These decadal anniversaries seem to get more onerous each time. 20? No problem, it just means you're not a teenager any more! 30? Okay, you're officially a grownup, but you can still party! 40 was pause for concern, but it isn't what it used to be, the threshold of middle age: that's 50. Oops ...
Well, as Terry Pratchett observed, inside every old man there's an eight year old wondering what just happened. I don't feel emotionally middle-aged. But my knees creak in the morning, I've survived medical conditions that would have killed me if I'd lived a century earlier, I can remember events -- as an adult -- that happened 30 years ago, and I don't have the physical stamina, mental agility, or energy of a 30 year old any more. (Mind you, what they say about experience trumping youth and enthusiasm? It's not exactly true, but the experience factor makes up for a lot of the gradual cognitive decline that comes with age.)
Like Jacques, I'm less inclined to put up with fools -- but I'm also less inclined to get worked up over things. And I'm probably unemployable these days. (15 consecutive years of self-employment will do that to anyone.)
But the biggest thing I've noticed? What look like big opportunities, vanishing in the rear-view mirror of age. When you're 30 you can think in terms of going back to university or forming a new start-up. You've got time to plan a new career or nurture a business ahead of you. But by the time you've hit 50, the future is looking cloudy. You don't want to train for a new career to see you through the next 30 years because who the hell wants to be working to pay off student loans when they're 80? So you get locked into whatever track you set yourself running down twenty years earlier. Changing is hard because you have less of a future ahead of you to change for.
If you're under 35, my advice would be to think about that. Do you really want to be locked into doing more or less what you're doing now when you're in your sixties? If not, now is the time to change. The later you leave it, the harder it will be.
I'm in a similar place to the OP. I turn 50 in a week. I get told often I look in my 30s. The majority of my friends are in their 30s. Hung out for 6 months with 28yr olds forming a startup last year, they asked me to join them. With few exceptions I don't fit with people my age.
What I find frustrating is the society at large won't let me ignore my age. You get categorized all the time. Some meetup or dating event is 30-45. Some form has age categories. Visas to visit countries have age limits (as in we let students in but you're clearly too old to be a student). Articles all the time tell you who you should be, behave, for your age. Others tell you if you're XX age you can't do that anymore. Whatever it is. Can't go back to school. Can't learn a new language. Can't join a start up. Bla bla bla.
Sure, most people's first reaction is "ignore that" but it's oppressive. It's a viral meme that eats at your thoughts
Big life decisions are also harder because you start to realize each choice cuts off others so which choice to make?
They tell you that kind of stuff when you're younger too, that you're not X or Y because you're not old enough yet. One's just more inclined to ignore it out of sheer bull-headedness.
On the contrary, I’m on my early forties and my physical condition is way better than it was twenty years ago. I exercise a lot, eat much healthier food because now I know whilst on my twenties I’d eat any crap that came my way, I have a steady sleeping pattern trying to wake up early each morning so I can make the most of the day and generally speaking I feel like I have at least another twenty energetic years ahead of me.
As for tolerance the funny thing is that while younger I would confront head on anyone that I’d think was bullshitting me. Nowadays I just ignore them. I’ve learned to not give a fuck.
The only thing I find harder as I grow up is to fall in love. It’s not that it doesn’t happen, it just doesn’t happen with the frequency and the easiness it did twenty years ago. But then again that might be a good thing, not to fall in love with every gorgeous woman that crosses your path.
On the contrary, I’m on my early forties and my physical condition is way better than it was twenty years ago.
It's a crap shoot. I got hit by metabolic syndrome -- extreme hypertension and type II diabetes. I exercise, I weigh less and am in better shape than I was 20 years ago, but I'm still on a cardiology professor's frequent-flyer list and gobbling meds by the double-handful. Meanwhile, my wife is a four year cancer survivor (another six months to the all-clear, we hope).
The probability of running into a life-threatening or terminal medical condition approaches unity as we age towards the upper limit of human life expectancy (around 114 years, currently). By the time you hit your forties you probably know people who had an unlucky aggressive early-onset cancer; by the time you hit your fifties you can add heart attacks and strokes to that, and less-well-known problems as well. It's all downhill from here, and unfortunately it's not the kind of ride most people enjoy.
Genetics
Twin studies have estimated that approximately 20-30% the variation in human lifespan can be related to genetics, with the rest due to individual behaviors and environmental factors which can be modified.
