Already a member?
Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
NYC Memories is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with NYC Memories and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
NYC Memories is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with NYC Memories and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Old people with money and power should give others a chance at success: please, just retire!
In the past, transition of power in any industry has happened naturally: as one generation of youngsters enter the work force, another generation over 65 has gracefully exited into the sunset of Florida.
The transition of power and opportunities has not only been important, but poignantly necessary for industries to shake things up, for equality to progress forward, for conventional methodologies to revolutionize, and perhaps most importantly, for young people to have opportunities to do something amazing.
This natural transtion has all but died. People are not retiring at the age of 65, partially because they couldn’t afford to anymore. But even those who have obtained success and have savings stacked up despite this recession, they are not retiring either.
65 is hardly old anymore. We have CEOs, editors, senators and professors who are 70 and 80 years old and still working. I have no problem with people keeping their lives busy because a retirement of not doing anything can be cruel. But please – quit those posts you have been occupying for decades and do something else, give that young person a chance to shine the way you had your chance back then.
We now have youngsters who can’t find jobs not only because this recession sucks, but also because old people are choosing not to retire. They are not retiring because this new generation of “old people” think they will never die due to modern advances in medicine. They are ambitious workaholics who are also too selfish and egocentric to step aside and believe that a younger person could do just a good of a job, if not a better one. They are the first generation who have received so much: peace, propsperity, and technology.
And now: they don’t want to give it all up after squandering away our environment and screwing up our market. So next time when you can’t find a job, don’t blame the minority for filling some quota (that is extremely rarely the reason why you don’t get hired), just go ahead and blame the people at the top.
This is why I love Anna Quindlen. She is retiring from Newsweek. I first fell in love with her column the Last Word when I was 15 years old. She showed me a world of ideas and perspectives I didn’t know existed. Her writings on immigration are some of the most eloquently observant and intimately relevant I have ever read. For 9 years she has been at the forefront of discussion on subjects from oppression to fairness. She is a role model, an inspiration for young people and a woman I still aspire to become. But the time is right for her to leave, and she too agrees, because there are too many amazing journalists out there with too many stories to tell, and after 9 years, she’s had her time.
I urge others to follow her choice, because there are too many young people with too many dreams who are too hungry to take this world into a whole new era. And they cannot wait.
They are not retiring because they are healthier and live longer than they used to, and often the sooner you stop working the sooner you die. You'll be old one of these days as will I. The fact is, society is going to have learn how to deal with this and change, not just for our age but for all the ages which live in it and have a right to do so.
I'm having trouble reading this post as anything other than incredibly selfish. If someone is good at their job and enjoys it, they should quit so that you can have it? Really?
You named a bunch of jobs in your post. Frankly, most of those are jobs that you do better as you get older. Some jobs are a "young man's game;" innovation in mathematics comes to mind. Others draw on a lifetime of experience and wisdom--and a shiny young 20-something just isn't as likely to have as much of either as someone older.
I see a lot here that decries "paying your dues." And in a lot of ways, that process is very unsatisfying. But there are positives to paying your dues as well, and they're not always easy to see while you're in the middle of the process.
Most things in life need to be earned. Career success is one of them. You may admire Anna Quindlen's work, but you seem to have missed the part where she spent much of her life developing that body of work. She didn't get that Pulitzer just by saying she wanted one, or because some old person retired. She earned her success, and that takes time.
Stop whining. Learn how successful people you admire became successful and admirable. I guarantee you it didn't happen overnight for them, and it most likely won't for you, either--but not because they're successful ahead of you.
If you were an old person, and you were completely healthy (both physically and mentally), and you were able to perform your job at a high level, and you loved the job, wouldn't you be upset if some youngster told you to retire just because you were old?
Retirement has several disadvantages:
-reduced income
-because of the reduced income, you may not be able to get out as much, as eating out and travel cost money
-limited contact with people
-more likely to suffer mental illnesses without mental stimulation
There is no reason to force someone to retire if they don't want to and they are able to competently perform their job.
