think a Ford F350 is the size of those 25 ft uhaul rentals - about same size as a decent sized RV.
RV's typically park somewhere for days, campgrounds could be good places for charging stations. If you have a stay booked for 5 days, it could even slow trickle charge over that time.
The average RV puts on around 5000 miles a year, so I don't think the cost benefit equation works out in favor of electrification.
The travel patterns of many RV'ers means they need big (and expensive) batteries -- drive 200 miles, then spend days or weeks in one place, but since they are driving at highway speeds in a non-aerodynamic vehicle they burn a lot of energy just pushing through the air and don't get to recoup much in regenerative braking like a delivery truck might.
Even though many campgrounds are wired for 50A service, they may struggle when they have 100 RV's all trying to charge at the same time at that rate.
The travel patterns of many RV'ers means they need big (and expensive) batteries -- drive 200 miles, then spend days or weeks in one place, but since they are driving at highway speeds in a non-aerodynamic vehicle they burn a lot of energy just pushing through the air and don't get to recoup much in regenerative braking like a delivery truck might.
Even though many campgrounds are wired for 50A service, they may struggle when they have 100 RV's all trying to charge at the same time at that rate.
Think about a Tesla's max range. Something like 500 miles. That might be something you run up against once or twice in a year with a normal car usage, but with a RV that's like every trip. If you could triple the range then you still need to probably quadruple the batteries for the size and dynamics of the RV, so that a 12x multiple for batteries. Assuming it's 1/2 the cost of a Tesla is the batteries then your looking at something like $250k just for the batteries.
At a guess, at least two parts apply, though broadly I do think it's a pretty promising option:
1) EV has been very expensive until relatively recently + RVs are a relatively low volume market => slow to re-design all vehicles. Yes, they re-design the stuff on top fairly often, but not AFAIK the chassis itself. I'd definitely be interested if I'm wrong about this though, rapid chassis evolution would probably be interesting to read about.
2) RVs are often used for long-distance and far-from-Civilization™ trips, which very much does not fit well with the (lack of) charging infrastructure. And even when you do go along highways, the charging time (due to higher power use + storage) is going to be substantially longer than on cars, which are already quite lengthy.
re 2: Driving to somewhere with RV hookups would mitigate that a lot, which honestly would cover the vast majority of how many RVers I know use their vehicles. Charging overnight or longer is probably fine... but campgrounds will definitely not like you (and a bunch of other RVs) drawing that much power, they're simply not wired for enormous load. It'll take time for that stuff to be rebuilt.
1) EV has been very expensive until relatively recently + RVs are a relatively low volume market => slow to re-design all vehicles. Yes, they re-design the stuff on top fairly often, but not AFAIK the chassis itself. I'd definitely be interested if I'm wrong about this though, rapid chassis evolution would probably be interesting to read about.
2) RVs are often used for long-distance and far-from-Civilization™ trips, which very much does not fit well with the (lack of) charging infrastructure. And even when you do go along highways, the charging time (due to higher power use + storage) is going to be substantially longer than on cars, which are already quite lengthy.
re 2: Driving to somewhere with RV hookups would mitigate that a lot, which honestly would cover the vast majority of how many RVers I know use their vehicles. Charging overnight or longer is probably fine... but campgrounds will definitely not like you (and a bunch of other RVs) drawing that much power, they're simply not wired for enormous load. It'll take time for that stuff to be rebuilt.
Interior space requirements plus maximum exterior width requirements mean that RVs will be approximately box-shaped.
Box-shaped vehicles are just going to have massive energy demands above 45MPH or so due to physics. On top of this, the engine just doesn't mass that much more (in absolute terms) than a car engine, so the mass savings for an electric motor are not increased that much. All this means an electric RV with any reasonable range is going to be heavy.
Hybrid technology might makes sense though as they already have demand for a large-ish battery, and dynamic braking could really reduce wear on the brakes.
Box-shaped vehicles are just going to have massive energy demands above 45MPH or so due to physics. On top of this, the engine just doesn't mass that much more (in absolute terms) than a car engine, so the mass savings for an electric motor are not increased that much. All this means an electric RV with any reasonable range is going to be heavy.
Hybrid technology might makes sense though as they already have demand for a large-ish battery, and dynamic braking could really reduce wear on the brakes.
Weight too.
Many RVs are already making compromises with furnishings, water (fresh, grey, black), electrical (non-motive, but often much of lighting, electronics, heat, cooking, hot water, cooling), and gear.
Add 100s or 1,000s of kilos of batteries, and further compromises are necessary.
Many RVs are already making compromises with furnishings, water (fresh, grey, black), electrical (non-motive, but often much of lighting, electronics, heat, cooking, hot water, cooling), and gear.
Add 100s or 1,000s of kilos of batteries, and further compromises are necessary.
I don’t know if there is a technical reason why EV hasn’t come to RVs, but having worked with some RV makers they are basically tiny luxury product makers compared to one of the biggest industries on the planet so probably like 1% of the R&D goes into RVs per inch compared to cars.
Most RV makers buy an off-the-shelf chassis from Ford or Freightliner, so they can benefit from truck based electrification work.
Cybertruck can tow a fairly large Airstream.
How far?
That's really the biggest issue with electric towing right now. To get a reasonable range while towing a travel trailer, the EV needs four times the battery capacity, maybe more. This is a pretty big capital investment, and then you're toting around an extra few thousand pounds even when not towing.
We will get there eventually, but I expect that tow vehicles will be amongst the last personal vehicles to be successfully electrified.
That's really the biggest issue with electric towing right now. To get a reasonable range while towing a travel trailer, the EV needs four times the battery capacity, maybe more. This is a pretty big capital investment, and then you're toting around an extra few thousand pounds even when not towing.
We will get there eventually, but I expect that tow vehicles will be amongst the last personal vehicles to be successfully electrified.
Cybertruck is not real.
> Per pound, it doesn't seem that bad.
That's circular reasoning; carrying zillions of kilos around with you is the part that's inefficient.
That's circular reasoning; carrying zillions of kilos around with you is the part that's inefficient.
Perhaps, but going down that path means making a moral judgement about every activity someone undertakes. Fuel efficiency is at least fairly objective. Whether someone should stay at home instead of travel in their RV, that is a moral thing. And I'm pretty sure that just about 0 people have an unassailable record of life choices.
> Perhaps, but going down that path means making a moral judgement about every activity someone undertakes. Fuel efficiency is at least fairly objective.