[Hjelmborg, J.; Skytthe, Axel; Vaupel, James W.; McGue, Matt; Koskenvuo, Markku; Kaprio, Jaakko; Pedersen, Nancy L.; Christensen, Kaare et al. (2006). "Genetic influence on human lifespan and longevity". Human Genetics 119 (3): 312–321. doi:10.1007/s00439-006-0144-y.]
>The only thing I find harder as I grow up is to fall in love. It’s not that it doesn’t happen, it just doesn’t happen with the frequency and the easiness it did twenty years ago. But then again that might be a good thing, not to fall in love with every gorgeous woman that crosses your path.
I don't need to be even near your age to know for sure that love is a term used for something different than this. Much deeper, much longer-lasting and resilient. If you keep falling in love literally every time hot chick passes along, you've never fell in love. I know both states well enough, and they are worlds apart
Love is bonding. But to get there you first have to fall in love. And as you grow older, at least in my case, you don't get so easily enthusiastic when you meet an interesting woman. You've learn to keep your hopes down in case the whole thing goes south. It's a defensive mechanism to keep you from feeling heart-broken every so often.
> If you're under 35, my advice would be to think about that. Do you really want to be locked into doing more or less what you're doing now when you're in your sixties? If not, now is the time to change. The later you leave it, the harder it will be.
Pause for thought indeed. Thank you.
My immediate response though was "how can I predict jobs 20-30 years into the future, when I can't even predict my field in 5-10 years?". I could re-train, but most fields look like they will shrink.
The way I think you do an end run around that is to not think in terms of tools but in terms of skills. If your skill today is building CRUD forms, that's what you'll do in 30 years, only you'll do it in that decade's tools. I think you're then supposed to look at the supply and demand of skills, and try to gain a skillset that will be in high demand but with a limited supply. For example, building CRUD forms has probably reached peaked demand, and the influx of programmers in low wage markets is going to put downward pressure on wages for decades to come, so no matter how well you keep up with tools, you don't want to be in that market for the next few decades. On the other hand, if you specialise in data science and assorted algorithms, you're probably set for life, because demand for those skills will keep rising as software gets smarter, and the difficulty of gaining those skills will limit supply.
> But the biggest thing I've noticed? What look like big opportunities, vanishing in the rear-view mirror of age.....So you get locked into whatever track you set yourself running down twenty years earlier. Changing is hard because you have less of a future ahead of you to change for.
Or even if you're not changing track, if you're developer ~20%++ of the track changes on you every year, can you maintain this pace when you're older, maybe with a family, and don't have the time or motivation to learn yet another way of doing <x> for the umpteenth time. For younger people I would recommend keeping a close eye on that situation over the long term and if possible have a plan B if you want to get off the treadmill.
> Or even if you're not changing track, if you're developer ~20%++ of the track changes on you every year, can you maintain this pace when you're older, maybe with a family, and don't have the time or motivation to learn yet another way of doing <x> for the umpteenth time. For younger people I would recommend keeping a close eye on that situation over the long term and if possible have a plan B if you want to get off the treadmill.
The plan B is always saving enough money to bail early on employment and retiring at 50-55.
Switching careers is always going to be an earnings hit.
> The plan B is always saving enough money to bail early on employment and retiring at 50-55.
Or 35-40, which is not that hard in this field. Live like a college student, earn like a professional, and you'll be able to retire pretty quickly. Which doesn't mean you need to retire at that point, but it means you can.
Both of those make some very, very optimistic assumptions about how reality works.
Pretty much any major negative event will add a decade and pretty much everyone has at least a one of those. A single one can wipe out years of savings, even at a 50%+ savings rate.
In the real world, you aren't in control of your savings rate for decades on end. No one is. I understand the illusion of that control is appealing but it simply isn't how reality works.
There is a reason the majority of the bankruptcies are from medical issues with 5 figures out of pocket and into the 6 figures when you count lost income.
> Pretty much any major negative event will add a decade and pretty much everyone has at least a one of those. A single one can wipe out years of savings, even at a 50%+ savings rate.
Define "major negative event" here. Assuming you have insurance for catastrophic events, few things should be able to wipe out hundreds of thousands in savings, which is what you'd quickly build up with a high savings rate, especially in a high-paying field.
And even if one of your desired safety margins is a pile of savings, the higher your savings rate the sooner you build up those buffers. If you assume one of those events will happen and wipe out a pile of savings, that's an added drain that you'd have to account for, but a high savings rate still means you'll retire sooner than you would have with a lower savings rate.
> Define "major negative event" here. Assuming you have insurance for catastrophic events, few things should be able to wipe out hundreds of thousands in savings, which is what you'd quickly build up with a high savings rate, especially in a high-paying field.
