_Lots_ of people dream of retirement, and _lots_ of people retire happy. Not everyone's lucky enough to love their jobs, or have stimulating positions at companies, or work with people they get along with.
Lots of people work in customer-facing jobs in industries where customers are rude, entitled, and just generally disrespectful.
Many of those people don't have the option to retire because the venn diagram of those jobs, and jobs that pay too little to afford retirement, is pretty close to being a circle.
There's also the issue of there only being so many work opportunities, and whether or not it's correct for someone of traditional retirement age to hang on to a job, possibly at the expense of someone new to the workforce having one fewer opportunity.
I would give this article a bit easier of a time if it didn't conspicuously dance around the issue of having an aging population combined with (in many countries) social insurance-type systems not geared to support an age pyramid that top-heavy, but lines like this are just... bad.
> But can anything truly replace the framework and buzz of being part of the action?
Yeah, lots of things. Travel. Hobbies. Going dancing with your partner. Gardening. Hell, using your retirement and pension to kick off a startup of your own. For many people, above all, not being under constant pressure to perform at a certain level.
I say all of that as a millennial who both (a) loves my job, and (b) is unlikely to ever be able to afford to (comfortably) retire, barring major shifts in the economy.
Most people are not, I'd say. Remember, you don't have to hate your job to be miserable. You merely need to not "40 hours a week + commute for decades" love it. That's love.
It's simply logistically impossible for the majority of people to manage to match themselves with a job like that.
Exactly. I have a hard time viewing articles like this as anything other than deliberate propaganda. But maybe it's the case that many people reading the Economist cannot derive joy from anything besides employment.
Furthermore, who is this article for? People deciding whether to retire, but who weren't around for Seinfeld?
I agree, but I know a whole lot of people who are no longer working but who struggle to fill the gaping void in their lives once filled by a job and ameliorated by a paycheck.
So they do often turn to the shiny objects, and are doubly disappointed when the expensive things they do or buy fail to produce lasting satisfaction.
Sadly, I can report that more than one person in my life who retired at the top of their field is usually to be found bent over their phone, playing weird videos from Facebook at full volume.
There may be a correlation between excellence in a highly competitive career and failure to connect with other seniors at the community kitchen, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure that there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for growing old _contentedly_.
Some people just never learned how to enjoy life and just exist, be it because of their demanding job or responsibilities or the toxic work cultures they spent decades in.
This just sounds like they don't know how to find hobbies to do, so they just go back to working. Since its the only thing they know. How lacking in creativity do you have to be to need work this much to regulate your life.
Your comment is judgmental but my observation is that this is how many people live their lives. How much of this is a function of their personality vs the society they must live in is an open question.
I am "retired." I didn't want to be, but no one in tech wants to work with oldsters, so I had to take my butthurt, and admit that I'm not going to be working for anyone, ever again.
Best damn thing that ever happened to me.
I had enough to retire, when I did, but had no intention of doing so, for another ten years.
That was a bit over six years ago, and I am wondering what all the fuss was about.
The "retired" was in quotes, because I never stopped working. I just stopped writing code on someone else's orders, and started writing the code that I always wanted to write. It's a lot more professional, high-Quality, documented, and bug-free, than anything I ever did, when I was being paid to do it.
And I really enjoy it.
I have no intention of ever stopping. The coroner is gonna have to rub "YTЯƎWϘ" off my cheek.
I know three chaps that retired from my old company. They had worked there for 30+ years, and moved out of state, to relax. They were all in their sixties.
They are all dead, and achieved this transcendental state, before they reached 70.
Thanks!
I am maxing out my retirement options too, but I have a mortgage and that ends at ~63 roughly. Based on my projections if I retire at 65 I'm good, however if I retire before then, I will definitely need to sell the home for a smaller one (which could be fine, if the body allows it)
Wow man - Sorry you had such bad time :-/ Hopefully you got something fun now :-)
I have noticed over the years that interviewing has gotten more onerous and ghosting has gotten more common. There's never any reason to treat people badly/ghost them. Even a thanks-but-no-thanks is better then radio silence.
I'm glad it is like that, I'm concerned for anything at 60+, in the end 5 years of income is quite a bit, hence why I am trying to plan ahead for retirement
sounds like a good plan :-) Trick is to be on the edges - either leading edge or trailing edge. That's where the competition is lowest and the compensation is highest. I do cloud architecture/infrastructure atm, but I figure I'll fund my retirement by being the last living COBOL programmer :-P
With declining birthrates it's going to be not only "correct" but essential for people to continue in the work force. Instead of early retirement being the expectation it should become an option. For people who get no fulfillment from their work or have aspirations for volunteer work by all means that should be able to save and construct that kind of life. The social safety net for folks that retire needs to be continues and improved. Personally I enjoy traveling and dancing with my partner, but I wouldn't want to do it full time.
