When should you have access to a lot of money?
13 Jan 2015, 9:05 pm
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I was awful at most stuff while a teen and young adult. I got better with age and there are plenty like me. Physical strength is not so much an issue these days due to all the automation and with older folks entering the workforce, there would be a push to automate.
There would also be a substantial push to meet the needs of older folk, physically, mentally, spiritually, because we would be depending on them. This would increase quality of life and longevity. It would mean staying healthier and stronger longer. Believe me, nothing would be better for older folk than to feel like full fledged, contributing members of society with just as much power as everyone else. Think of how much stable work forces would be. It's a brilliant idea and can bring so much that is positive to the "golden years."
There's nothing worse for an employee or a boss, even, to feel as if they are a burden to a company and someone is just looking for the excuse to push them into retirement for a variety of reason. It's stressful and unfair. It causes hurt feelings and financial hardship. What's so terrible about reevaluating the way we look at aging and older folk, not looking at them as victims of aging but people who are fully capable of contributing as much as anyone else?
There would also be a substantial push to meet the needs of older folk, physically, mentally, spiritually, because we would be depending on them. This would increase quality of life and longevity. It would mean staying healthier and stronger longer. Believe me, nothing would be better for older folk than to feel like full fledged, contributing members of society with just as much power as everyone else. Think of how much stable work forces would be. It's a brilliant idea and can bring so much that is positive to the "golden years."
There's nothing worse for an employee or a boss, even, to feel as if they are a burden to a company and someone is just looking for the excuse to push them into retirement for a variety of reason. It's stressful and unfair. It causes hurt feelings and financial hardship. What's so terrible about reevaluating the way we look at aging and older folk, not looking at them as victims of aging but people who are fully capable of contributing as much as anyone else?
You are completely disconnected from reality if you think that old folks want to work more and more hours so that lazy bums in their twenties and thirties can live a life of luxury and debauchery. If such a wacky idea was ever implemented, you could expect the total destruction of whatever country was stupid enough to do it considering that the old cannot be expected to carry the economy on their shoulders.
They wouldn't mind if they experienced it themselves and they knew the younger ones would have to work one day, too.
It would have to be something we all did together. But I think they would like to be surrounded by older people at work and that feeling their job won't go because of younger people with smaller salaries.
And it wouldn't be luxury and debauchery any more than retirement is that way now. It wouldn't be unlimited amounts of money thrown at young people. It would be them getting money at various times in life instead of at the end. They would just work at different times. I don't think it sounds bad because not all older folks want to be alone and out of the work environment.
It seems like a flexible, workable alternative to what we have now. I honestly don't understand why people would criticize such an idea when you consider how many older people seem unhappy once they leave work and a lot of them get less money once they retire than they did every year with a salary. That is fairly common, to take a pay cut once they retire.
13 Jan 2015, 9:10 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
It's partly because of conditioning and it's because they have already had to work their whole life. It would have to start with a generation that had that period in their youth then asked to work, not one that's already been there, done that and are looking forward to retirement but you have to ask yourself...do all of them honestly look forward to it, even the ones that do not have as much money as the others, perhaps? What if they were given the opportunity to work longer and have extra money? Why does everything have to be so cut and dry? Rigid?
We cannot assume everyone is the exact same way and that not working is the right choice for everyone. Some people do not work because they are old and no one will give them a chance to. Older workers are good workers.
We cannot assume everyone is the exact same way and that not working is the right choice for everyone. Some people do not work because they are old and no one will give them a chance to. Older workers are good workers.
There is no possibility that this scheme could ever work.
From what I've seen, people who tend to work well past 65 by choice are more likely to be either company owners or executives or are in certain high regarded professions such as medicine, sciences, lawyers, judges, ... where they still make valuable contributions.
Outside of those types of occupations or circumstances, if you see someone working past 65 it is most likely because they have to work.
And don't forget that those in the highly regarded professions would never have made it there if they had been worthless, lazy bums in their 20s and 30s.