People used to retire at age 65 when they would die at 68. (This is also a problem with Social Security; now we have people start collecting at 65 and die at 95; Social Security was not to fund someone's retirement for 30 years!).
If you were going to be alive and healthy until age 95, why would retire at 65? What would you do for 30 years?
"If you were going to be alive and healthy until age 95, why would retire at 65? What would you do for 30 years?"
Well, there are plenty of people who retire at 65, having enjoyed their careers, and are perfectly delighted with not working any more. There's a whole spectrum of behavior and preference.
I agree with your overall post, though.
This isn't an arguement, this is a whinge from someone who thinks they are entitled to inherit 'success' instead of working for it.
Can you elaborate on how someone else's success, age irrelevant, prevents you from achieving your own? Where is the link? Success is individual, earned as the result of hard work and is not transferable (partly because everyone defines success differently, but that's a whole different topic).
In regards to Anna Quindlen. I read her last post and her reasons for stepping aside. Whilst the sentiment is nice, don't kid yourself, she's stepping aside because she wants to retire, not because it's the next generations 'turn'. No-one is that altruistic, especially not someone who spent a lot of time and effort achieving their goal.
However, I like this quote of hers:
'When Chesley Sullenberger landed a passenger jet safely on the Hudson River, I joined the rest of the nation in thanking God that a man who had been flying for a lifetime and a crew of veteran flight attendants were working that day'.
Age and experience has its benefits. Once you stop seeing the older generation as the impediment to your success, maybe you'll see it to. And figure out a way that you can benefit from it.
We made sure no President of the United States could be elected for more than two terms because it is bad when one person, no matter how talented, stays in office for too long. We need diversity of political ideology and this applies to the business arena too.
Experience and wisdom (from age) counts, alot, obviously. That is why leaders become leaders and stay leaders for a long time. But there is a tradeoff between wisdom from experience and occupying a top post for decades and not leaving. At some point fresh blood is just a good idea no matter how amazing you are.
Young people do not deserve success, but we deserve a chance. People are working older but you still have the same # of young people going into the work force everyday. This creates an imbalance. If you don't want to retire you don't have to, just go do something else. And I'm talking about people with access and opportunities to do something different, not people who can't pay their bills because their 401Ks crashed.
I'm not even saying when someone like Anna Quindlen leaves a 20-something should replace her. I say give her position a equally talented and seasoned journalist, so that a young person can move from getting coffee to writing posts, so a fresh of college student can get a job getting coffee.
We made sure no President of the United States could be elected for more than two terms because it is bad when one person, no matter how talented, stays in office for too long. We need diversity of political ideology and this applies to the business arena too.
Experience and wisdom (from age) counts, alot, obviously. That is why leaders become leaders and stay leaders for a long time. But there is a tradeoff between wisdom from experience and occupying a top post for decades and not leaving. At some point fresh blood is just a good idea no matter how amazing you are.
Young people do not deserve success, but we deserve a chance. People are working older but you still have the same # of young people going into the work force everyday. This creates an imbalance. If you don't want to retire you don't have to, just go do something else. And I'm talking about people with access and opportunities to do something different, not people who can't pay their bills because their 401Ks crashed.
I'm not even saying when someone like Anna Quindlen leaves a 20-something should replace her. I say give her position a equally talented and seasoned journalist, so that a young person can move from getting coffee to writing posts, so a fresh of college student can get a job getting coffee.
My first thought is "Screw you. You want my success? Come and get it. Be prepared to fight, sacrifice, scratch and claw your way to the top, just as I did."
You're supposed to be the best and the brightest, given every chance, opportunity and edge that I never had. You just want me to hand over my success just because you think I should be put out to pasture? I'll laugh in your face and tell you to grow up and quit whining like my 4 yr old granddaughter. You can have my success and the fruits of it when you pry it away from those I find worthy of it and choose to bestow it on.
I'm still operating at a high level and NO one, especially a whiny bratty little kid, is going to tell me when I exit the business I hard at and have aquired the skill, knowledge and expertise to shape the industry.
