My grandfather is a 89-year-old lawyer and you can find him every morning on his office, including weekends. He uses a typewriter and is actually very fast on those.
He is incredibly lucid and and claims it's because of his work, which I agree.
Always working - or, in other words, exercising your brain - is a must to keep your memories and sanity.
As long as you like what you're doing and someone will employ you, right? Those folks probably have significant experience. Experience can't always trump creativity, but this is pretty cool. I'd not mind learning from a coworker in their eighties, you know?
<blanket statement warning> Silicon Valley's emphasis on young programmers and engineers in general is silly.
SV's emphasis is about bootstrapping on the cheap.
Much of the startup culture is not about researching new involved technical solutions, or crafting something complex and intricate, but getting a simple social idea backed by stock tech out the door quickly & cheaply to effectively pull the slot machine lever.
It is stupid and self-defeating beyond the immediate short term. But you can see where they come from, and they knowingly take the risk of patching up later once they have some success.
This is accurate. The "tech" industry is 95% marketing that uses technology, not actual technology. The bad guys have won in Silicon Valley and I don't see there being any way to reverse that.
It's not that "business guys" are bad. There are a lot of good business people out there. Look at Warren Buffett or Bill Gates.
The problem in the Valley is that the dominant culture is now set by the people who moved West to take advantage of nerds and their poor negotiating skills. There's a personality type and it's not a good one.
There are oilmen and coal miners and gold miners in the world, and Silicon Valley's leadership is comprised almost entirely of people miners who turn young male quixotry into gold. It's Hollywood for Ugly People.
I don't dislike all business people. As with any other group, there are good ones who think long term and bad ones who raid companies and fail up. Technology just seems to be dominated, about 10-to-1, by the bad ones.
If "young male quixotry" can't turn themselves into gold themselves, then how are these people miners bad? And if they are, how do these people miners have any business at all?
If "young male quixotry" can't turn themselves into gold themselves
Underestimating the power ratio between capital and labor, they're easily tricked into believing that hard work can overcome the massive social distance between them and the investor/founder caste. The best thing for them isn't a foolhardy attempt to "turn themselves into gold" in the short term; it's to leave and then to build something better in the long run.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted for this. But basically: Business won. They're getting their way and it's terrible for tech. It's going to be terrible for our industry, and it's going to be worse for our future.
The thing about HN is that I'm only interested in the dev related articles. But I think you're right, and that you've pointed out something that argivates me about the HN crowd: It's not for devs. It's for the west coast/SV culture. (Which I'm not apart of)
With time I came to think that age don't really matter, you can find ranty 20yos that think rushing is a quality and you can find ranty 80yos thinking not changing anything is the only way.
If someone has a blend of sensitivity to history with a nice dose of inspiration and creativity, whatever his age, hire him.
Anecdotal alert. All people I know who went 'on pension' either started working again or died (at least 5 cases of high profile managers getting heart attacks or commit suicide within a year after their pension). Most people, including my father and grandfather, really did not like pressureless sitting at home. You do the vacations and the reading and hobbies but then, unless you are very dedicated (like a job), there is a hole. I believe this to become a society wide thing quite soon. Actually dedicating yourself to do something (be it painting, coding, building, whatever) as a discipline is very hard and very underestimated for people who never needed it.
I know plenty of people who retired and lived well into their 80s and even 90s.
The trick is to find something else to dedicate oneself to. One old man I know is an avid gardener, and gets up in the morning to tend to every single plant in his garden. Another one dedicated himself to Olympic sports and probably learned the name of every single athlete who competes in the games. I also know an older lady who joined a volunteer organization and found meaning in helping those in need.
While I respect people who continue to work after they retire, in my opinion they do that simply because work is their "safe zone" and they're afraid of letting go and branching out into other things. This tends to be more likely for people who own a business or practice: they feel they need to be at the helm at all times to prevent it from falling apart.
There are also people who have been workhaholics throughout their career and haven't developed any meaningful hobbies. For them, life is work, and work is life. So they chug along until they die. I have less respect for those people, because for every old person who refuses to retire, there's a younger person who isn't getting promoted to their spot, or hired.
Don't think old people retiring and making place for younger is going to help much with the diminishing job market anyway though. However, wether that is true or not, it is very important for anyone to develop some kind of passion / hobby / interest next to / instead of work.
Yes, but the point of pension, for average people, is getting the freedom to decide what you want to work on without economic pressure, as a reward for a life of contributing to society.
Which, to me, makes the article state what should be normal but is not. For people getting older and doing less or no manual labour, pension is not needed. Or even dangerous.
My father is in his mid-70s and after a short stint in retirement went back to work about 5 years ago. He claims it's because of the money, but there's not a lot preventing my parents from selling their home and moving to a cheaper part of the country and living out their retirement years.
On the plus side, he was remarkably sharp and agile for a 70 year old. But his legs are starting to fail and that's made him age very quickly.
