Edit: it unfortunately looks like you've been breaking the guidelines quite a bit, and we've already had to ask you multiple times not to. You've also posted good comments, so I don't want to ban you, but would you please review them and use the site as intended? We want thoughtful, curious conversation here.
No one has spoken to me about guideline violations. Not one single time. Why would you lie about something like that? As far as my comment goes, it was a joke. Purely in jest.
Which implies that we're not there now. Right now, there are a lot of young people who could use a solid job like a mailman, some of whom have a lot of student debt to pay for careers that are not panning out.
There aren’t a fixed number of jobs. Everyone who has a job and produces things generally also creates jobs by consuming things (or by putting the money in the bank and having someone else borrow and invest it). It scales with the working population, otherwise we would have run out of jobs a long time ago. There are other reasons for problems with unemployment/underemployment.
In the case of my mailman, there is. If he retires, another person is hired to take his route. This is the case with many jobs. Clearly I'm not speaking about ALL jobs, just as when I posted the comment about the students who didn't get a job after college that I wasn't talkin about students who got a degree in basket weaving as another posted suggested. I shouldn't have to explain that my comments are not meant to cover ALL situations.
The existence of old people is not the cause of unemployment. On the other hand, enforcing the work week maximum of 48 hours, from the ILO convention in 1930(!), would actually help and doesn't need age discrimination.
"The existence of old people is not the cause of unemployment."
Perhaps you meant to post this under someone else's comment, because I didn't claim that the "existence" of old people was "the cause" of unemployment. However, if a 75 year old man retires, it opens up a job for anyone who is younger, be it a 20 year old person or a 55 year old person.
I have a hard time understanding that. If I could afford it, I'd quit work tomorrow and I don't think I would ever get bored. I have a so many hobbies I don't have time for and about a million more I'd like to dive into. I have countless movies and TV shows on lists that I'll probably never get to. Books are an even bigger problem for me. If I lived near a a university I'd audit everything. I'd volunteer for causes I believe in.
It bothers me that you are being downvoted. One of the reasons retirement benefits were created was so people could retire and open up their jobs to the next generation.
It's nice that someone held onto a job til 102, but it also means that at least two generations of young people lost out on a job that they could use to buy a home, start a family, etc.
I'm not for forced retirement but someone holding onto a position to 102 is really ridiculous. Especially for a taxpayer funded government job with terrific retirement benefits/pension.
At some point, shouldn't a person acknowledge they've taken more than their fair share and step aside so another gets a chance? Isn't it part of the social contract that you retire, collect benefits and let others have a job?
If this employee had to work to survive ( pay rent/mortgage, bills, etc ), then more power to him. But otherwise, he really did a disservice to the younger generations by staying on as long as he did.
dang|6 years ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: it unfortunately looks like you've been breaking the guidelines quite a bit, and we've already had to ask you multiple times not to. You've also posted good comments, so I don't want to ban you, but would you please review them and use the site as intended? We want thoughtful, curious conversation here.
Cougher|6 years ago
codegrappler|6 years ago
scarface74|6 years ago
Cougher|6 years ago
Which implies that we're not there now. Right now, there are a lot of young people who could use a solid job like a mailman, some of whom have a lot of student debt to pay for careers that are not panning out.
throwaway34241|6 years ago
Cougher|6 years ago
In the case of my mailman, there is. If he retires, another person is hired to take his route. This is the case with many jobs. Clearly I'm not speaking about ALL jobs, just as when I posted the comment about the students who didn't get a job after college that I wasn't talkin about students who got a degree in basket weaving as another posted suggested. I shouldn't have to explain that my comments are not meant to cover ALL situations.
bildung|6 years ago
Cougher|6 years ago
Perhaps you meant to post this under someone else's comment, because I didn't claim that the "existence" of old people was "the cause" of unemployment. However, if a 75 year old man retires, it opens up a job for anyone who is younger, be it a 20 year old person or a 55 year old person.
cosmodisk|6 years ago
criddell|6 years ago
I have a hard time understanding that. If I could afford it, I'd quit work tomorrow and I don't think I would ever get bored. I have a so many hobbies I don't have time for and about a million more I'd like to dive into. I have countless movies and TV shows on lists that I'll probably never get to. Books are an even bigger problem for me. If I lived near a a university I'd audit everything. I'd volunteer for causes I believe in.
FpUser|6 years ago
elfexec|6 years ago
It's nice that someone held onto a job til 102, but it also means that at least two generations of young people lost out on a job that they could use to buy a home, start a family, etc.
I'm not for forced retirement but someone holding onto a position to 102 is really ridiculous. Especially for a taxpayer funded government job with terrific retirement benefits/pension.
At some point, shouldn't a person acknowledge they've taken more than their fair share and step aside so another gets a chance? Isn't it part of the social contract that you retire, collect benefits and let others have a job?
If this employee had to work to survive ( pay rent/mortgage, bills, etc ), then more power to him. But otherwise, he really did a disservice to the younger generations by staying on as long as he did.