You want what I got? Fine,come and get it, but don't take it personally if I crush you for attempting to oust me when I'm still at the top of my game.
"Whine One One, what is your emergency?"
"The old farts in power won't go away quietly and give me everything I want! I need a waahmbulance!"
I can see your point here. I know a lot of people are calling you selfish, but I really get it. I have a theory on this - I truly think the change is coming so fast in terms of technology and our transition into the Information Age that most of these people you're talking about - people who seem to be waiting for their glory days in the 1980s to return - just won't be able to make the leap and will be phased out.
I work with a lot of people in the demographic you are talking about. Around half are really open to change and are evolving with the new business world. They don't handle technological change the way I do, but they are definitely keeping up and what I would call their "wisdom" - that knowledge you simply can't get without living longer - is quite valuable. The other half are the ones that want to have meetings and brainstorm and try to apply the old way of do things to the new situation. They are bogged down in their old processes and just can't seem to get anything done. And yet they still retain a certain amount of power to make them a pain in the butt. I think these are the ones you are talking about.
I guess my advice to you would be to tread lightly when calling out the "old people." They're still in control. If you can find a way to work with them (or around them), you won't be able to work at all.
If there's a post where the fresh blood is being told that they have everything they need to be in that post, except an available post, then I see your point. Especially if it's conceded that the old guard is able to do the work, but the younger workers in waiting could do it better. The company should be prepared to move that person aside.
But if you just want a shot to do something, a shot to learn and fail and make mistakes at a job, why should someone move aside for you when there's the opportunities to learn, fail, and make mistakes on your own? Why should a company let you screw something up when you can learn almost anything on your own?
You obviously wanted to attract some attention. Well you did. Next time, try sounding less angry. However, I have to admit that I see your point, even though disagree with some arguments. If we look at seasoned and successful leaders (65+) they probably are very aware of what is being said around them. Trust me, they hear/feel/sense ALL of your objections. They stay because they are being asked to, they are great mentors and coaches, great experts and philanthropists, or they just don’t see worthy successors. I would hope that the ones that stay but shouldn’t have their days counted. The law of success is very cruel. It’s survival of the fittest in its purest form.
"If you don't want to retire you don't have to, just go do something else."
Or you could do something else. That's what everyone else does when the job they want is not available.
I'll bet that 10 years from now, even if you still agree with the principles, you'll look back on the way you wrote this post and cringe. The fact is that there are going to be more people competing for spots in the workforce, regardless of age. Insisting that people retire so that you can advance is not going to get you anywhere. I also think you'll find that the most successful people often made their own opportunities. Go make your own, and learn from the experience.
I know (or really hope) that you did not mean to come off as arrogant and selfish as you are coming off in this post. As an entire generation of young professionals fights to overcome the stereotype of being self-absorbed entitled brats you may have just undone that.
I do understand a little what you are saying, that it is frustrating for some folks to stay in positions where they are no longer contributing to the advancement of the company but instead occupying space. Employees who are no longer engaged in their jobs. Here are a few things to consider, though:
- People retired at 65 when they only lived to 75. As life expectancy increases, we as a society are going to have to learn to adapt to that. And if evolution has taught us anything, it is that those who fail to adapt will die off.
- Those people who are being selfish worked their asses off to get where they are. I'd love to see your post make it to Anna Quindlen's desk just to see what she has to say to you about "getting your chance." Journalism in the 70's was not a pretty place for women. You think you have it tough trying to break into a career?
- You note that the older generation refuses to step aside and accept that a younger worker could do "just as good of a job if not a better one." What makes you think that an older person isn't doing just as good of a job if not a better one than a new hire to their professional arena?
There's SO much both generations can learn from each other, and when one acts so ignorant and unappreciative of the other anything that can be shared is voided.
This is funny because it reminds me of a conversation I had just a few weeks ago. I was explaining how different medical imaging equipment worked, when you would use a CT Scanner instead of an X-ray or SPECT camera. The person who had asked me about all of this said, "How do you know all this?"