13 Jan 2015, 9:11 pm
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
It's partly because of conditioning and it's because they have already had to work their whole life. It would have to start with a generation that had that period in their youth then asked to work, not one that's already been there, done that and are looking forward to retirement but you have to ask yourself...do all of them honestly look forward to it, even the ones that do not have as much money as the others, perhaps? What if they were given the opportunity to work longer and have extra money? Why does everything have to be so cut and dry? Rigid?
We cannot assume everyone is the exact same way and that not working is the right choice for everyone. Some people do not work because they are old and no one will give them a chance to. Older workers are good workers.
We cannot assume everyone is the exact same way and that not working is the right choice for everyone. Some people do not work because they are old and no one will give them a chance to. Older workers are good workers.
There is no possibility that this scheme could ever work.
From what I've seen, people who tend to work well past 65 by choice are more likely to be either company owners or executives or are in certain high regarded professions such as medicine, sciences, lawyers, judges, ... where they still make valuable contributions.
Outside of those types of occupations or circumstances, if you see someone working past 65 it is most likely because they have to work.
And don't forget that those in the highly regarded professions would never have made it there if they had been worthless, lazy bums in their 20s and 30s.
I guess you don't know anyone who has been pressured to retire, do you? It aint pretty.
Lemme ask you, Eric...how practical is what we have now? People are living longer and longer and they need money to do that and pensions can sometimes not be relied upon. So why not create better options for better quality life. Of course not everyone is going to do construction and various blue collar jobs and to be honest, those are becoming more and more automated with every year so one day, I am confident an eighty year old can do them if he can operate machinery. You probably think it's terrible to suggest it but there could be eighty year olds who want that opportunity, they just aren't given it and with people increasing their life spans with every decade...we are living to be older and older in age so eighty is going to seem more like forty one day. We have to change how we view aging. It's treated so abysmally now.
Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 13 Jan 2015, 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
13 Jan 2015, 9:17 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I was awful at most stuff while a teen and young adult. I got better with age and there are plenty like me. Physical strength is not so much an issue these days due to all the automation and with older folks entering the workforce, there would be a push to automate.
There would also be a substantial push to meet the needs of older folk, physically, mentally, spiritually, because we would be depending on them. This would increase quality of life and longevity. It would mean staying healthier and stronger longer. Believe me, nothing would be better for older folk than to feel like full fledged, contributing members of society with just as much power as everyone else. Think of how much stable work forces would be. It's a brilliant idea and can bring so much that is positive to the "golden years."
There's nothing worse for an employee or a boss, even, to feel as if they are a burden to a company and someone is just looking for the excuse to push them into retirement for a variety of reason. It's stressful and unfair. It causes hurt feelings and financial hardship. What's so terrible about reevaluating the way we look at aging and older folk, not looking at them as victims of aging but people who are fully capable of contributing as much as anyone else?
There would also be a substantial push to meet the needs of older folk, physically, mentally, spiritually, because we would be depending on them. This would increase quality of life and longevity. It would mean staying healthier and stronger longer. Believe me, nothing would be better for older folk than to feel like full fledged, contributing members of society with just as much power as everyone else. Think of how much stable work forces would be. It's a brilliant idea and can bring so much that is positive to the "golden years."
There's nothing worse for an employee or a boss, even, to feel as if they are a burden to a company and someone is just looking for the excuse to push them into retirement for a variety of reason. It's stressful and unfair. It causes hurt feelings and financial hardship. What's so terrible about reevaluating the way we look at aging and older folk, not looking at them as victims of aging but people who are fully capable of contributing as much as anyone else?
You are completely disconnected from reality if you think that old folks want to work more and more hours so that lazy bums in their twenties and thirties can live a life of luxury and debauchery. If such a wacky idea was ever implemented, you could expect the total destruction of whatever country was stupid enough to do it considering that the old cannot be expected to carry the economy on their shoulders.