Health insurance never provided 100% coverage and you can get into 5 figures with health insurance. I'm not sure why you disbelieve it given its a pretty accepted fact when talking about medical bankruptcies with insurance.
Similarly, if you are having a major medical event, if you cannot work for months...failure to earn income is a cost.
Other major negative events are extended bouts of unemployment that will chew through savings while creating a failure to earn income for months, etc.
Hell, even being sued can be a problem if you have a high networth because you have access to resources. In the past 12 months, I've literally had people track me down to drag me into such fights over money.
> And even if one of your desired safety margins is a pile of savings, the higher your savings rate the sooner you build up those buffers. If you assume one of those events will happen and wipe out a pile of savings, that's an added drain that you'd have to account for, but a high savings rate still means you'll retire sooner than you would have with a lower savings rate.
I'm saying he is selling you a dream that you can do it at the age you stated. Black swan events do happen to people and you have no real safety margin for them with his lifestyle advice after you retire.
A "silver plan" is 70% coverage. If you have a 6 figure medical event, that wipes out your entire planned income for the year.
The 4% rule has been found to be overly optimistic. Similarly, RoI greater than safe withdrawal rates are assumed. [Hint: SWR and RoI are equal and equivalent in real terms over an extended period. MMM claims otherwise and I find it depressing people believe him, especially given that isn't what happened to him. ]
The reality is, for most people, even with a high savings rate you are looking at 25+ years of work.
1400000 [35*40k]
2015 40,000
2016 81,600
2017 124,864
2018 169,859
2019 216,653
2020 265,319
2021 315,932
2022 368,569
2023 423,312
2024 480,244
2025 539,454
2026 601,032
2027 665,074
2028 731,676
2029 800,944
2030 872,981
2031 947,900
2032 1,025,817
2033 1,106,849
2034 1,191,123
2035 1,278,768
2036 1,369,919
2037 1,464,716
Assuming everything goes perfectly, it takes you 22 years. However, you are going to be unemployed for at least a couple of those years and you are likely to have some kind of major medical expense [or your wife, or your kid] in that time as well.
The ability to do it faster is an illusion created by a bull market and lucky timing.
Of course not; it's designed to limit liability in the case of disaster, not pay for absolutely everything. The term "Out of pocket maximum" may prove relevant here; there's a limit to your annual liability, which is what you're paying for.
> Black swan events do happen to people and you have no real safety margin for them
Read the article I linked about safety margin, which talks about several tiers of safety margin. The very last of which, after a half-dozen other possibilities, is "you can always go back to work".
> The 4% rule has been found to be overly optimistic.
Not for over a century, including the Great Depression and the .com crash, according to various studies as well as publically available data from which anyone can make the same calculations. Evidence, please?
> Similarly, RoI greater than safe withdrawal rates are assumed.
By 1%, and that's justified elsewhere in the articles, but even if you go with 4% that doesn't wildly change the numbers.
> 1400000 [35*40k]
[...]
> it takes you 22 years
First of all, 22 years is a lot better than most people's retirement plans. That means you can retire in your 40s, rather than your 60s.
Second, could you please clarify what numbers you're using and assumptions you're making? I don't know where your multiplier of 35 is coming from. From the numbers in your table, it looks like you're assuming 40k/year of savings. It matters whether that's 40% of 100k or 50% of 80k; the percentage determines your years to retirement, not the absolute amount.
If we're talking about saving 40% of 100k, then yes, you get to retirement after 22 years, but the operative calculation is how soon your savings will reliably generate $60k/year in returns (since that's what you're spending). If we're talking about saving 50% of 80k, then you need to know how soon your savings will reliably generate $40k/year in returns.
Third, you've mentioned bad things that can happen over that period of time, but then you've also not allowed for good things, either. For instance, the assumptions behind the years-to-retirement calculation assume you never get a raise that allows you to save faster, and you never get a better return on investment (or if you do you spend it all), and you are incapable of adjusting your spending based on your returns.
> Not for over a century, including the Great Depression and the .com crash, according to various studies as well as publically available data from which anyone can make the same calculations. Evidence, please?
1) Even the author of the study doesn't say what MMM does in regards to the 4% rule.
> "The word planning is emphasized because of the great uncertainties in the stock and bond markets. Mid-course corrections likely will be required, with the actual dollar amounts withdrawn adjusted downward or upward relative to the plan. The investor needs to keep in mind that selection of a withdrawal rate is not a matter of contract but rather a matter of planning."