My answer was, "I worked in the radiology department for 6 years." Sure, I was doing a job that didn't require the degree I had (some of my coworkers had 2 yr degrees instead of BSEEs). But sometimes paying your dues and taking a different career path pays off big time later in life. And there's no substitute for actually being "on the ground" if you want to know an industry.
This author needs to suck it up and realize that no one owes you a place on your chosen career path. It is YOUR JOB to make that path.
We have a problem in our society in that competition is getting too ridiculously intense.
My neighbor's 3-year-old son recently got rejected from a preschool because his IQ was not at the top 98% of this country (he was at the top 96%). This is an extreme case scenario because it is New York City but everywhere across the country kids are being pushed harder everyday. I remembered what a carefree childhood I had and felt fortunate that I am not one of the kids these days facing a lot more pressure (in terms of academics) at a very early age. Whatever happened to just having fun?
I offered a solution that successful old people should retire OR go do something else so we could speed up this transition and ease the congestion at the bottom. It is perhaps a selfish request because really old people get nothing good out of this. I never doubted that old people worked hard all their lives and they deserve to be where they are. But I still stand by my argument that transition should happen faster.
I read a lot of anger at: why should I give up what I have worked so hard all my life when you haven't done anything? I underestimated the strong sense of ownership the older generation have over their hard-earned top posts. Retirement in this case cannot be an altruistic act.
I also read a lot of "you need to pay your dues like I did" - I agree I am impatient I want this society to move forward at a faster pace. But don't tell me I don't work hard at making that happen. I do, everyday. It's just tooooo slow.
I can see where you're coming from. But I can see why someone wouldn't want to leave what they love.
I think a great example you could have used for your argument is the Chrystler bankruptcy vs. Ford's success.
Ford replaced their COO (?I think that was the title) a few years ago. The 'replacement' decided to change things up in Ford and restructure their goals within the company. Because of this restructuring, Ford has not needed to borrow money from the Government during this recession.
However, the CFO (I think) was basically asked to leave Chrystler because of the falling out of the company.
Change is necessary within a company in order to adapt to a changing environment. Ford saw this and replaced a long-timer with a fresh perspective which turned out to be a very smart thing to do.
I'm sure you know you need to work hard in order to get the 'high-level' jobs that these 'older' people are working in, but still, let them enjoy it while it lasts.
I agree with the general sense of frustration, but not necessarily the solution. I'm sure most older people still working would LOVE to retire. But you know, lack of funds, healthcare, etc. Even at 65 when they qualify for medicare, costs are so high many might stay on at their company for the better healthcare there. However for now, they aren't holding our generation back. It's those in their 40s and 50s (generation Jones?) that are having trouble filling in behind them. I've even seen GenX succeeding where the older generation doesn't. I suspect they cost a little less, can sometimes be more highly educated, and have a better grasp of the technology overall.
The hard part for anyone younger than a boomer is that it didn't used to be like this. For a brief 2-3 generations after WWII people WERE able to retire between 55-65 with company pensions, healthcare for life, etc. And now looking on we realize the boomers certainly can't, and are "hogging" leadership positions. I'm not sure what this will mean for long term, I haven't seen it holding up anyone my age yet, the recession is doing enough of that on its own. Do have to wonder about JR's quote though
"You're supposed to be the best and the brightest, given every chance, opportunity and edge that I never had."
What advantages do Millenials really have that older generations don't have? I'm not asking to be snarky, I'm asking because I'm curious. Move beyond assumptions that everyone our age was coddled and middle class please and tell me what advantages our generation has that would actually aid us in the workplace.
"My neighbor's 3-year-old son recently got rejected from a preschool because his IQ was not at the top 98% of this country (he was at the top 96%). This is an extreme case scenario because it is New York City but everywhere across the country kids are being pushed harder everyday. I remembered what a carefree childhood I had and felt fortunate that I am not one of the kids these days facing a lot more pressure (in terms of academics) at a very early age. Whatever happened to just having fun?"