> With declining birthrates it's going to be not only "correct" but essential for people to continue in the work force.
This is a point I wish the article leaned into more. I disagree with your position, but it's a discussion that needs to be had. Our existing social safety nets, like you said, are incompatible with the direction society's going.
My opinion is that we're in a place where high levels of automation mean that we have the tools to start moving towards a post-scarcity, or at least reduced-scarcity society. It won't happen overnight, and maybe not even this century, but the idea that we've replaced many lower-paying jobs with automated solutions which are much cheaper (typically a fraction of the price for similar or better throughput) in the long run, while an affordability crisis is in full swing, seems like we're missing some clear ways to pump more money into social services while letting those companies using this automation get away with really harmful behaviours.
And yeah, I'm an optimist about post-scarcity, but I'll die on the hill that it's worth the effort to at least try and direct ourselves towards that.
I've never seen automation used to provide higher quality things. Usually it's used to provide subpar things and to try to drive the cost of things down. Or it's used to increase the intensity at which people work until they're completely exhausted every day after they finish work.
I really like the "Manna" series because I'm increasingly of the opinion that this is where our society is going with automation -- the computer thinks for me and if I'm not a suitable candidate to be automated by a computer, then I'm shoved in a box somewhere to live out my days with almost no comforts.
Just because automation could be used to eliminate scarcity it doesn't necessarily follow that that's the only way it will be used. It's far more likely to be used to further entrench the already existing structure of our society.
You're right that in some industries, with some products, automation delivers lower-quality results. But at the same time, automation has allowed us to build certain things that we previously almost couldn't at scales that were once unimaginable. Electronics are a good example of this -- a sub-µm process couldn't be done, practically, without a level of precision reliably achievable only through automation.
In many industries, automation also leads to higher reliability. Aircraft with flight envelope protection are a direct result of automation, and while poor design (like the original set of MCAS-related issues on the 737 MAX) or bad crew doctrine (like AA965 in 1995) can still lead to bad outcomes, automation, on the whole, has saved countless lives.
These tools exist, we just need to keep improving them, and use them in a strategic, smart, and forward-looking way.
What, you're telling me that you don't want to be like Georgio Armani or Charlie Munger or Warren Buffet or Jerry Seinfeld or a writer for the Economist? /s
The entire thing is just sad. Entire generations of people whose lives are so intimately defined by the corporate grind that they lose meaning when it is taken away. Imagine having the time, money and health to be with your loved ones, pursue your passions, travel the world, or really set any goal you want for the remaining decades of your life, but feeling empty because there are no meetings on your calendar, no OKRs to hit and no bosses to answer to. I have no doubt that such people exist in great numbers, especially in America, but it's about time we start to treat it not as an aspiration but rather a disease to be treated.
> They are pursuing their passions and setting any goal they want.
you don't have aggregated metric how many people have energy and time after hours of for-paycheck-and-med-insurance job to pursue passions and goals now days.
I hate working as much as anyone else but the problem is disruption of routine. People don't handle infinite freedom very well either.
Thus, HOAs are dominated by retirees. It gives them a new routine (with a side order of authority), through which they promptly impose their outdated ideas on everyone else.
The flip side of this are the hedonists who buy an RV and tour every swinger venue across America. Even this "freedom" establishes a routine-- usually involving driving, partying, finding an urgent care clinic for more Doxycyclene, and repeating until death/disability.
My grandmother was neither an HOA Nazi nor a swinger. She watched TV until she got Alzheimer's and spent her final decade dismantling every bathroom fixture she encountered. Even in extreme mental illness, we seek routine.
In my mind, retirement isn't where I just stop working, it's more about being able to stop working any job that I don't like. I'll choose what I want to do, and the moment it becomes something I dread, I'll walk. Maybe I'll have a side business that I love but which doesn't really have to pay the bills.
I've never really understood the folks who strive for the day they can just park on the couch and call it good. I'd go stir crazy in a week.
Anecdotally, some of the happiest people I know work until the end of their life. They really love what they do, and don't feel the need to stop.
I trained and live to work, but I spend way too much time getting permission (in one sense or another). And repeat.
My ideal "retirement" is to have enough money in the bank that I can actually apply my hard-earned skills to real problems, without the friction of cargo-culting interviewers, dysfunctional organizations, misaligned individuals, BS/evil missions, etc.
And early retirement, for me, is partly about getting use out of the skills in which I've invested, before my interests shift horrifically to playing golf, taking cruises, and bingo.
> before my interests shift horrifically to playing golf, taking cruises, and bingo.