They wouldn't mind if they experienced it themselves and they knew the younger ones would have to work one day, too.
It would have to be something we all did together. But I think they would like to be surrounded by older people at work and that feeling their job won't go because of younger people with smaller salaries.
And it wouldn't be luxury and debauchery any more than retirement is that way now. It wouldn't be unlimited amounts of money thrown at young people. It would be them getting money at various times in life instead of at the end. They would just work at different times. I don't think it sounds bad because not all older folks want to be alone and out of the work environment.
It seems like a flexible, workable alternative to what we have now. I honestly don't understand why people would criticize such an idea when you consider how many older people seem unhappy once they leave work and a lot of them get less money once they retire than they did every year with a salary. That is fairly common, to take a pay cut once they retire.
Do you really think that they would be more responsible if they waited until 40 to get their first job? Just how far do you think they could advance in those jobs? If you wait until 40 to start working, you will NEVER be able to work at anything but dead-end jobs.
Nearly every old person I know who does not own the business and who is not in certain highly regarded jobs wants to retire. Even those who own businesses are usually mainly interested in their children learning to take over. If those children wait until 40 to start working, they will never be ready to take over the business.
The people I know who work at ordinary jobs are usually happy to retire. Those who aren't happy to retire would be happy if they had more money.
13 Jan 2015, 9:19 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
It's partly because of conditioning and it's because they have already had to work their whole life. It would have to start with a generation that had that period in their youth then asked to work, not one that's already been there, done that and are looking forward to retirement but you have to ask yourself...do all of them honestly look forward to it, even the ones that do not have as much money as the others, perhaps? What if they were given the opportunity to work longer and have extra money? Why does everything have to be so cut and dry? Rigid?
We cannot assume everyone is the exact same way and that not working is the right choice for everyone. Some people do not work because they are old and no one will give them a chance to. Older workers are good workers.
We cannot assume everyone is the exact same way and that not working is the right choice for everyone. Some people do not work because they are old and no one will give them a chance to. Older workers are good workers.
It's got nothing to do with rigidity and everything to do with practicality and motive.
What you're suggesting is to give people the sweets first and then the vegetables later. That's backwards. You'll fill up on sweets and won't want to look at the veggies.
People don't want the last years of their life being the years they spend, forced to pay off their youth. What the heck is there to look forward to in that?
It's also ass-backwards in rewards, teaching people to feel entitled for no effort. To get rewarded for no work is just ridiculous. We already have a growing problem of entitlement these days. People expect $100 worth of reward for $10 worth of work, or for no work at all.
As for what's practical, as Jannisy said, young people are better equipped to do the extra, the double shifts, the strenuous work. You can try to stay fit, but you can't fight aging. Why should old people be expected to work hard at a time when they should be able to slow down and reap the rewards of their work?
Your idea is very symptomatic of the 'want it now' generation who has no first-hand idea what the consequences are when you're past middle age. One day you'll look back on this and maybe even blush a little at how silly the notion is.
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
13 Jan 2015, 9:21 pm
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I was awful at most stuff while a teen and young adult. I got better with age and there are plenty like me. Physical strength is not so much an issue these days due to all the automation and with older folks entering the workforce, there would be a push to automate.
There would also be a substantial push to meet the needs of older folk, physically, mentally, spiritually, because we would be depending on them. This would increase quality of life and longevity. It would mean staying healthier and stronger longer. Believe me, nothing would be better for older folk than to feel like full fledged, contributing members of society with just as much power as everyone else. Think of how much stable work forces would be. It's a brilliant idea and can bring so much that is positive to the "golden years."
There's nothing worse for an employee or a boss, even, to feel as if they are a burden to a company and someone is just looking for the excuse to push them into retirement for a variety of reason. It's stressful and unfair. It causes hurt feelings and financial hardship. What's so terrible about reevaluating the way we look at aging and older folk, not looking at them as victims of aging but people who are fully capable of contributing as much as anyone else?