> What the "4% SWR" means is not that you can treat a portfolio as if it were a guaranteed annuity.
> . From an international perspective, a 4 percent real withdrawal rate is surprisingly risky. Even with some overly optimistic assumptions, it would have only provided "safety" in 4 of the 17 countries. A fixed asset allocation split evenly between stocks and bonds would have failed at some point in all 17 countries.
4) Even if you believed in the 4% rule, it was designed for 30 years. Long periods raises the failure rates.
etc.
You need to realize the 4% rule is a cute thing that journalists latched onto in the 90s and was never intended to provide 100% coverage. It also has a non-zero failure rate. Under certain market conditions it does fail. Pretending it doesn't is silly and even in the Trinity paper it is stated its not 100% reliable.
I'm really not going to get into the rest of it since you don't even know the basics of what you are talking about and I've wasted enough time arguing with you.
What you fail to grasp, and what I am pretty sure you are going to refuse to believe at this point, is the 4% rule applied as you and MMM are suggesting is the same trap of overfitting that many people who engage in backtesting do.
If you are not in the historical US, you have a success rate of ~23% with the 4% rule. Even the US? Is not the historical US. Its a new entity that is not guaranteed to perform 100% identically to the historical entity.
Best of luck to you, believe what you want, I honestly don't care.
I get that you want to believe a bunch of optimistic assumptions about reality but the reality is, they are optimistic.
The study was for the US, and never claimed to be otherwise, nor am I claiming otherwise. If you start talking about other countries, you're changing the parameters of the analysis. Get the numbers for your target market and run the analysis.
And yes, of course you have to be prepared to adjust based on conditions. You shouldn't just blindly withdraw 4% every year. Withdraw what you actually spend, and one of your many backup plans should be to spend less.
More to the point, fine, if you don't think it's safe, have other backups in place. Work a few more years, or have access to means of part-time work, or build supplementary incomes, or any number of other solutions. What's your alternative proposal? "This doesn't work perfectly in all life circumstances, so give up and plan on retiring at 65"?
Make plans to retire sooner than 65, and be prepared to adapt based on conditions. If you make a plan to retire at 40, and something goes wrong, maybe you'll retire at 45 instead. Oh no, you're only retiring 20 years sooner than everyone else; woe is you.
I'm not making optimistic assumptions; I'm making tentative assumptions and estimates that I can adapt over time.
For my particular case, for instance, it helps that while I'm saving like someone who wants to retire in my 30s, I don't plan to quit when I get enough to retire. I plan to keep working indefinitely, because I'm enjoying myself doing so. But it's sure nice to have backup plans, and to build a substantial excess for charitable purposes.
> You: The study was for the US, and never claimed to be otherwise, nor am I claiming otherwise.
> Me: What you fail to grasp, and what I am pretty sure you are going to refuse to believe at this point, is the 4% rule applied as you and MMM are suggesting is the same trap of overfitting that many people who engage in backtesting do.
> 5. I do not understand the meaning of backtest overfitting. If a strategy worked in the past, why shouldn’t it work in the future? Could you please provide a simple example?
> Any random sample extracted from a population incorporates patterns. For example, after tossing a fair coin ten times we could obtain by chance a sequence such as {+,+,+,+,+,-,-,-,-,-}, where “+” means head and “-” means tail. A researcher could determine that the best strategy for betting on the outcomes of this coin is to expect “+” on the first five tosses, and for “-” on the last five tosses (a typical “seasonal” argument in the investment community). When we toss that coin ten more times, we may obtain a sequence such as {-,-,+,-,+,+,-,-,+,-}, where we win 5 times and lose 5 times. That researcher’s betting rule was overfit, because it was designed to profit from a random pattern observed in the past. The rule has absolutely no predictive power over the future, regardless of how well it appears to have worked in the past.
> The point: Investors don’t know how many hypotheses the managers examined, didn’t like, and chucked out, before they found the perfect backtest. The more the data is tortured, the likelier the result is just a fluke. So: How often is a fluke passed off as “alpha,” or some kind of amazing financial innovation?
-----
I'm just putting this here because you clearly missed the boat on my post and its possible others will to.
I understood your point. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. And I've seen multiple people (including MMM) make that same point in several different places; nor am I relying only on one source for advice. (Though if you're suggesting it has no predictive power for long-term averages, that's ridiculous; it's simply that predictions are not in any way guarantees, nor do they in any way let you time the market.)