If I ever have to play golf in any serious way, I'm doomed. I can hit the ball sideways, or along the ground, but unless it's just put-put golf, I'm in trouble.
My most recent manager is just over 70 years old and still putting a lot of his time into AI (not the current fad of LLMs, he's been dreaming of his own AI breakthrough for decades). He vacations, sure, and maybe he even plays bingo once in a while. But I suspect he's only going to stop trying to make real AGI when he keels over. He's still pretty sharp all considered.
For me the biggest thing is having more control over my time. I enjoy working with my coworkers, and generally like the challenge, etc of working, but the biggest blocker to me continuing to work long term is being fully control of my time. In my current role, I can work from wherever I want, can step out (some) in the middle of the day, etc, but I'd love the ability to do something like take 2 months off work. Obviously this is difficult in any role where other people rely on you though.
All of that said, I look at my current life and job role, and compare it with friends, and I have to same I am honestly pretty spoiled, it could be a ton worse. That said, more freedom is the name of the game for me.
Totally agree with this. I have a 9-5 that I don't hate, but I would love to just spend time with my family and focus on my hobbies. I would be beyond happy doing that for the rest of my life.
I don't think I've seen anyone call it financial independence except the financial independence crowd. Usually, people don't have a word for it. You're either hating work, enjoying work, or retired.
This article seems to be referring to people who do not need to work to live.
If you can, I say retire and if you have the skills, find an Open Source project to work on, or create you own. That way you control what you want to do as opposed to doing what you are told to do.
Articles like this, to me, only proves there is a very large the wealth gap in today's world.
Alternatively, retire and find a fulfilling volunteer opportunity you're passionate about. Most volunteer places need people during the workweek, and the best fit is college students or retirees.
If you need to be super entreprenurial, start the volunteer organization you'd like to see in the world.
> Hobbies are all well and good for many. But for the extremely driven, they can feel pointless and even slightly embarrassing. That is because there is depth in being useful.
I would assume that an "extremely driven" person is capable of finding a useful hobby, but apparently not.
I guess, there are at least two kinds of "retire": 1) retire from doing the job that you depend on for living, 2) retire from doing what you find rewarding.
Sometimes both of these coincide. Lucky! Sometimes you grow into accepting 1) to become also 2). Well, lucky too! If you also have a choice to enjoy doing this in later years, then you are very much lucky and happy.
Otherwise, like lots of people, we keep on our pursuit of happiness. Retirement from a well-paying yet not that rewarding job, just gives us another chance to catch that happiness, perhaps now being able to detach the 1).
Living long and remaining active is no less lucky!
Never retire just reeks of out of touch and entitled. A brother of a close friend made it big with an edtech startup and he loves to tell everyone how he'll never retire and you shouldn't either!
Work for him looks like this:
- Working damn near anywhere on the planet he wants from a rental that costs $20k a month
- Having a housekeeper, traveling nanny, nutritionist, chef, fashion consultant, etc...
- Having $250M to fall back on at any time
- Going to industry events, conferences, etc... and having everyone praise you and dote over you
- Being able to just not work anytime you don't want to
It's understandable why the rich, at least, don't want to retire. The returns to status and capital are greater than ever. Zuck made $25 billion today. Who wouldn't want to keep this up for the rest of hir or her life. People in the highest positions of society enjoy prestige and wealth creation of the likes never before seen.
I would retire. I don't think I'd ever possibly be able to spend more than single digit millions if I tried. Wanting to hoard hundreds of billions is just baffling.
Michael Bloomberg spent $500 million of his own money in only 5 months for his 2020 presidential campaign. It's not that hard if you are not just limited to physical stuff but instead try to buy influence.
It was ever thus, and probably not the fastest in history either. For instance, the wealth of the British empire, and by extension that of the Royal Family, grew at a rate far higher than what is presently seen. Earlier empires controlled even greater portions of the total wealth.
Not disagreeing, only nitpicking on this being the most egregious divide between rich and poor. It's been worse before. Rather, one could argue it's the best its ever been in human history. Progress is slow.
When you’ve got however many billions Zuck has, an extra 25 billion in paper wealth is going to make no difference whatsoever to his life. None.
The problems he faces at work are the same. He will be treated the same by the people he interacts with (and by all reports this can be one of the least fun things about being a billionaire). There aren’t any new toys he can buy with his extra paper billions. His wife and kids - one of the most normal things about Zuckerberg - aren’t going to care.
Taking a broader perspective, at least some of the ultra wealthy don’t seem to be terribly happy people. Would you like Elon Musk’s life as of 2024? What about Jeff Bezos? Or, for that matter, Vladimir Putin?