That's like the drunk searching for his keys under the streetlamp rather than where he dropped them. Does that mean it's somehow environmentally friendly to drive an 18-wheeler on a road trip rather than a motorbike, because the per-ton fuel efficiency is higher? The fair comparison to an RV trip is an equivalent vacation experience, and while we can argue about the details of what that means, it's certainly not just an equal tonnage.
> Whether someone should stay at home instead of travel in their RV, that is a moral thing. And I'm pretty sure that just about 0 people have an unassailable record of life choices.
Ideally I'd like to set a carbon tax at a level that fully covers the costs of repairing the damage, and take the moral element out of the equation - then we can just say that x litres of petrol costs y, and it's up to you whether that's worth it or not. But given that we don't have such a thing (and these people are presumably not offsetting), I'd say that you should at least make sure the fun you're getting out of something is proportional to your emissions; if you're doing something that's marginally fun but extremely polluting then I do think it's fair to judge you for that.
That's like the drunk searching for his keys under the streetlamp rather than where he dropped them. Does that mean it's somehow environmentally friendly to drive an 18-wheeler on a road trip rather than a motorbike, because the per-ton fuel efficiency is higher? The fair comparison to an RV trip is an equivalent vacation experience, and while we can argue about the details of what that means, it's certainly not just an equal tonnage.
> Whether someone should stay at home instead of travel in their RV, that is a moral thing. And I'm pretty sure that just about 0 people have an unassailable record of life choices.
Ideally I'd like to set a carbon tax at a level that fully covers the costs of repairing the damage, and take the moral element out of the equation - then we can just say that x litres of petrol costs y, and it's up to you whether that's worth it or not. But given that we don't have such a thing (and these people are presumably not offsetting), I'd say that you should at least make sure the fun you're getting out of something is proportional to your emissions; if you're doing something that's marginally fun but extremely polluting then I do think it's fair to judge you for that.
The greenhouse effect doesn’t care about why the CO2 was made.
A portable house and essentials weighing probably 5kg can go on your back.
A portable house and essentials weighing probably 5kg can go on your back.
Are you prepared to legislate what constitutes allowable leisure activity? Require people to justify why they aren't choosing the smallest plausibly usable car, if they can justify a car at all? Submit to the government every vacation plan, every potential career change, every hobby to make sure it has the least environmental impact?
For every choice you make, I guarantee someone can point out how you could have been more environmentally friendly. Let's not go down that path.
For every choice you make, I guarantee someone can point out how you could have been more environmentally friendly. Let's not go down that path.
Nope I would legislate via carbon tax. Then someone is paying more to use the suv unnecessarily that’s up to them.
This answer seems designed to either insult, denigrate, or cause offense. It’s not a substantive contribution to the conversation.
Exactly. The need to be productive for society until the day you die may have been a requirement in the past, but encouraging that today just sounds depressing.
To be fair, the definition of "productivity" has changed a lot since the start of the industrial revolution too, from "helping your community make ends meet" to "engaging in soul-crushing, inhuman labour to make a group of wealthy investors who actively campaign against your well-being even wealthier".
Actually, prior to the start of the industrial revolution, the definition of "productivity" was "Spend nearly every waking hour tending the fields (that someone else owns) if you're a man, or spinning flax and wool (to make clothes for you and your family) if you're a woman."
Not much left to better the community when keeping yourself fed and clothed[1] is two full-time jobs. And that's for free-persons, who aren't serfs, slaves, or indentured labourers.
[1] Prior to industrialization, it took something close to ~3,000 work-hours a year[2] to keep a family barely-clothed. Add another thousand or three if you wanted to have a change of clothes for Sundays.
[2] https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-t...
Not much left to better the community when keeping yourself fed and clothed[1] is two full-time jobs. And that's for free-persons, who aren't serfs, slaves, or indentured labourers.
[1] Prior to industrialization, it took something close to ~3,000 work-hours a year[2] to keep a family barely-clothed. Add another thousand or three if you wanted to have a change of clothes for Sundays.
[2] https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-t...
>Not much left to better the community when keeping yourself fed and clothed is two full-time jobs.
My point was, back then, your two full-time jobs benefited the community in and of themselves.
I'm not trying to argue that we should go back in time to the dark ages (I like modern medicine and technology), but am just suggesting that workers would have been far more likely to find intrinsic satisfaction in the work they did back then because they both had more autonomy/personal input and could also directly see their labour benefitting the people they cared about.
My point was, back then, your two full-time jobs benefited the community in and of themselves.
I'm not trying to argue that we should go back in time to the dark ages (I like modern medicine and technology), but am just suggesting that workers would have been far more likely to find intrinsic satisfaction in the work they did back then because they both had more autonomy/personal input and could also directly see their labour benefitting the people they cared about.
Injustice is not the only way to get new technology even if you believe that there is a connection between the two notions.
Also, by your logic it wouldn't be enough for people to work around the clock just to survive in hunter-gathering times
Also, by your logic it wouldn't be enough for people to work around the clock just to survive in hunter-gathering times
In hunter-gatherer times, we didn't wear as many woven textiles, and we didn't rely on agriculture (Which results in a much higher caloric output of an acre of land, but requires vastly more labour to produce the same number of calories.)
The problem with being a hunter-gatherer is that your agricultural neighbours move in, settle down, work their asses off, have lots of children, and then war with you until they push you off your land. And nine times out of ten, they win this war, because their way of life supports a lot more people per acre of land.
This is why the world is full of agricultural societies, and the few remaining hunter-gatherers have been pushed into unproductive, fringe territories.
The problem with being a hunter-gatherer is that your agricultural neighbours move in, settle down, work their asses off, have lots of children, and then war with you until they push you off your land. And nine times out of ten, they win this war, because their way of life supports a lot more people per acre of land.
This is why the world is full of agricultural societies, and the few remaining hunter-gatherers have been pushed into unproductive, fringe territories.
Personally, RVs kind of miss the point of tooling around nature if one can wimp out and retreat to a house-on-wheels
What motivates someone to belittle people who aren't as hardcore about a hobby as them like this? What on earth do you care how someone else chooses to enjoy themselves?
There are other ways to enjoy nature besides the Bear Grylls approach. :)
Split the difference with a tent and a couple of cots
Why do you assume that "tooling around nature" is the only point of traveling (whether by RV or otherwise)?
I like being out in nature, but I also like having a comfortable bed and a kitchen (with refrigerator) where I can prepare full meals. The cooking part is why I like having an RV - while it's possible to find a hotel with a kitchenette, it's still a pretty limited kitchen (often without an oven) and you have to find a way to schlep your food around from hotel to hotel if you're on an extended trip.
Plus, it's nice to have your own bathroom, especially during a Pandemic.