Now I can see it being about money (and health care), he's going to need knee replacement surgery and months of rehab. Something my parents will struggle to afford.
He's lived a fascinating life, and is full of stories, but to me he's also a warning about the need to cultivate non-work interests and stash away enough money to enjoy a long retirement enjoying those interests.
Kudos to those who go about it cheerfully, but I also fear it will be increasingly mandatory, as the top-heavy demographic crisis comes home to roost in many developed countries. By the time the median HN user is a "senior citizen", Social Security eligibility will start at what, 87?
I do as well, but I have no certainty that it will always be tech-related. I think the idea of doing something totally different at some point has a lot of appeal.
I have a curious lack of interest in games - chess, sports, video games, board games, etc. I think the problem is they do not accomplish anything. There are so many fun things to do that also accomplish something, so I prefer to do them.
Ahh, not so much games for me but play as in the opposite of work. Things like play as in "play with my grandchildren" or "play with my dog" or even hacking can be seen as play "play with my arduino ....ooh BLINKENLIGHTS!"
Playing with grandchildren has a purpose other than simply pleasure, the pleasure is a nice side effect. Besides, rather than play with relatives, I prefer to join with them working on a task that accomplishes something. Like working together to fix a car, help move, lend a hand, whatever.
Many useful tasks are pleasurable, why not take advantage of that?
The other night I admitted a woman in her 90s to the hospital. When I asked her how her chest pain started, she said she started feeling it while she was at work. At first I was thinking "Does she have dementia?" but she explained that she works at the downtown Safeway Deli (A US grocery chain for those who are non US). It was pretty special to me because I have never met anyone in their 90s who works, much less with that kind of job. Usually if there's an 80 year old I meet who's still working, they have a more cerebral job like being an engineer or scientist or professor. When I told her how surprised I was she told me that if I lived in Iceland I wouldn't be as surprised as people apparently work these kinds of jobs often.
Despite the one person who still works because he needs the money, this is almost mocking the younger generations who will never be able to afford a house and have a miserable pension (if one at all) and have had their retirement age increased by years.
I am scared to death about my retirement. I only have 25 more years in this industry, at most, I have no pension (no employer has ever offered one), a student loan, I'm struggling to save for a deposit for a house while prices rise at eye-watering rates and I'm supporting a parent who has no assets or job.
which industry? I assume you mean development / programming. How old are you and why do you think 25 at most? I'm 35 and plan on doing this until I'm dead. There is absolutely no reason that you ever have to give up programming (outside of dementia).
I've met blind programmers and programmers that can't use their hands. If they can do it, we can do it, even if we have arthritis and become legally blind.
Edit: also if i become unemployable due to ageism, i've alrady decided will create a persona online of a 30 year old and only take remote jobs.
Indeed, but isn't the economic value of a competent programmer tied up in speed and motor efficiency as well as the domain knowledge? How does that equation change with disability, I wonder?
My personal sense was that if my hands or my eyes ever became useless (e.g. RSI, worsening eyestrain issues), I'm finished.
Correct - its a slower process but it can be done. Programming is all in your head, how you get it into the computer is irrelevant (recall programmers used to use hole punches on paper). I suspect that we'll have non-invasive mind to computer interfacing before my hands give out anyway.
My father will be 70 next year and just went into semi-retirement (where semi-retirement = writing two books). I suspect if there hadn't been a coup in Mali, which resulted in a return to India, he would probably still be working full time. It's not about the money T this point. He's in good health, is sharp as ever, so doing something seems to make sense.
To each his own. I plan to retire at 40, 42 at the latest if everything goes according to plan. I won't be a couch retiree though, I plan to spend perhaps 20 hours a week coding on various things. Or even bootstrap a company, and if it fails I can just go back to being retired.
My 92 year old grandfather is still a full time practicing doctor. My father and my aunts have talked to him about retiring for a while now. Being a doctor is who he is - if he gives that up, I'm afraid of what will happen.
They take a few cases of people doing what they like and present it as nobble.
What about millions of people who are the "retiring type", but have to work well into their 70s in shitty jobs (from Walmart and downwards) to make ends meet.
If anyone hasn't watched the documentary on Miyazaki, The Kingdom of Dreams and Madness, I'd highly recommend it. It delves a bit into his struggle to give up or continue on with his life's work.
The issue with not working is that if you have habitual activities during retirement (other than watching tv), those activities become indistinguishable from work. So you might as well just work. I'm only 28 but that's how I see it.
They're indistinguishable from work except retirement "activities" are self-directed, instead of decided by some manager. If you really like your job, sure, why replace it with other routine chores -- but I'd bet, once I'm that old, that I won't have a job I like enough to justify giving control of my days over to a company somewhere.
Personally I see no reason why I should retire, as long as someone is happy to pay me for what I like to do I'll probably keep doing it.