> you're really just taking up space for someone who needs to feed their kids, has a potential to grow, and a better place to funnel the earned money than "expensive manicure"
That's a ridiculous assertion, if someone is physically well and wants to work it's nobody's business how they spent then spend the money they earn.
Choosing to have kids or not shouldn't give you any special status in the workforce at all (though in reality it often does).
> That's a ridiculous assertion, if someone is physically well and wants to work it's nobody's business how they spent then spend the money they earn.
No. It was part of the unwritten "societal contract" that old people retire to leave place for young people to rise.
This worked for long times, but governments broke this contract decades ago by wrecking pension/retirement systems, and now the wannabe-pensioners have to work in their 70s to survive while people in their 30s are still where they were at 25 as they cannot reasonably rise up.
I have to wonder, when people used to think about medicine extending the human lifespan, did they realise it just meant another 10 years of work. What a horrible outcome. If the people who wanted to retire were allowed, then kids wouldn't struggle to find jobs. Even starter jobs are difficult to find. Anecdata, but when I was looking for a starter job the median age of a shop worker was nearly 30. All the higher up jobs being taken just stops the mobility and hurts everyone.
I don't agree it's part of the societal contract. I am already grateful to live in a world previous generations built. The wars are fought, the infrastructure is built. I get access to technology previous generations could only dream of. I can do business selling to the whole world wearing underwear sitting in my bedroom even if it's a 3rd world country.
I couldn't have asked for more of previous generations. The last thing I could complain about is people from the generation providing me with all that trying to still work and make money out of it.
> The wars are fought, the infrastructure is built.
The wars are just beginning - over water, rare resources, arable land, whatever - and the infrastructure across Western countries is rotting under our feet as maintenance was mostly skipped on.
That's the very pessimistic view. We have the longest peaceful period ever at least in the Western world and access to infrastructure previous generations could only dream about. It's true overpopulation in areas not suitable for sustaining big populations is a problem but it's difficult to predict how it plays out. It's not that people needed much reason to start wars in the past and it seems we've reached quite a stable state now at least from historical perspective.
I mean I still have living family members who remember their homes taken away, being packed on the train and transported to Syberia by Soviets so it's very hard for me not be grateful for the kind of world I get to live in.
The comment was about "making space" for younger generation. I just don't agree with that view. There is more opportunity then ever and old people still working jobs is not a problem for younger ones (although it might be a problem for them if they counted on longer retirement).
The younger generation need jobs the most, I think it's a dangerous precedent to set if there is no longer an expectation they can find a job. We're already seeing a breakdown in youth culture, attitudes to life, etc.. I know because I am part of that generation, all I see around me are people that believe there's no opportunity without some serious luck.
In the end, older people are worked to death and younger people struggle to progress past Walmart (and no, a degree or a programming gig should not be the some of the only options to jump into a career).
> If you're 66 and you're still sitting around in a corporate job, and you have no children, 9/10 you're really just taking up space for someone who needs to feed their kids, has a potential to grow, and a better place to funnel the earned money than "expensive manicure"
That seems very judgmental to me.
I don't plan to have kids due to genetic conditions and other reasons, but by your reckoning, I don't deserve a job once I age because there are other people "more deserving."
When you are young and childless you get the difficult shift/all nighter/extra travel because the other guys have families. Then when you get older and the kids are gone you get the same screwing over because the other guys have family to feed. It's always something.
We all know it's like having 2 jobs. But having kids is a choice. Don't do it if you can't pay for it or you have to keep leaning on colleagues to cover for you.
As for the prospects of other people's kids paying for my retirement, that seems very low probability given the projections for the future of social security. When planning for retirement you should assume you receive zero from social security.
Accepting to do the "difficult shift/all nighter/extra" is a choice too. Besides, not giving people with children an extra shift is morally right. A company should get extra workforce and also prioritize employee's and her family's well-being when dividing the work load.
How much of a choice depends on if you have management that thinks it's the right thing to do to impose upon the childless. If you disagree you are labeled not a team player and suffer the consequences.
So you get to hear about your coworker's day at the beach with their family while you had to work the weekend to finish up something they were supposed to do which required cancelling your date at the beach.
> If you're 66 and you're still sitting around in a corporate job, and you have no children, 9/10 you're really just taking up space for someone who needs to feed their kids, has a potential to grow, and a better place to funnel the earned money than "expensive manicure"
I agree with you in principle - the fact that aging Boomers and olders cling to their jobs and prevent younger successors from rising is a real problem. However, many of them have no choice because retirement/pension systems worldwide got fucked in the last decades.
A legacy of people in their generation with power, yes. You realize there's no moustache-twirling Boomer Conspiracy Society out there, yeah? And that some random working schlub wouldn't be invited if there was?
I have no idea what you are talking about. You elect those in power? They are your representatives. Your government is your responsibility, that's how democracy works right?
Oh, yes. "Democracy." You understand, I trust, that the individual voter has around fuck-all power and influence, yes? And the profound level of bad faith it takes to charge a working stiff with the actions of the political establishment as directed almost in its entirety by the moneyed class?
The sentiment you exhibit is indecent and inhumane.
"Taking up space" in an industry where there is serious talent shortage about everywhere in the first world and people who can barely code a sorting algorithm are hired for jobs with 6 figure salaries is just laughable argument. There are so many opportunities and so many ways to make living as a competent programmer, especially when you're young.
You're already in a privileged position by virtue of being born in technology age, having younger brain and better energy levels. It's an industry you can make it in in endless ways if you're willing to work on your skills.
If you're born in US that's another huge advantage as you can skip the language and culture part which is big barrier for many hard working and competent people. You also have access to the best market in the world and you don't need to worry about being denied entry or visa extension.
You know what's right for society? Working hard and not being an entitled brat. You have all the advantages in the world as a young English speaking person born in the first world country and you're complaining about 60+ years old trying to make living. It's honestly pathetic.
Wallstreet big banks. My sister was working for some of those and participated in hiring process. They had trouble finding anyone competent (she told me anyone who could code a simple sorting algorithm task got a resounding acceptance from the interviewers as that was very rare. Most people showing up for the interviews couldn't code at all). The work is psychologically draining because tech people are 2nd class citizens there (in comparison to front desk) and there is a lot of paperwork when submitting any code but it does pay very well.
EDIT: answering "so you applied b it to all US". I didn't, even people living in 3rd world countries can make nice money these days thanks to internet. If you live in US you can take a plane and go to the best tech hubs in the world. There are people who have to work for years just to have that chance and they need to learn the language in the meantime. There is just so much opportunity if you're already there and you were raised with access to the Internet.
LOL, I'm entrepreneur and I'm doing well. And I'm not born in the US but much less "privileged" country. I find that 66 year old US boomer ranting about "ageism" pathetic, from my point of view.