I like being out in nature, but I also like having a comfortable bed and a kitchen (with refrigerator) where I can prepare full meals. The cooking part is why I like having an RV - while it's possible to find a hotel with a kitchenette, it's still a pretty limited kitchen (often without an oven) and you have to find a way to schlep your food around from hotel to hotel if you're on an extended trip.
Plus, it's nice to have your own bathroom, especially during a Pandemic.
Nice to have a hard-sided sleeping unit for bear country.
Nice to have a reasonable bed after an exhausting day canyoneering.
Nice to have a heater for that sudden snowstorm in June.
It isn't going on the backpacking trip (but could be a great mobile base for punctuated backpacking!) but it can facilitate a lot of great experiences (and can broaden the experience of people who wouldn't go on that backpacking trip...)
Nice to have a reasonable bed after an exhausting day canyoneering.
Nice to have a heater for that sudden snowstorm in June.
It isn't going on the backpacking trip (but could be a great mobile base for punctuated backpacking!) but it can facilitate a lot of great experiences (and can broaden the experience of people who wouldn't go on that backpacking trip...)
"Why bother with a boat when you can just swim?"
This is an article written by a journalist. If we want to get to the bottom of things, we can open Google Scholar and search for related peer-reviewed publications, finding [1][2] in the process.
What do we see in [1] and [2]? A very prominent downward trend ( https://i.imgur.com/avKUvTd.png ) on all but a single cognitive test, which is verbal knowledge. All the important cognitive abilities related to thinking and understanding seem to decline severely with age, by as much as 1.2~2.0 s.d. from the peak. This is 18~30 lost IQ points on a typical 15-s.d. scale. For some people, the naturally gifted (starting point of +2.5 s.d. from the mean) this decline may be merely sad and inconveniencing, but for most of us this reality poses significant challenges to our daily life and autonomy as we approach our late years. I really don't see how this point may be overstated or talked away.
By the way, if we try to delve deeper in our research exercise we can find pretty specific biological mechanisms associated with the cognitive decline, such as cellular senescence, vascular degeneration and BBB breakdown, loss of mitochondrial function, loss of white matter integrity.
In my opinion, as adult human being approaching middle age, this cognitive ability decline due to age cannot be ignored, or cheered away with the usual gung-ho or wished away with wishful thinking. Instead we should acknowledge the obvious process happening to our older relatives and beginning to happen to us, and push our representatives to fund more targeted research grants and biotech investments, to find some remedies.
Some of the necessary research is already happening, if you know where to look [3], but it's really a tenth to hundredth of the effort we could muster, if we cared. If we believed.
1. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167...
2. http://www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/McArdle2002.p...
3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.13296
What do we see in [1] and [2]? A very prominent downward trend ( https://i.imgur.com/avKUvTd.png ) on all but a single cognitive test, which is verbal knowledge. All the important cognitive abilities related to thinking and understanding seem to decline severely with age, by as much as 1.2~2.0 s.d. from the peak. This is 18~30 lost IQ points on a typical 15-s.d. scale. For some people, the naturally gifted (starting point of +2.5 s.d. from the mean) this decline may be merely sad and inconveniencing, but for most of us this reality poses significant challenges to our daily life and autonomy as we approach our late years. I really don't see how this point may be overstated or talked away.
By the way, if we try to delve deeper in our research exercise we can find pretty specific biological mechanisms associated with the cognitive decline, such as cellular senescence, vascular degeneration and BBB breakdown, loss of mitochondrial function, loss of white matter integrity.
In my opinion, as adult human being approaching middle age, this cognitive ability decline due to age cannot be ignored, or cheered away with the usual gung-ho or wished away with wishful thinking. Instead we should acknowledge the obvious process happening to our older relatives and beginning to happen to us, and push our representatives to fund more targeted research grants and biotech investments, to find some remedies.
Some of the necessary research is already happening, if you know where to look [3], but it's really a tenth to hundredth of the effort we could muster, if we cared. If we believed.
1. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167...
2. http://www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/McArdle2002.p...
3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.13296
I think it's important to note that the first graphic you posted doesn't include longitudinal data (i.e., doesn't correct for the Flynn effect). Compare to: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2683339/.
Thank you for posting this paper, it is more statistically/psychometrically sound than the one I posted.
By testing each person across a significant path of their lifespan, and correcting for test-retest drift, it produces a more defendable result.
Still, it does not make decline disappear into statistical insignificance, just lowers its magnitude to 0.8~1.0 s.d, which is still large, thus sparing the qualitative reasoning in my interpretation. It should also be noted, that the Flynn effect has ended somewhere in the 1990s-2000s, at least in Norway[2], so it is likely that long-term it ceases to be a disturbing factor for between-cohorts comparisons. Test-retest gains will still be an issue though (and there is a viewpoint that a large part of Flynn effect could be explained as a large-scale environmentally-driven test-retest effect acting on the population).
I also like the review[1] of paper you posted, suggesting several measurable histological/neurological/physiological correlates of cognitive aging, aptly summarized on this graph: https://i.imgur.com/CpQ6Upc.png
If you are interested in discussing these papers, or joining a community of like-minded people, feel free to ping me via the email in my profile.
1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19231030/ (sci-hubbable) 2. http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/Sundet2004.pd...
Still, it does not make decline disappear into statistical insignificance, just lowers its magnitude to 0.8~1.0 s.d, which is still large, thus sparing the qualitative reasoning in my interpretation. It should also be noted, that the Flynn effect has ended somewhere in the 1990s-2000s, at least in Norway[2], so it is likely that long-term it ceases to be a disturbing factor for between-cohorts comparisons. Test-retest gains will still be an issue though (and there is a viewpoint that a large part of Flynn effect could be explained as a large-scale environmentally-driven test-retest effect acting on the population).
I also like the review[1] of paper you posted, suggesting several measurable histological/neurological/physiological correlates of cognitive aging, aptly summarized on this graph: https://i.imgur.com/CpQ6Upc.png
If you are interested in discussing these papers, or joining a community of like-minded people, feel free to ping me via the email in my profile.
1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19231030/ (sci-hubbable) 2. http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/Sundet2004.pd...
Anothe solution is to return to the millennia old practice of caring for elders.
I'm 51 ands my personal experience to date has been that I am way more effective in business now that I have ever previously been. I certainly put in less hours (now only ~40-45/wk as I have a 4.5 year old and various other commitments), but now I have made so many mistakes over the years that I generally focus on what really matters and am finding my impact is substantially greater than it was even though my effort is much lower.
Play video games. You'll constantly be in competition with the youngest, fastest people on the planet. No better way to stay sharp. Also, I program everyday even as a VC and nearly 50.