There would also be a substantial push to meet the needs of older folk, physically, mentally, spiritually, because we would be depending on them. This would increase quality of life and longevity. It would mean staying healthier and stronger longer. Believe me, nothing would be better for older folk than to feel like full fledged, contributing members of society with just as much power as everyone else. Think of how much stable work forces would be. It's a brilliant idea and can bring so much that is positive to the "golden years."
There's nothing worse for an employee or a boss, even, to feel as if they are a burden to a company and someone is just looking for the excuse to push them into retirement for a variety of reason. It's stressful and unfair. It causes hurt feelings and financial hardship. What's so terrible about reevaluating the way we look at aging and older folk, not looking at them as victims of aging but people who are fully capable of contributing as much as anyone else?
You are completely disconnected from reality if you think that old folks want to work more and more hours so that lazy bums in their twenties and thirties can live a life of luxury and debauchery. If such a wacky idea was ever implemented, you could expect the total destruction of whatever country was stupid enough to do it considering that the old cannot be expected to carry the economy on their shoulders.
They wouldn't mind if they experienced it themselves and they knew the younger ones would have to work one day, too.
It would have to be something we all did together. But I think they would like to be surrounded by older people at work and that feeling their job won't go because of younger people with smaller salaries.
And it wouldn't be luxury and debauchery any more than retirement is that way now. It wouldn't be unlimited amounts of money thrown at young people. It would be them getting money at various times in life instead of at the end. They would just work at different times. I don't think it sounds bad because not all older folks want to be alone and out of the work environment.
It seems like a flexible, workable alternative to what we have now. I honestly don't understand why people would criticize such an idea when you consider how many older people seem unhappy once they leave work and a lot of them get less money once they retire than they did every year with a salary. That is fairly common, to take a pay cut once they retire.
Do you really think that they would be more responsible if they waited until 40 to get their first job? Just how far do you think they could advance in those jobs? If you wait until 40 to start working, you will NEVER be able to work at anything but dead-end jobs.
Nearly every old person I know who does not own the business and who is not in certain highly regarded jobs wants to retire. Even those who own businesses are usually mainly interested in their children learning to take over. If those children wait until 40 to start working, they will never be ready to take over the business.
The people I know who work at ordinary jobs are usually happy to retire. Those who aren't happy to retire would be happy if they had more money.
Let's say in the near future people live an average of 120 - 140 yrs and you might think that sounds incredible and impossible now but take a look at how life spans have increased just since the forties and fifties in the developed world. It's certainly possible. When it happens, eighty is going to seem pretty young. So starting a career at forty would give you a good forty years work. When is enough enough???
13 Jan 2015, 9:23 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
It's partly because of conditioning and it's because they have already had to work their whole life. It would have to start with a generation that had that period in their youth then asked to work, not one that's already been there, done that and are looking forward to retirement but you have to ask yourself...do all of them honestly look forward to it, even the ones that do not have as much money as the others, perhaps? What if they were given the opportunity to work longer and have extra money? Why does everything have to be so cut and dry? Rigid?
We cannot assume everyone is the exact same way and that not working is the right choice for everyone. Some people do not work because they are old and no one will give them a chance to. Older workers are good workers.
We cannot assume everyone is the exact same way and that not working is the right choice for everyone. Some people do not work because they are old and no one will give them a chance to. Older workers are good workers.
There is no possibility that this scheme could ever work.
From what I've seen, people who tend to work well past 65 by choice are more likely to be either company owners or executives or are in certain high regarded professions such as medicine, sciences, lawyers, judges, ... where they still make valuable contributions.
Outside of those types of occupations or circumstances, if you see someone working past 65 it is most likely because they have to work.
And don't forget that those in the highly regarded professions would never have made it there if they had been worthless, lazy bums in their 20s and 30s.
I guess you don't know anyone who has been pressured to retire, do you? It aint pretty.