In fact, this is an extreme case. The struggle for admission to prestigious preschools in New York City is decades-old, and remains just as ludicrous as it ever was. Your neighbor has chosen to get caught up in it, but what does that have to do with your original post?
"I underestimated the strong sense of ownership the older generation have over their hard-earned top posts."
I think you're still not addressing the issues that others have brought up. Why don't you do something else? Why does someone have to give up something for you, just because you've decided you want it?
Think about what you're asking for. Try looking at it in a context other than jobs. Here's an example:
"You've owned that car for a long time."
"Sure. I've put a lot of work into it."
"Well, you've had it long enough. Give it to me."
"But I still enjoy working on it and driving it."
"Too bad. You're old, and I want that car."
Seriously, why don't you just buy your own car?
Because the car is an object and the owner should view it as rightfully theirs, the strong sense of ownership here is appropriate. If I take a old man's car, that's called theft.
Whereas the top post of a successful magazine company or a government agency does not belong to anyone, the best of whichever generation occupies the top seat for awhile before passing it down to someone else. That's just how it works. I'm not sitting here saying please give me the top post. I want the natural progresion of it all to move faster.
Sure in some industries I could reinvent my own job or skip ahead by reinventing the game, but in some industries, you can't do that, you have to wait your turn. And waiting your turn used to be a lot easier in the past.
KateNonymous, you called it! Well-said.
"I also read a lot of "you need to pay your dues like I did" - I agree I am impatient I want this society to move forward at a faster pace. But don't tell me I don't work hard at making that happen. I do, everyday. It's just tooooo slow."
Wow, you need to grooooooow up!
I'd like to see you question your premise instead of dig in. If your argument is valid, that process ultimately will strengthen it. If your argument is not valid, that process will help you modify or move away from it.
A job belongs to the person who holds it. There are people who can take it away, and that person can give it up. But it's not like the principle that you can't own a vista.
"It's just tooooo slow."
And just out of curiosity, how slow is it?
If you think you have wonderful new ideas that can make a difference, nothing is stopping you from starting your own business. Lots of very successful companies, like Microsoft and Apple and Google, were started by young people without a lot of resources.
For the record, I'm 48 years old and would be delighted to retire and free up my job for someone of a younger generation. Just write me a check for $10 million, which should be enough to live on for the rest of my life.
Have you actually thought about what it would mean to apply your reasoning to real situations?
Warren Buffett is both very old and very successful. He’s been working at the same career for 50 years, and I think it’s safe to say that he wouldn’t starve to death if he stopped working now. Surely he could find some other way to spend his time. Perhaps he could find a new hobby, like fishing or playing cards. Do you think it would be for the best if he retired as soon as possible? Do you think his presence has been holding back Berkshire Hathaway from achieving success during the last 30 years? How do you think his shareholders and employees (and possibly even the market) would receive the news that he was retiring?
How about Steve Jobs? Has his continued role at Apple made it impossible for his industry to “shake things up?” Has he, because of his age and long involvement with Apple, crushed innovation at his company, while robbing some smart young person of the opportunity to lead Apple to greatness?
As life expectancies increase, it is important for people to work for longer than they have in the past, for many reasons. It is in everyone’s best interest for there to be as many productive members in the economy as possible. And old people are typically most productive in doing something that they have spent many years working at.
KateNonymous’s car analogy wasn’t perfect, because no one owns a job in the way they one can own a car. But I think her point was that you are no more entitled to a certain job than you are to someone else’s property. A lot of commenters are confused, because this notion seems so intuitive to us. How did you come to believe that people of a certain age should be obligated to quit, and that other people are entitled to certain jobs, by virtue of their youth alone? And what is the specific combination of age, years of experience, and net worth at which a person becomes obligated to quit so that you (or anyone else) can perform the job that they previously held?
"KateNonymous’s car analogy wasn’t perfect, because no one owns a job in the way they one can own a car. But I think her point was that you are no more entitled to a certain job than you are to someone else’s property."
