Eh, I’ve seen people doing a job they like way past the “standard” retirement age. But here’s the important part - IF they are not being forced out by the company and/or the culture. It so happens a lot of people like having a sense of purpose and doing a job they like is often a big part of that. Telling people to wander off to go play shuffleboard or whatever the fuck and just wait to die is not much of a purpose.
Often it’s doctors I’ve seen work well into their 70s/80s, though I think the corruption brought by acquisition of practices/hospitals and insurance companies is probably changing that, I’ve known of at least one doctor more or less forced into retirement against his will.
Some people actually really do believe in the idea of civic duty and serving their country, so I have zero problem with politicians that work way past the “standard” retirement age. I’d have to take it on a case by case basis. I definitely have zero interest in arbitrary age limits and term limits removing good candidates from the field entirely. That should be up to the voters.
Someone like Pelosi irritates me no end, but it’s more her stance on insider trading and the way she has tried to gatekeep progressives from entering than anything else. She could be in her 30s and on her first term, and it would still drive me up the wall.
It’s not a matter of their capability of doing the job. The problem is that their job is to represent my interests. Their actions here clearly demonstrate that they do not share my interests.
If they want to work, they should work. But they should be working in a job that values their workaholic lifestyle, not in a job where they are compelled to represent values they do not personally share.
When I retire, I’m going to do what I want. I plan to volunteer a lot. I plan to continue laboring at tasks that I want to perform, for the people I want to perform them for. But the important part is that I plan to answer to nobody but myself. I will no longer adopt the interests of others as my own.
That is not selfish: I will not be putting myself in a situation where other people are dependent on me doing my job. I will not be a lawyer, expected to put my client’s interests ahead of my own. I will not be a laborer, expected to bust my ass continuously between clock punches. I will not be a politician, expected to work tirelessly for the benefit of my constituents. I will make myself happy by giving what I want and what I can, without needing to worry whether it is enough. Such worry is “work”, and I will no longer be a worker.
Simply by running after retirement age, these candidates demonstrate their sheer contempt for retirement. They demonstrate they value work for the sake of work.
I want to see retired people enjoying themselves, and showing others how to enjoy themselves, not promoting their sick, workaholic lifestyles.
Sounds like you have a set of work goals and that’s fine. I just don’t think that needs to be imposed on others who have very different ideas of how to get fulfillment from their work. If the average age of retirement is 62, that means people on average would have 17 years (or more) of life where they are legally prevented from doing the job they love, even if they serve the voters’ interests. I’d say many people would love to continue doing a job they love far past the age of 62, and they should be able to do so, not have some arbitrary law keeping them from that. Ageism is already quite rampant in the private sector; I’m not sure it should be codified into public service.
If you (or any voter) find instances of politicians not sharing your interests, by all means, vote them out.
Eh, I’ve seen people doing a job they like way past the “standard” retirement age. But here’s the important part - IF they are not being forced out by the company and/or the culture. It so happens a lot of people like having a sense of purpose and doing a job they like is often a big part of that. Telling people to wander off to go play shuffleboard or whatever the fuck and just wait to die is not much of a purpose.
Often it’s doctors I’ve seen work well into their 70s/80s, though I think the corruption brought by acquisition of practices/hospitals and insurance companies is probably changing that, I’ve known of at least one doctor more or less forced into retirement against his will.
Some people actually really do believe in the idea of civic duty and serving their country, so I have zero problem with politicians that work way past the “standard” retirement age. I’d have to take it on a case by case basis. I definitely have zero interest in arbitrary age limits and term limits removing good candidates from the field entirely. That should be up to the voters.
Someone like Pelosi irritates me no end, but it’s more her stance on insider trading and the way she has tried to gatekeep progressives from entering than anything else. She could be in her 30s and on her first term, and it would still drive me up the wall.
It’s not a matter of their capability of doing the job. The problem is that their job is to represent my interests. Their actions here clearly demonstrate that they do not share my interests.
If they want to work, they should work. But they should be working in a job that values their workaholic lifestyle, not in a job where they are compelled to represent values they do not personally share.
When I retire, I’m going to do what I want. I plan to volunteer a lot. I plan to continue laboring at tasks that I want to perform, for the people I want to perform them for. But the important part is that I plan to answer to nobody but myself. I will no longer adopt the interests of others as my own.
That is not selfish: I will not be putting myself in a situation where other people are dependent on me doing my job. I will not be a lawyer, expected to put my client’s interests ahead of my own. I will not be a laborer, expected to bust my ass continuously between clock punches. I will not be a politician, expected to work tirelessly for the benefit of my constituents. I will make myself happy by giving what I want and what I can, without needing to worry whether it is enough. Such worry is “work”, and I will no longer be a worker.
Simply by running after retirement age, these candidates demonstrate their sheer contempt for retirement. They demonstrate they value work for the sake of work.
I want to see retired people enjoying themselves, and showing others how to enjoy themselves, not promoting their sick, workaholic lifestyles.
Sounds like you have a set of work goals and that’s fine. I just don’t think that needs to be imposed on others who have very different ideas of how to get fulfillment from their work. If the average age of retirement is 62, that means people on average would have 17 years (or more) of life where they are legally prevented from doing the job they love, even if they serve the voters’ interests. I’d say many people would love to continue doing a job they love far past the age of 62, and they should be able to do so, not have some arbitrary law keeping them from that. Ageism is already quite rampant in the private sector; I’m not sure it should be codified into public service.
If you (or any voter) find instances of politicians not sharing your interests, by all means, vote them out.
That’s the problem I’m trying to address: the workaholic culture among our representative bodies.