Yes, I have known people pressured to retire. And it was either because of money, health issues, or dubious behavior.
Under your scheme, they would never be able to retire unless they managed to save enough to retire because they spent all their "retirement money" before they ever started working. And if they waited until 40 to start working, they probably aren't going be responsible enough to save anything for retirement.
Your scheme would greatly increase the amount of poverty among the elderly. How many elderly can live in a cardboard box alongside the highway?
13 Jan 2015, 9:29 pm
My plan would HELP older people significantly because it is inclusive of them and inclusion never hurts anyone.
Lemme ask you a serious question, Eric. What do you propose when life spans are increased to 120 years and that is certainly a possibility...that we work from our teens all the way to say....90 or 95 without any breaks, hoping we have enough to carry us through to 120, or, should we be allowed to work as close to 120 as possible with access to a livable salary of some kind?
Once that life span increases, if folks retire at something like 65 they are going to need financial support for the next 60 + years they will be retired. These are serious issues people do not think much about. Do you have any practical suggestions? Most pensions are not going to last thirty years let alone over sixty.
13 Jan 2015, 9:31 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Let's say in the near future people live an average of 120 - 140 yrs and you might think that sounds incredible and impossible now but take a look at how life spans have increased just since the forties and fifties in the developed world. It's certainly possible. When it happens, eighty is going to seem pretty young. So starting a career at forty would give you a good forty years work. When is enough enough???
That isn't going to happen any time soon.
The increases in life expectancy over the last fifty years is probably more because of greater survival of infancy than of increases in maximum age. There is reason to think that increases in maximum age are going to be pretty minimal. 120-140 years? Maybe in very rare instances, but not in general.
13 Jan 2015, 9:35 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
My plan would HELP older people significantly because it is inclusive of them and inclusion never hurts anyone.
Lemme ask you a serious question, Eric. What do you propose when life spans are increased to 120 years and that is certainly a possibility...that we work from our teens all the way to say....90 or 95 without any breaks, hoping we have enough to carry us through to 120, or, should we be allowed to work as close to 120 as possible with access to a livable salary of some kind?
Once that life span increases, if folks retire at something like 65 they are going to need financial support for the next 60 + years they will be retired. These are serious issues people do not think much about. Do you have any practical suggestions? Most pensions are not going to last thirty years let alone over sixty.
Lemme ask you a serious question, Eric. What do you propose when life spans are increased to 120 years and that is certainly a possibility...that we work from our teens all the way to say....90 or 95 without any breaks, hoping we have enough to carry us through to 120, or, should we be allowed to work as close to 120 as possible with access to a livable salary of some kind?
Once that life span increases, if folks retire at something like 65 they are going to need financial support for the next 60 + years they will be retired. These are serious issues people do not think much about. Do you have any practical suggestions? Most pensions are not going to last thirty years let alone over sixty.
We don't know that average life spans will ever be increased to 120 years -- it is doubtful that they ever will. And if they are, that would not mean that you would be in the same shape at 80 then as they are at 50 today when the average life span is not too far from 75. What a 120 year lifespan would really mean is that people spend a larger and larger percentage of their life as elderly.
What we would see is some increase in the standard retirement age.
13 Jan 2015, 9:35 pm
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Let's say in the near future people live an average of 120 - 140 yrs and you might think that sounds incredible and impossible now but take a look at how life spans have increased just since the forties and fifties in the developed world. It's certainly possible. When it happens, eighty is going to seem pretty young. So starting a career at forty would give you a good forty years work. When is enough enough???
That isn't going to happen any time soon.
The increases in life expectancy over the last fifty years is probably more because of greater survival of infancy than of increases in maximum age. There is reason to think that increases in maximum age are going to be pretty minimal. 120-140 years? Maybe in very rare instances, but not in general.