There's no real data behind this article. It's basically ageism fueled by self-doubt.
Yeah, that and weird examples. Around 1860, so roughly 160 years ago, Darwin felt old in his 50-ies.
But that kind of omits the fact that in our modern day and age, the elderly have a lot more technical help available. For Darwin, it was a decision of leaving his family behind to go on a months-long trip. Nowadays, it'd be a 6 hour flight and you can call your friends while you're on vacation.
So the risk/reward tradeoff has massively changed since Darwin's times.
But that kind of omits the fact that in our modern day and age, the elderly have a lot more technical help available. For Darwin, it was a decision of leaving his family behind to go on a months-long trip. Nowadays, it'd be a 6 hour flight and you can call your friends while you're on vacation.
So the risk/reward tradeoff has massively changed since Darwin's times.
I really enjoyed the article overall.
The section on Darwin was an eyebrow raiser. It makes sense to include someone like Darwin (very interesting and well known), but he's not a great example to compare to "normal" people (like the couple mentioned in the opening paragraph).
A 50 year old in the 1800s whose job was catching a ship to the other side of the planet is a little different when compared to a factory worker, software engineer, doctor, etc.
Also, what the fuck is this off-hand remark:
> Unfortunately, Mendel’s work was published in an obscure academic journal and Darwin never saw it—and in any case, Darwin did not have the mathematical ability to understand it.
The section on Darwin was an eyebrow raiser. It makes sense to include someone like Darwin (very interesting and well known), but he's not a great example to compare to "normal" people (like the couple mentioned in the opening paragraph).
A 50 year old in the 1800s whose job was catching a ship to the other side of the planet is a little different when compared to a factory worker, software engineer, doctor, etc.
Also, what the fuck is this off-hand remark:
> Unfortunately, Mendel’s work was published in an obscure academic journal and Darwin never saw it—and in any case, Darwin did not have the mathematical ability to understand it.
> > Unfortunately, Mendel’s work was published in an obscure academic journal and Darwin never saw it
This part is true. Not sure about Darwin's mathematical knowledge.
This part is true. Not sure about Darwin's mathematical knowledge.
I probably should have been more explicit with my issue. This is the part that rustled my jimmies:
> and in any case, Darwin did not have the mathematical ability to understand it.
> and in any case, Darwin did not have the mathematical ability to understand it.
"The Atlantic" has seriously fallen off over the past few years. I've been a regular subscriber for two decades now. I've have always enjoyed it as a source of articles from a fairly liberal perspective, yet nevertheless prone to serious introspection and regular challenges to that perspective.
In the Age of Trump, however, it really has just descended into blog-caliber clickbait. The effort at introspection and critical thinking skills just isn't there anymore. Today, the publication just feels like a collection of opinion essays aimed at pandering to Twitter culture.
This month's cover story is titled "Private Schools Are Indefensible" (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/private...). The author starts off recalling anecdotes about her experience, teaching the children of hedge fund managers at an elite private school catering to the ultra-wealthy.
In the old Atlantic, you would skim through this sort of thing, waiting for the "meat" of the article to begin. References to hard data, facts and figures. Comparisons and contrasts between these ultra-wealthy private coastal schools, and the mundane private schools accessible to middle-class families in cities and towns across the nation. Perhaps even some interesting counterpoint, about minority families being more likely to choose charter or private school when having the option.
In today's Atlantic, though, you never get to that "meat". The introductory anecdotes simply ARE the article! The author hated teaching the children of multi-millionaires at her elite private school, and thought the school was terrible and twelve kinds of racist accordingly. There is zero effort to tie her experience at this school into the broad "Private Schools Are Indefensible" title. Because if you're in the in target audience these days, then surely you already feel that way, and simply want some fluffy opinion content to reinforce your feeling. Right?
I've held on longer than I probably should have, but I don't believe that I'll be renewing with my current subscription expires next year. Which is terribly depressing to me.
In the Age of Trump, however, it really has just descended into blog-caliber clickbait. The effort at introspection and critical thinking skills just isn't there anymore. Today, the publication just feels like a collection of opinion essays aimed at pandering to Twitter culture.
This month's cover story is titled "Private Schools Are Indefensible" (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/private...). The author starts off recalling anecdotes about her experience, teaching the children of hedge fund managers at an elite private school catering to the ultra-wealthy.
In the old Atlantic, you would skim through this sort of thing, waiting for the "meat" of the article to begin. References to hard data, facts and figures. Comparisons and contrasts between these ultra-wealthy private coastal schools, and the mundane private schools accessible to middle-class families in cities and towns across the nation. Perhaps even some interesting counterpoint, about minority families being more likely to choose charter or private school when having the option.
In today's Atlantic, though, you never get to that "meat". The introductory anecdotes simply ARE the article! The author hated teaching the children of multi-millionaires at her elite private school, and thought the school was terrible and twelve kinds of racist accordingly. There is zero effort to tie her experience at this school into the broad "Private Schools Are Indefensible" title. Because if you're in the in target audience these days, then surely you already feel that way, and simply want some fluffy opinion content to reinforce your feeling. Right?
I've held on longer than I probably should have, but I don't believe that I'll be renewing with my current subscription expires next year. Which is terribly depressing to me.
I feel the same way (but wonder how much is me getting wiser as I aged) and I think the death of The Puzzler was a sign of the Atlantic's slide into pseudo-intelllectualism.
[deleted]
I came to say something similar but less succinct.
I've been in a transitional state career-wise, partially by choice, but I think there's two major factors not really mentioned by the article, and in fact, factors I think the article reinforces.
The first is ageism, like you say. But I think ageism is a lot more subtle than other things, because it's not only an assumption of age-related decline, but more generally an assumption that people can't change. So if you become known for X, it's hard for people to see you as anything but that. You get typecast, and those assumptions become societal constraints. It's like there's career "rails" and if you go off the rails, people don't know how to process it.
The second is a sort of lack of recognition of how much randomness and fads plays a role in certain fields. What I mean by that is that the reasons some people attain relative notoriety and status is often due to butterfly effects or societal viccitudes, and these become revealed only over time.
I think in general, there's a very superficial way we process people and their potential for change or new work. Even when they're capable of it, they're often prevented from doing so because of assumptions and stereotypes.
Sure, cognitive decline happens, but it's not as dramatic as it seems in this article.
Sometimes I feel as I've gotten older it's just a process of seeing more of the wizard behind the curtain. I read articles like this and get depressed only because it perpetuates the societal ills that lead to the problems in the first place.
