This is going to sound really heartless: Imagine working for the same company your entire adult life, retiring and dying 4 years later.
The thought of that, as a 26-year old, terrifies me.
The thought of that, as a 26-year old, terrifies me.
Imagine having multiple jobs where you are recognized and have the type of impact that transforms the entire world. In this case all of that happened at one company. He probably had enough money to retire well before the time he did, so I assume he enjoyed something about working there? So maybe he didn't feel bad he only had 4 years of retirement?
He had a family, including children. Maybe that pointless speculation isn't appropriate either direction.
I said, very clearly, that speculating on whether Paul would be ok with just having four years of retirement, is pointless speculation and impolite - or worse - toward the family he left behind. It is. A few seconds of thinking in empathy first, would prevent the entire discussion over what Paul may or may not have been interested in. Frankly, I don't even like having to explain the obviousness of how crude this conversation is.
To be clear, it's not an issue of whether discussing retirement matters in general in this thread is obnoxious. It's about speculating on Paul's specific choices or preferences. That is obnoxious.
It's not like there is some societal taboo being broken here.
The trade off between obsessive, 90 hour work weeks that make a CEO, and living for four fucking years afterwards is a discussion worth having.
Was it worth it? Do the family think it was worth it?
I'd say that it's probably closer to 100% of us will die.
Live around your work, so you are working to enjoy life now, not in the future.
That doesn't mean "slack off" or "can working", it just means find hobbies you enjoy and dedicate yourself as much to them as your work.
My dad worked for the same company for 25 years. He helped it grow and benefited from that growth by moving up internally, and he had enough time left over to raise a family. When he left at 60 to consult and start his own company, it’s not like he’d spent the previous 25 years in a sprint with nothing to show for it.
Steve Jobs died soon after he retired. And working at (nearly) the same company / dreams his entire adult life. Or more like he was forced to retire due to his health.
But Apple Park. As if He wasn't gonna let death get in the way of his Dream.
From reading books and listening to his talks he gave on life, I am sure he didn't regret it one bit.
“I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.” - Steve Jobs.
I agree with the sentiment, but it's also very easy for someone as financially secure as Jobs to make that call.
Life is pretty fleeting; we plan for a long healthy life and in most cases it does pan out. But you can get super unlucky for whatever reason.
Different things fulfill different people.
There are many retirees who enjoy their emeritus status so they can continue "work".
Working at the same company for a long duration? Or dying soon after retiring?
The idea of (seemingly) having never explored other places. He graduated and immediately joined Intel and never left.
Maybe he was happy-as-a-clam there but spending your entire adult life having (seemingly) never taken a risk.
There is obviously a lot of assumption and judgement to this though.
You'll grow out of it once you hit 30.
I hope to work at the same company for the rest of my life, raise my kids, vacation regularly with my wife, then die. I would be completely content with a 'boring' life.
You should only take a risk when the gain is worth it; if you already have what you want, the gain is not worth it.
Also, changing jobs is just one type of risk you can take. Maybe his steady work was his foundation for taking other risks in other parts of his life.
Many philosophers thought so, but there are other pursuits. The philosophy of virtue (not in the biblical sense) describes one such alternative. The teachings of the virtue ethics can be perceived to mean that your pursuit should be mastery of any one (or number) of subject(s) and/or character traits. Mastery would be the perfect marriage between effort, preparation and result (or in the case of ethics, the perfect life in balance, cultivating the good in you).
There are as many reasons to do things as there are people do do them ;)
It would take commitment, grit, skill, and so much more to do that. It's not like he was a mindless pencil pusher in the same dead-end job his whole life.
If he was able to climb the ladder to become the CEO, he probably took some very big risks and had a very big target on his back. The risks are just different from moving from one company to another.
I've worked at different large companies and met plenty of people who only did exactly what was asked for them. They barely took any risks. Every few years they got a standard promotion as per HR policy, but ultimately their career trajectory stalled. There's nothing wrong with that, but somebody who can climb to be a CEO of a company like Intel surely took some risks and did something to stand out?
Intel hasn't been a tiny start up for decades. You can do many different things inside a large company that is in so many markets. Just because someone stays at the same company for their entire career doesn't mean that they were riding the gravy train the entire time.
Our society is based on work, that's why you should try to get a good one.
My biggest concern is folks dying soon after retirement. It's pretty scary to envision working for 40+ years and not be able to enjoy retirement.