It will happen sooner than you think. It keeps happening every decade. Life expectancy for a great many people increases, especially if they eat a good diet which more and more people are deciding it's best for them. So you are going to see people living longer, healthier lives which many years they will face discrimination, many more than they do now, if the culture doesn't accept older people are just as capable and responsible as younger.
13 Jan 2015, 9:42 pm
Narrator wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
It's partly because of conditioning and it's because they have already had to work their whole life. It would have to start with a generation that had that period in their youth then asked to work, not one that's already been there, done that and are looking forward to retirement but you have to ask yourself...do all of them honestly look forward to it, even the ones that do not have as much money as the others, perhaps? What if they were given the opportunity to work longer and have extra money? Why does everything have to be so cut and dry? Rigid?
We cannot assume everyone is the exact same way and that not working is the right choice for everyone. Some people do not work because they are old and no one will give them a chance to. Older workers are good workers.
We cannot assume everyone is the exact same way and that not working is the right choice for everyone. Some people do not work because they are old and no one will give them a chance to. Older workers are good workers.
It's got nothing to do with rigidity and everything to do with practicality and motive.
What you're suggesting is to give people the sweets first and then the vegetables later. That's backwards. You'll fill up on sweets and won't want to look at the veggies.
People don't want the last years of their life being the years they spend, forced to pay off their youth. What the heck is there to look forward to in that?
It's also ass-backwards in rewards, teaching people to feel entitled for no effort. To get rewarded for no work is just ridiculous. We already have a growing problem of entitlement these days. People expect $100 worth of reward for $10 worth of work, or for no work at all.
As for what's practical, as Jannisy said, young people are better equipped to do the extra, the double shifts, the strenuous work. You can try to stay fit, but you can't fight aging. Why should old people be expected to work hard at a time when they should be able to slow down and reap the rewards of their work?
Your idea is very symptomatic of the 'want it now' generation who has no first-hand idea what the consequences are when you're past middle age. One day you'll look back on this and maybe even blush a little at how silly the notion is.
They have to agree to do the work and I think they will because if they don't, they won't have money. They will get some money while they are working, you know? People will want to work because they will want money to spend on stuff. And you have to keep in mind, companies will often take insurance policies out on employees and they make huge profits on that so it's complex. Companies make a lot of money if their employees leave for some reason through insurance claims. Corporations take out Life Insurance on employees now, that way if a valued employee accidentally dies, they can cash in a big policy on them and make up the money. There's always ways for them to make money.
13 Jan 2015, 9:44 pm
Discussions about life expectancy often involve how it has improved over time. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, life expectancy for men in 1907 was 45.6 years; by 1957 it rose to 66.4; in 2007 it reached 75.5. Unlike the most recent increase in life expectancy (which was attributable largely to a decline in half of the leading causes of death including heart disease, homicide, and influenza), the increase in life expectancy between 1907 and 2007 was largely due to a decreasing infant mortality rate, which was 9.99 percent in 1907; 2.63 percent in 1957; and 0.68 percent in 2007.
But the inclusion of infant mortality rates in calculating life expectancy creates the mistaken impression that earlier generations died at a young age; Americans we'e not dying en masse at the age of 46 in 1907. The fact is that the maximum human lifespan — a concept often confused with "life expectancy" — has remained more or less the same for thousands of years. The idea that our ancestors routinely died young (say, at age 40) has no basis in scientific fact.
Did you get that? The maximum human lifespan has remained more or less the same for thousands of years.But the inclusion of infant mortality rates in calculating life expectancy creates the mistaken impression that earlier generations died at a young age; Americans we'e not dying en masse at the age of 46 in 1907. The fact is that the maximum human lifespan — a concept often confused with "life expectancy" — has remained more or less the same for thousands of years. The idea that our ancestors routinely died young (say, at age 40) has no basis in scientific fact.
That needs repeating: The maximum human lifespan has remained more or less the same for thousands of years.