That’s why I threw Putin into the mix. As well as spending the resources of the Russian state to fund houses and whatnot as elaborate as American billionaires, he has his enemies murdered in fairly spectacular fashion (polonium, nerve agent, blowing up their plane, as well as a spate of falling out of high-rise windows).
Labor fought hard for retirement and benefits. That's all slowly unravelling, so now The Economist can boldly proclaim that you shouldn't even want that retirement.
Labor also fought hard for shorter work hours and work week. I suppose The Economist would like us to work longer and more days a week so that we can really be "fulfilled," too?
Not to trip Godwin's law, but there was a "camp slogan" this reminds me of . . .
If retirement is just eat drink vacation, TV then yeah don’t do that it won’t fulfill you, you still need hobbies(work). Free or otherwise, don’t just sit there.
There are people thinking of living forever, be careful what you wish for as good luck finding enough things to do for even 100k years let alone 1billion
You might skip this article if you reject any of these key assumptions:
1. You "live to work" rather than "work to live." Your personal fulfillment is derived from your utility as a workplace tool.
2. Your job doesn't damage your mental health and finances every need (e.g. food, shelter, utilities, healthcare, savings, furnishings, vehicle, debt repayment, etc).
3. You have sufficient leisure time to satisfy personal desires & obligations (i.e. connecting with your partner/friends, hobbies, caring for family members, chores, parenting, etc).
Unfortunately, for myself and everyone I know, these premises are deranged. But if they resonate with you, then work until you die! Live your best life!
I retired early, and thus I've had some time to think about why I have been able to do so with no discernible purpose and yet still enjoy my days.
Where I am now is the realization that I aspire to base my self-esteem on how I treat others and not how they treat me. The vanity, rivalry, and search for power that feels inherent in the work world has no place in my world.
I would much rather have the time to spend an hour with my elderly neighbor who is stuck in the hospital than to have the income that would allow me to fly to Tokyo for a Taylor Swift concert, or even just eat at a chic restaurant or drive a new car.
"Pleasure cruises, golf and tracing the family tree are not that fulfilling" ok boomer, but what about video games? I've long had a suspicion that the relative popularity of the FIRE movement among Millenials and Zoomers is largely due to the fact that they've found a hobby in interactive digital entertainment that's leaps and bounds more addictive, satisfying and fulfilling (at least in a shallow sense) than the hobbies of their elders.
I enjoy working and don't plan on ever fully retiring, but certainly plan to leave the 9-5 lifestyle and working for others eventually to be a full time entrepreneur / indie hacker at some point. My first project towards that end is Grizzly Bulls (https://grizzlybulls.com/), an algorithmic trading platform which is certainly going well enough to support myself full time, but I really enjoy my current FTE work too much to consider it for now.
This reminds me to get back on my belt-only Factorio save. Balancers are too much fun to work with. I'm also reminded of that time I tried to figure out a good 2-2 throughput unlimited balancer for a good 30 minutes before I realized I wanted a single splitter with two belts in and two belts out. Humbling and satisfying at the same time.
Every hobby is a pastime, regardless of how outwardly creative it is. You get out what you put in.
It's much harder than it looks. Even when you are skilled at it, making a significant knitting project is still a very large time commitment. Because of that, creating a knitting project and giving it to someone you care about can be a very deeply meaningful act for both the knitter and the receiver.
>Even when you are skilled at it, making a significant knitting project is still a very large time commitment.
I don't think I know anyone who plays dota and would consider themselves skilled without having made a very considerable time commitment.
>Because of that, creating a knitting project and giving it to someone you care about can be a very deeply meaningful act for both the knitter and the receiver.
_Lots_ of people dream of retirement, and _lots_ of people retire happy. Not everyone's lucky enough to love their jobs, or have stimulating positions at companies, or work with people they get along with.
Lots of people work in customer-facing jobs in industries where customers are rude, entitled, and just generally disrespectful.
Many of those people don't have the option to retire because the venn diagram of those jobs, and jobs that pay too little to afford retirement, is pretty close to being a circle.
There's also the issue of there only being so many work opportunities, and whether or not it's correct for someone of traditional retirement age to hang on to a job, possibly at the expense of someone new to the workforce having one fewer opportunity.
I would give this article a bit easier of a time if it didn't conspicuously dance around the issue of having an aging population combined with (in many countries) social insurance-type systems not geared to support an age pyramid that top-heavy, but lines like this are just... bad.
> But can anything truly replace the framework and buzz of being part of the action?
Yeah, lots of things. Travel. Hobbies. Going dancing with your partner. Gardening. Hell, using your retirement and pension to kick off a startup of your own. For many people, above all, not being under constant pressure to perform at a certain level.
I say all of that as a millennial who both (a) loves my job, and (b) is unlikely to ever be able to afford to (comfortably) retire, barring major shifts in the economy.