But even if you don't buy into the 4% rate, or even if you want to make a more conservative assumption, the math for an estimate still works; just use a different multiplier. And you still shouldn't treat that estimate as a guarantee. Retirement doesn't need to be a binary one-way process, where once you retire if you didn't plan well enough you're doomed. One of the lovely advantages of retiring early is that you're still more than capable of working if you want to, or doing some other kind of work.
Nor should you assume that because you planned for 4% (or 3%, or whatever you like), you should withdraw that much like clockwork every year. You might plan for 4%, but then spend 2.5% because that's what you happened to need. And if the market happens to grow 10% in a year, great, but you shouldn't spend 2.5x as much that year. Whatever you don't spend stays in place, growing your buffer even more for future downsides. If you steal away every unexpected upside, averages stop working, and you'll be more screwed by unexpected downsides rather than just living a little more frugally for a while.
Estimates are just that: estimates. They're useful tools for planning, not guarantees.
Again, see the article I linked about safety margins. You're talking all about all the horrible things that could happen. So, have backup plans, and backup backup plans, and you still can retire before your 60s.
Patio11 is my plan B. A startup at 40 is too risky but I am more and more convinced that if I took some problem domain that could be solved with code and then made that a SASS I could make quite a nice living for myself.
Unlike Patio11 my first attempt would be to go for business clients first, and not sell any plan less than 99 usd.
Be wary of falling into the trap of magical thinking with SaaS businesses. It isn't as simple as "oh, I'll just solve a problem and build a small SaaS business around, then live off the recurring income indefinitely."
Competitors come and go, the value of your solution comes and goes with market changes, cost of doing business and customer acquisition fluctuates, churn happens, etc. Businesses are never at equilibrium. They are not magical passive revenue streams.
The issue there is that you need to spend some time working/understanding the domain of your SaaS app (unless you aim at developers, like so many many folks do), and that eats up time if you are going to do it right. I am nearing 40 and can only think of 3-4 domains that I'd feel comfortable doing a SaaS app for.
> If you're under 35, my advice would be to think about that.
I'm taking this post to heart. Gives me alot to reflect on, thanks for sharing :) I'm lucky to find a field that I love (software), but it's time for me to focus on what I want to do "within" the field
Jack Ma has also 50++, and in this interview he gives interesting advice about how to manage your professional path during the years (20, 30, 40, 50, etc)...
Charlie, would you describe a lot of the revelations here as coming to terms with the consequences of your collective life choices (for better or worse)?
I'm 62. Still excited about what I'm doing. Love the fact that I can write programs in languages that actually work (as opposed to M$ Basic back in 1980s). Hardware that doesn't fail every 10 minutes, etc. O/S that does what you expect! I plan to continue creating new apps until 65 or 70. Who knows what happens then. It keeps me going and is better than hitting a little white ball into the woods!
I am 58 and can relate to pretty much everything the author wrote, but especially this:
computer programs are now monstrosities of large numbers
of layers of libraries cobbled together to create ever
more slickly polished user interfaces showing ever more
inane content and advertising.
I find it difficult to stay motivated to write software these days, for a few reasons. First, there are specialties. Years ago, you could be a generalist, and be useful writing software pretty much anywhere. And I'm not talking about just learning the latest fad language or framework. If you don't have a long background in neural nets, or transaction processing, or compilers, or you name it, you aren't going to be doing work that is both useful and interesting.
Second, as the author says, programming these days is often just taking libraries, writing adapters, all to serve slightly more relevant ads slightly faster. What a huge fucking waste of time. After the 2008 financial meltdown, it was noted that the "best and brightest" young people were wasting their talents on the "financialization" of the economy, which did nothing good for nearly everyone. I see the same thing happening now, in software.
Third, like the author, I got tired of working for idiots and wasting my time on corporate voodoo, so I left for consulting. While that has much to recommend it, working pretty much by yourself definitely limits what you can accomplish. On the other hand, I have a lot more time to myself, and I'm enjoying traveling, visiting family and friends, sleeping late, and generally just doing whatever I want.
Nice post, Jacques. Luckily, I'm only 47.5. I've got a long time before I have your concerns of being 50.
I've found that the hardest part of getting older is the work you have to put into your mind and body just to slow the decline of age. You go from being in your 20's and eating all the donuts and burgers you wanted to.... to being in your 30's where you start having to watch what you eat and limit some portions... to being in your 40's where now I'm pretty strict with what I eat and how much. I hardly ever eat sugar or bread, much less the holy combination of the two in a donut.