You're right, it wasn't a perfect analogy. But you're also right about my point--at least, that's part of my point. Ultimately I want the blogger to be able to use even an imperfect analogy as a tool to question his or her premise. This analogy wasn't perfect because it wasn't supposed to be. It was supposed to be close enough to spark thought. I'm hoping to see the results.
I think entrepreneurs or business owners like Steve Jobs or Warren Buffet actually own their "top posts" because they have single-handedly created their own empires.
But many jobs out there are not like that.
For example, I think school principles should change hands at a faster rate. Our education system could benefit from that. Now does that this mean I want every older principle to quit? No. But I don't believe some principles should just stay principles just because they've been principles for the past 10 years. When I talk about the collective, people think I am making individual attacks.
For the last time I don't think I deserve anything. I am talking about a inevitable fact that one generation of people takes over another as time goes on - I called this the transition of power, and because there is a huge bottleneck at the bottom I'd like to see the transition happen at a faster pace. Talking about a collective phenomenon does not mean I personally think I deserve to one day move up and become someone important.
KateNonymous - Sorry if I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I thought the analogy was very useful, and I was disappointed that the author responded by addressing only the one small way in which the analogy didn't parallel her argument exactly, and ignoring the relavant part that matched her reasoning very well.
NYC Memories - You refer to a "natural transition of power" that existed in the past but now "has all but died." Do you think we might just be experiencing a natural change in the transition, where people stop working around 70 years old on average, rather than 65? I can't think of a reason to describe that as "unnatural." In fact, what makes the transition natural is that people make their own personal choices about when to start and stop working, what kind of jobs to take, etc. Pressuring people to leave their jobs earlier than they would like seems more unnatural to me.
This wouldn't mean that jobs would be more scarce forever. We would just see an expansion of the labor force and a more productive economy, which will be required to support a growing population that is living longer than ever before.
@Evan, not to worry--I think we're on the same page here, and looking for the same kind of extension of the conversation.
@NYC Memories, I don't normally do this, because we all make typos--but the repetition tells me that it isn't a typo: "principle" and "principal" do not have the same meaning.
But back to the issue at hand: If you feel that the path you want to take is blocked, take another path.
@JRandom:
"My first thought is "Screw you. You want my success? Come and get it. Be prepared to fight, sacrifice, scratch and claw your way to the top, just as I did."
---------------------------------------------------------------
If I told you that mass murder is part of my competitive strategy, you wouldn't be saying the same thing, old man!
Mike,
This old infantryman is prepared for likes of you. As a licensed gun collector and dealer, automatic weapons are a great equalizer. Just ask the punks who tried to burgalize my house a few years ago.
And I'm still mean and nasty enough with a K-Bar to take you out like I did those tunnel rats.
"In the Great Game, a gun is merely a tool employed by the pawns we choose to die for our gain."
You inspired me to create my own list...
1) Successful rich people should stop being selfish and share their money with me. I mean, really, if someone would just give me $10 million I think I'd have a great chance at success.
2) Successful smart people should stop being selfish and give me part of their brain. Everybody knows that we only use 10% of our brain anyways, right? So how about the smart people stop taking up all the jobs that require a high level of brain power and give those of us with a lower intellect a shot at success.
3) Successful beautiful people should stop being selfish and wear a paper bag over their head. It's not fair that I'm constantly competing in the workplace with people who are prettier than me. If they would just cover up already I'd finally have a chance to succeed.
@Connie, because poor people will inevitably turn rich, ugly people will inevitably turn beautiful, and stupid people will inevitably turn smart, just like how young people will inevitably turn old...
Would-be mass murderer meets Vietnam Vet tunnel rat with automatic weapons, PTSD and nasty attitude. Has the makings of a pretty interesting book/movie.
Gotta feel sorry for the would-be mass murderer. The Vietnam vet learned a lot of nasty tricks from the VC and the NVA that they didn't teach at UMassMurder. :)
When the baby boomers retire, they're going to be replaced by GenX, not some baby-faced GenYer with 6 months experience. And running your own blog does not count as 'experience' unless you had more than 10,000 visitors a month.