I've been in a transitional state career-wise, partially by choice, but I think there's two major factors not really mentioned by the article, and in fact, factors I think the article reinforces.
The first is ageism, like you say. But I think ageism is a lot more subtle than other things, because it's not only an assumption of age-related decline, but more generally an assumption that people can't change. So if you become known for X, it's hard for people to see you as anything but that. You get typecast, and those assumptions become societal constraints. It's like there's career "rails" and if you go off the rails, people don't know how to process it.
The second is a sort of lack of recognition of how much randomness and fads plays a role in certain fields. What I mean by that is that the reasons some people attain relative notoriety and status is often due to butterfly effects or societal viccitudes, and these become revealed only over time.
I think in general, there's a very superficial way we process people and their potential for change or new work. Even when they're capable of it, they're often prevented from doing so because of assumptions and stereotypes.
Sure, cognitive decline happens, but it's not as dramatic as it seems in this article.
Sometimes I feel as I've gotten older it's just a process of seeing more of the wizard behind the curtain. I read articles like this and get depressed only because it perpetuates the societal ills that lead to the problems in the first place.
What a trashy article. A lot of elderly Americans, including in the upper middle class, never retire due to Medicare being inadequate. You can quite literally save millions for retirement as an individual, and have coverage for drugs and treatment under Medicare, and still run out of money due to having to pay extortionate prices for covered drugs.
This line in the article is quite revealing and strange, contextually: "Maybe not. Though the literature on this question is sparse, giftedness and achievements early in life do not appear to provide an /insurance policy/ against suffering later on. "
I personally have 2 rare neurological diseases affecting my peripheral nervous system and I require an orphan drug, a blood product, that was covered under Medicare Part D when I lived in America. If I only had traditional Medicare in America, I would be liable for Medicare Part D Catastrophic Coverage Limits, and I would be forced to pay $50,000+/year total for all of my medical care under Medicare.
Technically, yes, I can get a Medicare Advantage plan, which has an out-of-pocket limit. The problem is that the vast majority of these plans are HMOs, and that does not go well with rare disease. Also, one of the rare diseases that I have is very rare, with case reports and cohorts at best in the medical literature. So, if I want to stay alive (like it is a choice?), I really cannot be on an HMO.
By the way, 7-8% of the general population collectively has some sort of a rare disease. There are about 8,000 or so rare diseases. So, it is not uncommon to have a rare disease.
Also, if you have cancer, or are likely to get cancer (elderly, perhaps?) having an HMO via a Medicare Advantage plan is not a good idea if you likewise want to stay alive.
The problem is that once you are on a Medicare Advantage plan, you basically cannot go back to traditional Medicare. This is because Medigap plans (Medicare Part B Supplemental plans) allow medical underwriting even after the Affordable Care Act went into effect, unless you live in 4 US states! So, you basically can never get a Medigap plan again after switching to a Medicare Advantage plan. It is, quite literally, a deadly, but not well known error that Americans make when they are on Medicare.
This is one of the top reasons why I left the US and never plan on living there ever again, even if I have to file and pay taxes as a US citizen. I naturalized and acquired another citizenship over the US healthcare system.
This line in the article is quite revealing and strange, contextually: "Maybe not. Though the literature on this question is sparse, giftedness and achievements early in life do not appear to provide an /insurance policy/ against suffering later on. "
I personally have 2 rare neurological diseases affecting my peripheral nervous system and I require an orphan drug, a blood product, that was covered under Medicare Part D when I lived in America. If I only had traditional Medicare in America, I would be liable for Medicare Part D Catastrophic Coverage Limits, and I would be forced to pay $50,000+/year total for all of my medical care under Medicare.
Technically, yes, I can get a Medicare Advantage plan, which has an out-of-pocket limit. The problem is that the vast majority of these plans are HMOs, and that does not go well with rare disease. Also, one of the rare diseases that I have is very rare, with case reports and cohorts at best in the medical literature. So, if I want to stay alive (like it is a choice?), I really cannot be on an HMO.
By the way, 7-8% of the general population collectively has some sort of a rare disease. There are about 8,000 or so rare diseases. So, it is not uncommon to have a rare disease.
Also, if you have cancer, or are likely to get cancer (elderly, perhaps?) having an HMO via a Medicare Advantage plan is not a good idea if you likewise want to stay alive.
The problem is that once you are on a Medicare Advantage plan, you basically cannot go back to traditional Medicare. This is because Medigap plans (Medicare Part B Supplemental plans) allow medical underwriting even after the Affordable Care Act went into effect, unless you live in 4 US states! So, you basically can never get a Medigap plan again after switching to a Medicare Advantage plan. It is, quite literally, a deadly, but not well known error that Americans make when they are on Medicare.
This is one of the top reasons why I left the US and never plan on living there ever again, even if I have to file and pay taxes as a US citizen. I naturalized and acquired another citizenship over the US healthcare system.
> You can quite literally save millions for retirement as an individual, and have coverage for drugs and treatment under Medicare, and still run out of money due to having to pay extortionate prices for covered drugs.
This is a totally ridiculous statement. Medicare-assisted drug costs are absolutely NOT going to bankrupt someone who has very wisely saved "millions" for retirement.
I have watched both my parents now pass, and I actually helped them both work out which Medicare plan to select based on their specific medications by creating a spreadsheet and carefully going thru the documentation of each plan and doing the math.
2 million dollars can rather safely throw off 3% after-taxes, so thats 60k/year not counting the odd 1800 that the federal government pays everyone with Medicare "benefits", that that is 6800/month someone who has saved "millions" has for income, and that's not even touching the principle nest egg.
There is no possible way someone's monthly drug costs are going to be anywhere even CLOSE to that number..I think each of my parents spent around 1200/month for what seemed to me to be way more "medication" then they could possibly need.
Unless you somehow come up with numbers that are way, way different than mine, your assertation that drug costs could bankrupt someone with "millions" saved is rather laughable.
This is a totally ridiculous statement. Medicare-assisted drug costs are absolutely NOT going to bankrupt someone who has very wisely saved "millions" for retirement.
I have watched both my parents now pass, and I actually helped them both work out which Medicare plan to select based on their specific medications by creating a spreadsheet and carefully going thru the documentation of each plan and doing the math.
2 million dollars can rather safely throw off 3% after-taxes, so thats 60k/year not counting the odd 1800 that the federal government pays everyone with Medicare "benefits", that that is 6800/month someone who has saved "millions" has for income, and that's not even touching the principle nest egg.
There is no possible way someone's monthly drug costs are going to be anywhere even CLOSE to that number..I think each of my parents spent around 1200/month for what seemed to me to be way more "medication" then they could possibly need.
