Hacker News Reader

Comment by commandlinefan | Hacker News Reader

> Why are so many people in top positions, whether in the public or private sector, so old?

... because they're the most experienced? When in human history has this not been the case? And what in the world makes you think this isn't the way it should be?

View on HN

The thing that's different in now vs then, is that the span of the average human life (and the underlying span of healthy operation) has increased an enormous amount... in a single lifespan.

This means those occupying the "top" jobs have a much, much, much longer tenure than their predecessors.

This is coupled with massive consolidation in industry and politics meaning there is less and less of those jobs in the first place.

Hence much of the dissatisfaction of the younger generation.

> This means those occupying the "top" jobs have a much, much, much longer tenure than their predecessors.

"Much, much longer tenure" is a bit of a stretch. This is more about scarsity of certain jobs. We require a lot of 'on the ground' workers, e.g. software developers, and orders of magnitude fewer CEOs, CIOs, directors, etc.

It's similar to someone wanting to get into a management position. Once the position is filled, and the person is doing at the very least "slightly above awful" job, you won't hire a manager for that team for quite some time.

My wife tutors at a college, and she said the same thing about the professors there. She said that most of them looked well past retirement age, and some could barely stand up on their own or talk loud enough for a class to hear them. Meanwhile, the younger people who want to teach are stuck being adjunct professors with no job stability or benefits, or working as tutors grading papers and picking up the slack for teachers that refuse to retire.

> well past retirement age

I'll be working well past retirement age, not necessarily because I won't want to retire, but because there's no way I'll be able to afford it.

Most pension systems assume x years of payments. Just because people are getting older doesn't change the fact that the money won't last. Therefore the retirement age gets adjusted upward until it is average life expectancy - x years of retirement.

What would they gain by retiring, exactly?

And what would the students gain? I mean, I get that younger people want to become professors, but the students are better off being taught by somebody who’s been teaching and researching the field in question as long as possible.

It is said that science advances one funeral at a time. As a student I would prefer someone with a medium amount of teaching and research experience.

Wouldn't that encourage more risk taking from younger generation, if they have no realistic shot at top jobs until decades later?

Only if they already have money or some kind of safety net, otherwise they are forced to take whatever job they can get.

It's really striking how many of the top people in different fields are essentially the same today as they were twenty or thirty years ago. Look at politics. Look at Hollywood. Look, though to a lesser degree, but still markedly more so than in previous eras, at sports.

Nobody ages out and opens up their spot anymore. It's a problem when that means the pipeline gets stalled, and causes a lot of problems when the old guard does finally retire or die off, and there are not enough suitable candidates waiting in the wings to pick up, because they have gotten tired of waiting around.

I don't really believe in this generalization, but I was struck recently by how a local "classic rock" station is playing the same songs as they did 30 years ago. You'd think that "classic" would have advanced by a few decades.

But come on, is your claim really supported by Tom Brady being 42 and not 38? Or by the falling US life expectancy? Or by social security retirement age changing from 65 to 67?

>This means those occupying the "top" jobs have a much, much, much longer tenure than their predecessors.

It seems like tenure would only increase if the "top" positions were staffed with individual of an age consistent with the past.

At face value, I think it is equally plausible that tenure has stayed to same but entry age to the top positions has increased.

For a more cultural example, look at the Queen of England.

At this point Prince Charles is so old that he may well just abdicate his kingship to his son.

Maybe not. But for most purposes he has been eclipsed by his son.

The only reason the queen hasn't abdicated is that her children are terrible at royalty.

Think about how much has changed in the past 30 years. The average american is 10x the productivity of his equivalent, but at a cost of specialized skills. That "experienced" human being also came from a generation that could scoff at, say, learning to type ("i'm not a secretary!") which on the surface makes them look more inept, but that's only true if they were starting out today. Instead they were able to invest in skills and opportunities invisible to a modern workforce largely in debt largely uncertain and, in contrast to the author's posit:

>Who wants to work on mastering a complex task for 10 or 15 years, with no real guarantee of commercial success?

I think the question here is whether it's easier to take risks now versus a generation ago.

Then they should be comparing where people in previous generations were at the same point in their life. Not where previous generations are at the same point in time.

This sort of generational change has happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Generation

Also see Pareto on foxes and lions.

First time I see the foxes and lions thing, thanks for sharing.

Found this link:

https://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2017/3/6/paretos-two-types-of...

If we get rid of student loans this could change overnight, we have fashioned a society that punishes risk taking on so many levels but the student debt is the strongest driver I can see its basically a return of the indentured servitude culture of the 18th century when most people came to this country under the auspices of indenture.

A lot of the young engineers I work with are definitely weighed down by their college debt, super high housing cost and health cost. A generation ago buying a house was much more affordable. So was college. So I'd say, yes, a generation ago it was easier to take a risk because today you don't have much less margin of error.

> When in human history has this not been the case?

Let me take you on a walk down Soma.

Age and income are inversely correlated.

Sorry, you lost me there... Soma, Japan?

Sorry, south of Market (where there happen to be a lot of offices for startups)

(San Francisco)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com