Continuing:
Quote:
When Socrates died at the age of 70 around 399 B.C., he did not die of old age but instead by execution. It is ironic that ancient Greeks lived into their 70s and older, while more than 2,000 years later modern Americans aren't living much longer.
Do you understand what the author of that is saying? Our maximum ages aren't greater than in the past. Rather, our odds of reaching those maximum ages are increasing, largely because of large increases in the number of babies who survive to be infants.
If you think that lifespan is going to increase to 120-140, it is nothing but fantasy with no basis at all in reality.
13 Jan 2015, 9:47 pm
eric76 wrote:
Discussions about life expectancy often involve how it has improved over time. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, life expectancy for men in 1907 was 45.6 years; by 1957 it rose to 66.4; in 2007 it reached 75.5. Unlike the most recent increase in life expectancy (which was attributable largely to a decline in half of the leading causes of death including heart disease, homicide, and influenza), the increase in life expectancy between 1907 and 2007 was largely due to a decreasing infant mortality rate, which was 9.99 percent in 1907; 2.63 percent in 1957; and 0.68 percent in 2007.
But the inclusion of infant mortality rates in calculating life expectancy creates the mistaken impression that earlier generations died at a young age; Americans we'e not dying en masse at the age of 46 in 1907. The fact is that the maximum human lifespan — a concept often confused with "life expectancy" — has remained more or less the same for thousands of years. The idea that our ancestors routinely died young (say, at age 40) has no basis in scientific fact.
Did you get that? The maximum human lifespan has remained more or less the same for thousands of years.But the inclusion of infant mortality rates in calculating life expectancy creates the mistaken impression that earlier generations died at a young age; Americans we'e not dying en masse at the age of 46 in 1907. The fact is that the maximum human lifespan — a concept often confused with "life expectancy" — has remained more or less the same for thousands of years. The idea that our ancestors routinely died young (say, at age 40) has no basis in scientific fact.
That needs repeating: The maximum human lifespan has remained more or less the same for thousands of years.
Continuing:
Quote:
When Socrates died at the age of 70 around 399 B.C., he did not die of old age but instead by execution. It is ironic that ancient Greeks lived into their 70s and older, while more than 2,000 years later modern Americans aren't living much longer.
Do you understand what the author of that is saying? Our maximum ages aren't greater than in the past. Rather, our odds of reaching those maximum ages are increasing, largely because of large increases in the number of babies who survive to be infants.
If you think that lifespan is going to increase to 120-140, it is nothing but fantasy with no basis at all in reality.
Not in the developed world, it has jumped. Okay, for instance, at one time, like during the times of Jesus Christ and the Roman Empire, 20 was considered middle aged and when you reached 30 years old people considered you to be old. It was rare for people to live past the age of 45.
Nowadays 35 is still considered young, 45 is middle aged and we think of something like 60 as old. It has increased.
13 Jan 2015, 9:50 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Narrator wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
It's partly because of conditioning and it's because they have already had to work their whole life. It would have to start with a generation that had that period in their youth then asked to work, not one that's already been there, done that and are looking forward to retirement but you have to ask yourself...do all of them honestly look forward to it, even the ones that do not have as much money as the others, perhaps? What if they were given the opportunity to work longer and have extra money? Why does everything have to be so cut and dry? Rigid?
We cannot assume everyone is the exact same way and that not working is the right choice for everyone. Some people do not work because they are old and no one will give them a chance to. Older workers are good workers.
We cannot assume everyone is the exact same way and that not working is the right choice for everyone. Some people do not work because they are old and no one will give them a chance to. Older workers are good workers.
It's got nothing to do with rigidity and everything to do with practicality and motive.
What you're suggesting is to give people the sweets first and then the vegetables later. That's backwards. You'll fill up on sweets and won't want to look at the veggies.
People don't want the last years of their life being the years they spend, forced to pay off their youth. What the heck is there to look forward to in that?