Unless you somehow come up with numbers that are way, way different than mine, your assertation that drug costs could bankrupt someone with "millions" saved is rather laughable.
I know someone on Medicare that has a 1 pill a day prescription with a sticker price that multiplies out to $45,000 a year. I don't know if that is what ends up getting paid though, and I guess it's still not going to burn through millions.
[deleted]
It seems to me in the US, and probably elsewhere too, that wherever outside financing enters the industry, it just ruins the whole industry in a handful of decades. Education, Healthcare, Housing.. it starts with an intention of helping people that don't have the means and then ends up in a situation where a majority of the population is either dependant on the companies to get the thing or have to forgo the thing entirely..
Do you have any data to show that Medicare Advantage plan members have lower 5-year cancer survival rates than other patients? Because most other studies have shown that Medicare Advantage plan members receive better quality care on average. Just because you had a bad experience doesn't mean the system is failing everyone else.
I wasn't aware there was a recognized problem with HMOs? Some of the best care I've experienced in America is at Kaiser.
This is true to the extent that I think it is OK to lie to get a job or opportunity if you know you can do it. For example there might be opportunities where if I pretended I had no coding experience it might be better than saying I have.
(2019)
Previous thread here, with 44 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20227091
One of the most productive engineers I knew (who I’m guessing will read this) was in his 60s when I met him. He’s since “retired” and helped a company obtain a $1B valuation.
Similarly, my 85 year old grandfather still doesn’t own a wheelbarrow and will move stone, dirt, etc every summer. His motto is “keep moving”, I don’t think there’s really anything else to it. Yes you will slow down, but stay engaged and motivated and frankly you’ll outperform anyone because you’ll also have experience.
Similarly, my 85 year old grandfather still doesn’t own a wheelbarrow and will move stone, dirt, etc every summer. His motto is “keep moving”, I don’t think there’s really anything else to it. Yes you will slow down, but stay engaged and motivated and frankly you’ll outperform anyone because you’ll also have experience.
"keep moving" or something similar is the best advice.. growing to my 50s myself, and watching parents and grandparents, this is by far the biggest variable you can control.
Keep learning, keep moving your body. When you're 15 this is easy, you don't really have a choice. When you're 40+ it starts to become more of a deliberate act.
Keep learning, keep moving your body. When you're 15 this is easy, you don't really have a choice. When you're 40+ it starts to become more of a deliberate act.
>One of the most productive engineers I knew (who I’m guessing will read this) was in his 60s when I met him.
When I visited a hospital recently, the healthiest-looking person in the 106 years old. I know it because the nurse was super excited talking to her and asking if there is any special secret to staying healthy that long. Statistically, though, the health does degrade with age.
Outliers and anecdata are good for storytelling and inspiration, but the type of data you want to use for decision making is relative probabilities on a statistically significant set.
When I visited a hospital recently, the healthiest-looking person in the 106 years old. I know it because the nurse was super excited talking to her and asking if there is any special secret to staying healthy that long. Statistically, though, the health does degrade with age.
Outliers and anecdata are good for storytelling and inspiration, but the type of data you want to use for decision making is relative probabilities on a statistically significant set.
The main thing that >100 yr old people tend to have in common is being born on places with poor record keeping of child births.
Mine wasn't that extreme, but my grandfather was laid low by mesothelioma less than a month after his last day tending his gardens in his mid 80s, and his father in law was doing it until the night before he died, also his mid 80s. My other grandfather took my grandmother out to eat and dance every weekend. He died of spinal cancer in his mid 80s, but she's still around at 104.
Similar story here, my grandfather played Chamber music with his friends (he played cello) twice a week well into his 90s. He barely lasted weeks after he became too frail to play music.
Sounds like a good way to go. Having a lifespan that ends soon after a steep decline in healthspan is what I'm shooting for.
Ultimately, the data for things like this boils down to anecdotes over a wide distribution.
Some people flourish with age; some don't. Each individual's situation arises from a confluence of factors, some within their control (lifestyle, attitude, attention to professional development) and some outside their control (industry changes, ageism, health).
To contribute an anecdote from my own experience: I once worked at a consultancy with a large number of recent grads and one engineer who must have been in his 60s. Through a combination of hard-won expertise and a soft-spoken humility and sense of humor, he had the quiet admiration of all the young people in the office, to the point of coworkers privately raving to me about how great he was to work with.
Some people flourish with age; some don't. Each individual's situation arises from a confluence of factors, some within their control (lifestyle, attitude, attention to professional development) and some outside their control (industry changes, ageism, health).
To contribute an anecdote from my own experience: I once worked at a consultancy with a large number of recent grads and one engineer who must have been in his 60s. Through a combination of hard-won expertise and a soft-spoken humility and sense of humor, he had the quiet admiration of all the young people in the office, to the point of coworkers privately raving to me about how great he was to work with.
Genetics is also a major factor that a lot of people ignore. I'm relatively healthy right now and do my best to live an active lifestyle, but am also preparing for a physical and mental decline by 60-65 since that is when my entire extended family going back generations has always started to show their age.
It's worked for the japanese
A lot of capability comes from the network you develop as you move through your career. This is also true in technical fields.
This is a classic MBA-style fluff piece.
Yeah its pretty much a privileged boomer concern to fear professional decline and loss of relevance when most millenials I know (with advanced/professional degrees) have had to fight just to keep jobs, much less ever had to worry about being relevant.
I think this man needs to see that life isn't only your work. The value you provide to others and self-worth shouldn't be tied exclusively to work, there is so much more to life and so much more to give past 60.
After reading the article it seems to me he sees that very clearly; that's why he's trying to make those points to others.
I would not underestimate the value of experience. And the older you get, the more of it you have a chance to acquire.
I think the mistake most people make is to deliberately slow down as you get older. Never slow down and you'll keep pulling ahead.
I think the mistake most people make is to deliberately slow down as you get older. Never slow down and you'll keep pulling ahead.
When I was younger, I would run as fast as I could straight into brick walls. I deliberately go more slowly now, and make wiser decisions. The value of my experience has taught me that it's better to move slow in the right direction than fast in the wrong direction.
I’m the same. However, I spend much more time deciding what to do and dealing with office politics. I’m not sure that the related time and effort is actually better spent than running into walls. You learn more from doing but perhaps both types of activity qualify. It’s hard to say as you perhaps weave towards a less technical and more managerial role.
I wonder why when s*it hits the fan, the most senior and experienced are always on the line fixing stuff. I am in my 40 and the only thing I have noticed is steady increase of my paycheck and responsibilities. I can't really complain.
