There's no real data behind this article. It's basically ageism fueled by self-doubt.
I've been in a transitional state career-wise, partially by choice, but I think there's two major factors not really mentioned by the article, and in fact, factors I think the article reinforces.
The first is ageism, like you say. But I think ageism is a lot more subtle than other things, because it's not only an assumption of age-related decline, but more generally an assumption that people can't change. So if you become known for X, it's hard for people to see you as anything but that. You get typecast, and those assumptions become societal constraints. It's like there's career "rails" and if you go off the rails, people don't know how to process it.
The second is a sort of lack of recognition of how much randomness and fads plays a role in certain fields. What I mean by that is that the reasons some people attain relative notoriety and status is often due to butterfly effects or societal viccitudes, and these become revealed only over time.
I think in general, there's a very superficial way we process people and their potential for change or new work. Even when they're capable of it, they're often prevented from doing so because of assumptions and stereotypes.
Sure, cognitive decline happens, but it's not as dramatic as it seems in this article.
Sometimes I feel as I've gotten older it's just a process of seeing more of the wizard behind the curtain. I read articles like this and get depressed only because it perpetuates the societal ills that lead to the problems in the first place.
This line in the article is quite revealing and strange, contextually: "Maybe not. Though the literature on this question is sparse, giftedness and achievements early in life do not appear to provide an /insurance policy/ against suffering later on. "
I personally have 2 rare neurological diseases affecting my peripheral nervous system and I require an orphan drug, a blood product, that was covered under Medicare Part D when I lived in America. If I only had traditional Medicare in America, I would be liable for Medicare Part D Catastrophic Coverage Limits, and I would be forced to pay $50,000+/year total for all of my medical care under Medicare.
Technically, yes, I can get a Medicare Advantage plan, which has an out-of-pocket limit. The problem is that the vast majority of these plans are HMOs, and that does not go well with rare disease. Also, one of the rare diseases that I have is very rare, with case reports and cohorts at best in the medical literature. So, if I want to stay alive (like it is a choice?), I really cannot be on an HMO.
By the way, 7-8% of the general population collectively has some sort of a rare disease. There are about 8,000 or so rare diseases. So, it is not uncommon to have a rare disease.
Also, if you have cancer, or are likely to get cancer (elderly, perhaps?) having an HMO via a Medicare Advantage plan is not a good idea if you likewise want to stay alive.
The problem is that once you are on a Medicare Advantage plan, you basically cannot go back to traditional Medicare. This is because Medigap plans (Medicare Part B Supplemental plans) allow medical underwriting even after the Affordable Care Act went into effect, unless you live in 4 US states! So, you basically can never get a Medigap plan again after switching to a Medicare Advantage plan. It is, quite literally, a deadly, but not well known error that Americans make when they are on Medicare.
This is one of the top reasons why I left the US and never plan on living there ever again, even if I have to file and pay taxes as a US citizen. I naturalized and acquired another citizenship over the US healthcare system.
This is a totally ridiculous statement. Medicare-assisted drug costs are absolutely NOT going to bankrupt someone who has very wisely saved "millions" for retirement.
I have watched both my parents now pass, and I actually helped them both work out which Medicare plan to select based on their specific medications by creating a spreadsheet and carefully going thru the documentation of each plan and doing the math.
2 million dollars can rather safely throw off 3% after-taxes, so thats 60k/year not counting the odd 1800 that the federal government pays everyone with Medicare "benefits", that that is 6800/month someone who has saved "millions" has for income, and that's not even touching the principle nest egg.
There is no possible way someone's monthly drug costs are going to be anywhere even CLOSE to that number..I think each of my parents spent around 1200/month for what seemed to me to be way more "medication" then they could possibly need.
Unless you somehow come up with numbers that are way, way different than mine, your assertation that drug costs could bankrupt someone with "millions" saved is rather laughable.
But that kind of omits the fact that in our modern day and age, the elderly have a lot more technical help available. For Darwin, it was a decision of leaving his family behind to go on a months-long trip. Nowadays, it'd be a 6 hour flight and you can call your friends while you're on vacation.
So the risk/reward tradeoff has massively changed since Darwin's times.
The section on Darwin was an eyebrow raiser. It makes sense to include someone like Darwin (very interesting and well known), but he's not a great example to compare to "normal" people (like the couple mentioned in the opening paragraph).
A 50 year old in the 1800s whose job was catching a ship to the other side of the planet is a little different when compared to a factory worker, software engineer, doctor, etc.
Also, what the fuck is this off-hand remark:
> Unfortunately, Mendel’s work was published in an obscure academic journal and Darwin never saw it—and in any case, Darwin did not have the mathematical ability to understand it.
This part is true. Not sure about Darwin's mathematical knowledge.
> and in any case, Darwin did not have the mathematical ability to understand it.
In the Age of Trump, however, it really has just descended into blog-caliber clickbait. The effort at introspection and critical thinking skills just isn't there anymore. Today, the publication just feels like a collection of opinion essays aimed at pandering to Twitter culture.
This month's cover story is titled "Private Schools Are Indefensible" (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/private...). The author starts off recalling anecdotes about her experience, teaching the children of hedge fund managers at an elite private school catering to the ultra-wealthy.
In the old Atlantic, you would skim through this sort of thing, waiting for the "meat" of the article to begin. References to hard data, facts and figures. Comparisons and contrasts between these ultra-wealthy private coastal schools, and the mundane private schools accessible to middle-class families in cities and towns across the nation. Perhaps even some interesting counterpoint, about minority families being more likely to choose charter or private school when having the option.
In today's Atlantic, though, you never get to that "meat". The introductory anecdotes simply ARE the article! The author hated teaching the children of multi-millionaires at her elite private school, and thought the school was terrible and twelve kinds of racist accordingly. There is zero effort to tie her experience at this school into the broad "Private Schools Are Indefensible" title. Because if you're in the in target audience these days, then surely you already feel that way, and simply want some fluffy opinion content to reinforce your feeling. Right?
I've held on longer than I probably should have, but I don't believe that I'll be renewing with my current subscription expires next year. Which is terribly depressing to me.