It's also ass-backwards in rewards, teaching people to feel entitled for no effort. To get rewarded for no work is just ridiculous. We already have a growing problem of entitlement these days. People expect $100 worth of reward for $10 worth of work, or for no work at all.
As for what's practical, as Jannisy said, young people are better equipped to do the extra, the double shifts, the strenuous work. You can try to stay fit, but you can't fight aging. Why should old people be expected to work hard at a time when they should be able to slow down and reap the rewards of their work?
Your idea is very symptomatic of the 'want it now' generation who has no first-hand idea what the consequences are when you're past middle age. One day you'll look back on this and maybe even blush a little at how silly the notion is.
They have to agree to do the work and I think they will because if they don't, they won't have money. They will get some money while they are working, you know? People will want to work because they will want money to spend on stuff. And you have to keep in mind, companies will often take insurance policies out on employees and they make huge profits on that so it's complex. Companies make a lot of money if their employees leave for some reason through insurance claims. Corporations take out Life Insurance on employees now, that way if a valued employee accidentally dies, they can cash in a big policy on them and make up the money. There's always ways for them to make money.
Do you understand that the older the employee or the worse health of that employee, the more costly the key man policies are?
Companies do not take out insurance on all their employees. The key man policies are life policies. My company has one on me -- there are only two people in this company covered by such policies. I've never heard of a key man policy that covers them leaving -- just their deaths.
13 Jan 2015, 9:55 pm
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Narrator wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
It's partly because of conditioning and it's because they have already had to work their whole life. It would have to start with a generation that had that period in their youth then asked to work, not one that's already been there, done that and are looking forward to retirement but you have to ask yourself...do all of them honestly look forward to it, even the ones that do not have as much money as the others, perhaps? What if they were given the opportunity to work longer and have extra money? Why does everything have to be so cut and dry? Rigid?
We cannot assume everyone is the exact same way and that not working is the right choice for everyone. Some people do not work because they are old and no one will give them a chance to. Older workers are good workers.
We cannot assume everyone is the exact same way and that not working is the right choice for everyone. Some people do not work because they are old and no one will give them a chance to. Older workers are good workers.
It's got nothing to do with rigidity and everything to do with practicality and motive.
What you're suggesting is to give people the sweets first and then the vegetables later. That's backwards. You'll fill up on sweets and won't want to look at the veggies.
People don't want the last years of their life being the years they spend, forced to pay off their youth. What the heck is there to look forward to in that?
It's also ass-backwards in rewards, teaching people to feel entitled for no effort. To get rewarded for no work is just ridiculous. We already have a growing problem of entitlement these days. People expect $100 worth of reward for $10 worth of work, or for no work at all.
As for what's practical, as Jannisy said, young people are better equipped to do the extra, the double shifts, the strenuous work. You can try to stay fit, but you can't fight aging. Why should old people be expected to work hard at a time when they should be able to slow down and reap the rewards of their work?
Your idea is very symptomatic of the 'want it now' generation who has no first-hand idea what the consequences are when you're past middle age. One day you'll look back on this and maybe even blush a little at how silly the notion is.
They have to agree to do the work and I think they will because if they don't, they won't have money. They will get some money while they are working, you know? People will want to work because they will want money to spend on stuff. And you have to keep in mind, companies will often take insurance policies out on employees and they make huge profits on that so it's complex. Companies make a lot of money if their employees leave for some reason through insurance claims. Corporations take out Life Insurance on employees now, that way if a valued employee accidentally dies, they can cash in a big policy on them and make up the money. There's always ways for them to make money.
Do you understand that the older the employee or the worse health of that employee, the more costly the key man policies are?
Companies do not take out insurance on all their employees. The key man policies are life policies. My company has one on me -- there are only two people in this company covered by such policies. I've never heard of a key man policy that covers them leaving -- just their deaths.
There could be a change in the future on just who gets insured and why. It's possible. Do things really stay the same or do they keep getting restructured. It seems like innovation is a selling point. Who is going to buy the same idea over and over?