The software industry is now in a somewhat unique historical position in that software is now bigger and more complex than ever before and written in largely the same manner as it was ~20 years ago. Many companies are built through backend web services running on commodity or cloud hardware running linux. Historically the kind of software that was being written at the largest firms changed every 10 years from mainframes to PCs to mobile etc.
While I haven't seen it formally studied, I'd expect software salaries to keep pace with the scale/value provided by the technology and how influential an engineer can be on a given software stack.
While I haven't seen it formally studied, I'd expect software salaries to keep pace with the scale/value provided by the technology and how influential an engineer can be on a given software stack.
[deleted]
I’d recommend the WorkLife podcast episode where the host, org psychologist Adam Grant, challenges the author quite a bit[1]
In short, if you were good in your 20s and like your job, you’ll still be good (possibly far better) with 70% raw intelligence but lots of experience and specialized expertise.
Much of the data, Adam argues, is also conflated with people realizing other things are important in life for a time. But many people revisit successful careers after kids move out etc.
1 - https://www.ted.com/talks/worklife_with_adam_grant_career_de...
In short, if you were good in your 20s and like your job, you’ll still be good (possibly far better) with 70% raw intelligence but lots of experience and specialized expertise.
Much of the data, Adam argues, is also conflated with people realizing other things are important in life for a time. But many people revisit successful careers after kids move out etc.
1 - https://www.ted.com/talks/worklife_with_adam_grant_career_de...
Thank Goodness
It seems like several comments are reacting to the headline and not the content of the article. The article does not assert that old people are definitely professionally useless, it does not assert that your career is the most important thing in your life, and it's not telling old workers to pack it up and downshift into a soft life.
It's not rigorously backed up by robust longitudinal studies either. Fine, a lot of interesting ideas aren't. But the idea of preparing for a graceful change into a different future self -- maybe not weaker, but definitely not "the same but more", which is how I think we usually imagine a different future self -- seems under-explored to me in modern media. So I like this piece for trying to talk through it a bit.
It's not rigorously backed up by robust longitudinal studies either. Fine, a lot of interesting ideas aren't. But the idea of preparing for a graceful change into a different future self -- maybe not weaker, but definitely not "the same but more", which is how I think we usually imagine a different future self -- seems under-explored to me in modern media. So I like this piece for trying to talk through it a bit.
Not as true for people in technical fields, the author, while smart and accomplished is a social scientist and musician. One interesting idea he mentions is that older, tenured researchers' productivity goes down and universities would love to move budget-hogging oldsters into teaching. Unfortunately, there's not much glory in teaching even though it's precisely the area where experience is valuable.
[deleted]
I'm 30 and it's already happened. The spoils of being tracked into low-paying, dead-end work.
You're too young to throw in the towel. Figure out what you want, make a plan to slowly but steadily move in that direction, and execute it.
I agree with previous reply. Don't squander your potential because you think it's too late. I empathize; I had a related experience. After failing at my first career out of school, I was broken an aimless. At 30 I found myself working in construction, which was not a good fit for me in many ways. Also, working 70 hrs/week for $30k/year didn't make me feel highly valued. Now, I'm 36 and a few years into a career as a software engineer. Strangely, I feel I have so much more opportunity ahead of me now than I did 10 years ago. Even more strange, I kind of feel bad for people my age who are professionally and financially successful, but don't have a clue what they want to do next: maybe they have golden handcuffs; maybe they just never really took the time to explore the world or know themselves. They have no businesses they want to start, no books they want to write. I'm sure some people look at me and see a loser, but that's true of everyone, so who gives a fuck?
Given the hack job that is AEI, I think the author's professional decline arrived much, much sooner than even he thought.
The irony is one of AEI's goals is that the workers who create all created wealth be put out to pasture early so that heirs owning majority shares of corporations can profit. Now he is being hoisted by the petard he fired. Luckily my skills and experience are at a more lucrative point of production than his.
https://www.aei.org/articles/counterpoint-unions-are-irrelev...
"A one-size-fits-all union-type compensation contract with pay determined mostly by seniority and not merit is no longer desirable or relevant for the workers of the 21st century."
https://www.aei.org/articles/counterpoint-unions-are-irrelev...
"A one-size-fits-all union-type compensation contract with pay determined mostly by seniority and not merit is no longer desirable or relevant for the workers of the 21st century."
[deleted]
Does the author struggle with any substance use or abuse? My mental acuity is sharper at 38 than it has ever been. But I gave up all alcohol and substance use a year ago.
50 here and I just read Concurrency in Go this past weekend and absorbed everything faster than I could have in my 20s. I think it is more that the vast majority of people stop using their brains much past the age of 30. (hell, even 25). I'd like to see a software engineering specific version of these studies.
The only thing I lack these days is an intense desire to constantly code - I find there are all kinds of interesting aspects to the creation of software beyond hammering out code.
The only thing I lack these days is an intense desire to constantly code - I find there are all kinds of interesting aspects to the creation of software beyond hammering out code.
He's in his mid 50's now. You may find that you're not the same person 20 years from now as you are now.
Yeah it’s so obvious how much better your body and mind perform when you give it the right inputs and remove the bad.
Also, who else noticed the poster is @fortran77? Oh, the irony.
(I cut my teeth with Fortran 77 on a VAX 11/780).
(I cut my teeth with Fortran 77 on a VAX 11/780).
As an old timer, I stay gainfully employed by finding niches. Assembly language programming, CUDA, and lately VHDL/Verilog programming. Stuff that "kids today" don't know. Most people with undergraduate CS degrees don't know how to use 'scopes, logic analyzers, etc -- and undergraduates with EE degrees usually aren't so great at programming -- so being able to use this sort of equipment to debug embedded software makes you always relevant and employable.
[deleted]
The vast majority of people I know in physically demanding labour are not looking forward to continuing work at the same pace past age 55, and by age 60-65 they're well over it.
The vast majority of people I know in mentally demanding labour tend to split 50/50 wanting to scale back, and wanting to continue as-is. The latter group tend to resent mandated ageist laws, which is understandable. The former, see them as an unimpeachable way to get off the train.
I know that my motivations in work have changed since I past 55, and as I approach 60, they are most definately not about doing as much, or the same kind of work.
I have perfectly adequate superannuation, and I don't expect to struggle. I also attend financial planning sessions from my funds, and get guidance on realistic income expectations post-work. FIRE is (in many ways) based on the same kind of information: when you do step back, after some intial bust of enthusiastic recreational or debt-clearing spending, most people reduce their core spend (but in the case of aged people, increase their health spend).
