Second Careers of the Healthy Elderly | Hacker News Reader

Second Careers of the Healthy Elderly

nautil.us

54 pointsprostoalex21 comments

I think if we really want to get more seniors into the workforce, we have to get rid of the notion that wages should be monotonically increasing with age.

In Austria, for most professions, there are contracts that explicitely require wages to increase with experience (number of years worked). This means that older employees are automatically more expensive. It's especially bad for many "public" positions; for example, a teacher's salary automatically increases every two years or so. A 65 year old teacher earns twice the salary of a 25 year old teacher. Sure, the older teacher has more experience, but it's hard to argue that experience is worth more than TWO young teachers.

Also, often retirement is just a convenient way to get rid of people. If everyone's goal is to keep climbing the ladder, we have to get rid of the people at the top at some point. There's only so much space up there. And since the people at the top probably don't want to switch to roles with less responsibility, the only place left is retirement.

And last but not least, willingness to change is also necessary. Now, I don't think that a 60 year old is per se more reluctant to change than a 30 year old. I think that senior people can adapt to changes just as well as young people; given the right motivation. However, a 30 year old has a lot more extrinsic motivation to change than a 60 year old: when you are young, you have to adapt, or you will end up poor. When you are old, you have the option to refuse to adapt and just retire...

I've seen it here on HN many times as an excuse for ageism - we can't hire older people, they want more money and more time off.

Kind of surprised it is more money AND more time off. I am an Australian in my mid 30s and most of my social circle is mid 30s through mid 40s. There is a bit of a trend to specifically request less money but more time off ie for a new job "that is a generous offer. I propose we reduce the salary by X dollars and increase my annual leave by Y days/weeks" or for an existing job "keep your raise, give me an extra week of annual leave instead."

Perhaps it is something related to this specific stage of life but lots of people have young children. Also, the appeal of their career has really worn thin after 10-15 years of full-time work.

Hmm, I would probably rate a teacher with 40 years experience much more than twice as valuable as one with only a few years.

My understanding - and I spend a lot of time with teachers - is that this probably isn't true. Teachers improve for the first 3 to 5 years, but most don't after that, as very few spend time on ongoing professional development, and there are very few novel experiences they're exposed to. At least some references in: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21700385-great-teachi...

I am 57 and have no interest whatsoever in retiring. Fortunately, since I work on open source projects, nobody can fire me :-)

After about 10 days of "vacation", I'm always itching to get back to work.

Walter not that anyone would do this to you, but you can get kicked off an open source project which is equivalent to being fired. I guess you could always fork if you wanted to keep working on the code.

I'm not doing anything that any motivated programmer couldn't do.

It is awesome that you are still going on.

Do you make a living on open source or it is something to keep you engaged.

Many companies are happy to pay for support and training, which is how to make money with open source. Sort of like a musician giving away the CDs and making money from the live concerts.

Odd that this article doesn't mention a key reason that US workers are staying working into their "retirement" years: access to health insurance.

(also, B&Q is a British company, not based in New York like the article states).

I thought once one reaches a retirement age in the US, the only option is medicare?

"Medicare doesn't cover most dental care, dental procedures, or supplies, like cleanings, fillings, tooth extractions, dentures, dental plates, or other dental devices. Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) will pay for certain dental services that you get when you're in a hospital"

Source: https://www.medicare.gov/coverage/dental-services.html

Also, they won't cover glasses.

https://www.medicare.gov/coverage/eyeglasses-contact-lenses....

Brutal. A good reason to keep working though. Those two items are pretty glaring omissions from Medicare, and relevant for most people, but especially so for otherwise healthy seniors. Having glasses that work and functional teeth is the difference between an active, healthy life and being a shut-in.

Even in the province of Québec (probably all of Canada, but not sure on that one), where we have had "free" healthcare for a very long time, dental care and glasses have always been an extra. Most of the time, that extra cost is not worth it for the few times you would actually need it.

And when you have it and there is an occasion to use it, you realize the amount that is reimbursed is less than 50% of the costs because you reach the limit in a single treatment, with leftover you have to pay unles you have the highest tier of insurance.

That's often the case in other countries as well, I believe. Why not pay out of pocket? Those don't seem like the kind of things you'd need insurance for. Even the most expensive operations won't exceed $10.000 which should be more than affordable for any retiree.

> Even the most expensive operations won't exceed $10.000 which should be more than affordable for any retiree.

Should, but not necessarily is. $10k is a large amount of money!

Doubtful.. Some retirees live on social security.

Many folks get Part C or D coverage that give them the option to get dental/vision included too, if they don't just buy it separately. My parents pay $95/month or so each for Kaiser's Medicare plan in the Bay Area, and that includes dental and vision. Medicare itself is not intended to cover everything... that's what the Advantage and Part C/D and Medigap stuff is for.

Routine care such as dental cleanings is a foreseable expense and doesn't require insurance.

Can't you say that about regular medical check-ups, too? Those are covered by insurance.

But dental and vision plans have always been poor deals with low yearly coverage limits and high copay. I find it hard to believe people would work just for those two things when a lot will come out of your pocket anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com