@JRandom42 - Are you actually dedicating precious moments of your anonymous life to arguing with someone who seems to be obviously joking/trolling? Don't you have more important things to do, like doing your job?
If I do, then it's not any of your business whether I do or not. Besides they're MY moments to spend, and I'll spend them as I choose, thank you very much.
"Would-be mass murderer meets Vietnam Vet tunnel rat with automatic weapons, PTSD and nasty attitude. Has the makings of a pretty interesting book/movie.
Gotta feel sorry for the would-be mass murderer. The Vietnam vet learned a lot of nasty tricks from the VC and the NVA that they didn't teach at UMassMurder. :)"
Dude with PTSD seems to win everytime. It's the same thing that happens when soldiers leave the army and pursue a career in the MMA. If it weren't for the doc, it would be a blood bath.
@Exe: I believe I said exactly that - NOT that I want to jump over anybody but I want to make the process a little bit quicker (Gen X taking over so Gen Y can replace Gen X) instead of the process being practically stalled.
NYC Memories - how long have you been waiting in the wings?
I think it is interesting that you claim it used to be easier to wait to move up, but now it is harder. Since you aren't a Gen Xer, what is your basis for this assertion?
There are many Gen Xers who worked 3-10 years before moving into management (or other positions of power). If you're in this place, be patient & enjoy the stage you are in now. It will serve you better than being bitter and envious of everyone around you.
Following the logic that older people should retire to make room for younger ones suggests that older people should also commit suicide to make room on the planet for younger people. Do you really want to go there?
"If I do, then it's not any of your business whether I do or not. Besides they're MY moments to spend, and I'll spend them as I choose, thank you very much."
Sounds mighty fine to me - and I'll reserve my right to assume you're just a 15-year-old troll.
Oh, and mass murderers for the win - not even your mad Nam skillz could stop a random bullet in a mall ;)
@NYC Memories - That's because the baby boomers either don't have a life outside work, or they spent money recklessly in youth. Learn from their failure and don't make the same mistakes..
"Following the logic that older people should retire to make room for younger ones suggests that older people should also commit suicide to make room on the planet for younger people. Do you really want to go there?"
That depends. Is our tax money paying for their handouts?
"Sounds mighty fine to me - and I'll reserve my right to assume you're just a 15-year-old troll."
Since your'e not my CEO, and you're not any of the VPs or Senior Engineers who report to me, and it's readily apparent that you don't work for any of our vendors or customers, I'm pretty certain that your opinion of what I should do with my time is one of a sniveling, whining, crybaby wannabe who's still posting from mommy's computer and can be ignored.
"Oh, and mass murderers for the win - not even your mad Nam skillz could stop a random bullet in a mall ;)"
Already got the random bullet and the Purple Heart to go with it. Besides, there's always Kevlar and ceramic plates. Better living through chemistry! :)
@Old Boomer: really, because telling successful old people to quit their top posts (many occupied for decades) and go do something else is the same as telling them to commit suicide? Then, is telling young people to sacrifice some of our time to volunteer the same as telling young people to becomes socialists and work for free? I mean, why can't we institute a policy that says [unless you created your own company] all "top posts" within this country, like the Presidency, should have a 8-year term limit?
I think there is a really great conversation going on here and I had a comment, but it was fairly long and a lot of my thoughts were already more eloquently echoed, so I turned it into a blog post. Feel free to read it here: http://tinyurl.com/n7rcm7
@old boomer, I was wondering if anyone else was thinking about "Logan's Run!"
KateNonymous,
Not so much "Logan's Run", as Christopher Buckley's "Boomsday".
http://www.amazon.com/Boomsday-Christopher-Buckley/dp/B0029LHWZO/ref=sr_...
@JRandom42: I don't think I need to read that; I can merge Logan's Run and Fight Club in my head without investing that much time in it.
Email
Print
.thumbnail.jpg "Blake Sunshine")