Doing nothing is fatal. Hobbies are not "it" for many people, volunteering, or some lower intensity part-time work is a perfectly rational thing to do, even if basically wealthy (I mean in context, having adequate income from your retirement planning. Not, being a FAANG class retiree)
Travel is often best done when younger. Its tiring. Young eyes need experiences. Old eyes can handle mostly memories and a few less intense ones. If you are an adrenalin junkie, none of this applies to you, and keep sky-diving as much as you can.
I definitely feel superceded in the workforce. I have a good position and respect (declining!) but I feel its time to step into a role which lets younger people come to the fore. You need to make way. You even need to let them make mistakes.
The vast majority of people I know in mentally demanding labour tend to split 50/50 wanting to scale back, and wanting to continue as-is. The latter group tend to resent mandated ageist laws, which is understandable. The former, see them as an unimpeachable way to get off the train.
I know that my motivations in work have changed since I past 55, and as I approach 60, they are most definately not about doing as much, or the same kind of work.
I have perfectly adequate superannuation, and I don't expect to struggle. I also attend financial planning sessions from my funds, and get guidance on realistic income expectations post-work. FIRE is (in many ways) based on the same kind of information: when you do step back, after some intial bust of enthusiastic recreational or debt-clearing spending, most people reduce their core spend (but in the case of aged people, increase their health spend).
Doing nothing is fatal. Hobbies are not "it" for many people, volunteering, or some lower intensity part-time work is a perfectly rational thing to do, even if basically wealthy (I mean in context, having adequate income from your retirement planning. Not, being a FAANG class retiree)
Travel is often best done when younger. Its tiring. Young eyes need experiences. Old eyes can handle mostly memories and a few less intense ones. If you are an adrenalin junkie, none of this applies to you, and keep sky-diving as much as you can.
I definitely feel superceded in the workforce. I have a good position and respect (declining!) but I feel its time to step into a role which lets younger people come to the fore. You need to make way. You even need to let them make mistakes.
good: i never felt useful.
I'm struggling to find anything meaningful in this article.
But it does remind me of a few chapters within Yuval Noah Harari's "21 Lessons for the 21st Century" book which I'd recommend everyone read. But essentially he talks about how we're currently seeing a large influx and requirement for digital or technology related jobs, which will over time take some but not all jobs from traditional jobs (not up for debate). Now many of the people who have worked in traditional jobs such as check outs, clerks, factory workers etc will likely be higher in age and will struggle to reskill to other jobs, not just due to the change in technical requirements but purely due to age and our ability to learn completely new tasks.
Fast forward and the discussion talks about how the current and new workforce might be expected to change jobs many times more than previous generations due to such a rapidly changing world. He therefore raises the point that we all may need to reskill multiple times during our lives and will require significant cognitive strain on older people who may have previously been able to master their professional for decades.
But it does remind me of a few chapters within Yuval Noah Harari's "21 Lessons for the 21st Century" book which I'd recommend everyone read. But essentially he talks about how we're currently seeing a large influx and requirement for digital or technology related jobs, which will over time take some but not all jobs from traditional jobs (not up for debate). Now many of the people who have worked in traditional jobs such as check outs, clerks, factory workers etc will likely be higher in age and will struggle to reskill to other jobs, not just due to the change in technical requirements but purely due to age and our ability to learn completely new tasks.
Fast forward and the discussion talks about how the current and new workforce might be expected to change jobs many times more than previous generations due to such a rapidly changing world. He therefore raises the point that we all may need to reskill multiple times during our lives and will require significant cognitive strain on older people who may have previously been able to master their professional for decades.
>He therefore raises the point that we all may need to reskill multiple times during our lives and will require significant cognitive strain on older people who may have previously been able to master their professional for decades.
Maybe we need to usher in retirement at a much earlier age, 55 perhaps. Of course you can keep working but could also retire if there is that desire.
My view is we are all going to be out of work soon enough. Sam Altman agrees with me. Probably in the next 2-3 decades for sure.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/17/openais-altman-ai-will-make-...
Maybe we need to usher in retirement at a much earlier age, 55 perhaps. Of course you can keep working but could also retire if there is that desire.
My view is we are all going to be out of work soon enough. Sam Altman agrees with me. Probably in the next 2-3 decades for sure.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/17/openais-altman-ai-will-make-...
This was not at all the article I was expecting given the title! Given that it's HN, I was expecting projections on when AI will take over which jobs in which order.
> Perhaps the worst moment in my young but flailing career came at age 22, when I was performing at Carnegie Hall.
Oh please.
Oh please.
At first I thought it was about robots replacing us.
I wonder if the elderly man he’s referring to is Buzz Aldrin. The age and description checks out.
So at 15, I was offered a paid internship at IBM Almaden in the field of dark matter research. Unfortunately, the laws at the time prevented anyone under 15.5 from holding a job (it's since changed to 14). From ages 15-19, I was constantly solicited with interview offers. I could surmise this was based more on youth halo rather than anything else, because what does a kid know?
At 43, I get interview requests for FAANG-level companies several times per year without a LinkedIn account or a résumé. The main things I have going for me are I don't look 43 and I date college girls. Maybe that helps keep me from seeming coasting, declining, and/or stogy. I can't type as fast as I did at 20, but I pace myself (I gave myself RSI from not working-out enough and typing too much without breaks.)
I never want to "retire" but move to different roles and/or fields before either I or the field declines. To me, retirement is death either by boredom, distractions, idleness, or decline.
At 43, I get interview requests for FAANG-level companies several times per year without a LinkedIn account or a résumé. The main things I have going for me are I don't look 43 and I date college girls. Maybe that helps keep me from seeming coasting, declining, and/or stogy. I can't type as fast as I did at 20, but I pace myself (I gave myself RSI from not working-out enough and typing too much without breaks.)
I never want to "retire" but move to different roles and/or fields before either I or the field declines. To me, retirement is death either by boredom, distractions, idleness, or decline.
Yes, it's sort of clickbait-y. You don't need to feel like you're about to wither and die because you just turned 44.
Yes, it's deeply anecdotal. Lots of older people are incredibly successful in their fields. That 65-year old engineer you know is great!
But frankly, it doesn't matter who you are, or what you do: you will begin to get worse at it some day. And if you define your value by how good you are at this thing, you're gonna feel pretty shitty when you can't do it any more. For a forum that is defined around the development of technical and business skills, I would think that would resonate a little bit.
It doesn't seem like such a crazy idea to me that we need to redefine our own self worth as we age and change. And I think the author provides some excellent advice in that respect, particularly in his exhortations to Serve and Connect.