One of the most disappointing aspects of getting older is my disillusionment with medical developments related to aging. When I was in my 20's, I thought that a lot of problems with aging would be solved within my lifetime. Surely, I figured, by the time I was 50, they'd have eradicated cancer, cured baldness, and developed other general techniques for rejuvenating the mind and body. No such luck, I guess. The older I get and view medicine through the lense of how it can help me with various aging problems, the more I realize that medicine is really still in its infancy. Medicine is fumbling around like the blind men feeling the elephant who don't know what they're touching. At the rate things have been progressing, fundamental medical miracles aren't years or decades away - they're perhaps centuries away... but I hope to be proven wrong.
That said, there are things I enjoy about getting older, like watching my kids turn into young adults. I hear that having grand-kids is fulfilling, although I hope to avoid that pleasure for at least another 10 years.
I completely agree about medical developments. However, as someone getting on in years (even older than Jacques), I'd just like to point out that ED medications are a godsend. I am being completely serious. You youngsters don't understand, but you will eventually.
Before Viagra and the like (or the somewhat older injectable fixes), your sex life was almost certainly over by 50 or 55. While I may be unusually horny for an old guy, that is a big fucking deal. I can't imagine facing another 20-30 years not getting laid. And because of advances in public health and medicine, that would have been an increasingly likely outcome, previous generations just being dead not too long after the plumbing stopped working. While the medical fixes are less than ideal, they do work, and I am very happy about it.
> At the rate things have been progressing, fundamental medical miracles aren't years or decades away - they're perhaps centuries away... but I hope to be proven wrong.
This is a natural reaction, specially when you see how fast things have advanced in tech. But in medicine, in order to really get the big breakthroughs we dreamed about years ago, some tools were required, and technology has only recently given us these tools: genome sequencing, stem cell manipulation, CRISPR/Cas9, open standards for eHealth, etc etc
So, I'd say there's hope, as many predict that the slope could be exponential...
People talk about exponential technology progress as though we fully understood the problems we're trying to solve, so advances toward those problems' solutions will increase at an ever increasing and noticeable rate.
Unfortunately, as we advance toward the solution horizon for many of these hard problems (AI, cancer, aging, etc.) we continue to find that the horizon is at best remaining at a fixed distance. In some cases, like with cancer, the more we learn, the further away it seems a real cure will ever be. It's like trying to find your way through a maze that is actually a constantly evolving fractal.
So while CRISPR/Cas9 is a magnificent discovery, it could be as though the discovery of the wheel 5,500 years ago meant that the Tesla would soon be available.
Getting older gets you to focus. What is on that list of things I just know I will do someday given the time? Well, whatever it is, it just got smaller. But that doesn't really even matter. It is not about how much you do but about doing things well that really counts in life. Not just for yourself but for others too. And not just at age 20 when you have what feels like boundless energy but at age 50 (or whatever) when you have a greater degree of wisdom and wherewithal to offset the energy lapses that inevitably come with getting older. Don't rob yourself of the joys that come with aging by letting the limitations overcome you. Each part of life has its distinctive blessings. Make the most of them and be a blessing to others as well as to yourself. If you do that, you will do well and you will age gracefully to boot.
Very thoughtful post from a very thoughtful guy. Happy birthday, Jacques.
I'm early 40s at the moment. I love technology, and love programming and system tinkering/admin in particular. I'm currently a CTO/CIO in a niche industry, although I write code almost daily and participate in various technical trenches many CIOs wouldn't venture into on a daily basis due to lack of resources.
I am sadly terrified of getting older. Not because I fear death (well, maybe a little), but I fear the silver ceiling this industry seems to place on many. Sure, the CIO/CTO thing might help, but I'm not banking on it. I've seen so many qualified folks get replaced by younger, unqualified ones just because of the way IT tends to favor the young.
Now I look at my own daughter, who is very interested in following in my footsteps and is already programming and Lego mindstorm'ing, and I really, sincerely hesitate to push her in that direction. I love the craft and think it's very personally rewarding as a creative outlet, but not only is there this silver ceiling, but to stay current you are constantly required to be learning. I spend almost all my spare time working to stay current. I see friends who are lawyers or accountants, and while I would probably die of boredom in either field, there seems to be nowhere near the level of effort to stay current in those fields.
While I don't think the constant learning requirement has a solution, I really hope to get some time in the future thinking deeply about the silver ceiling problem. Not just for me, but for my tech friends. I personally employee two 60+ folks on my team, and they're great resources. I wish other companies would view them in this way. It seems there is something which could be done...even if it's a company which distinguishes itself by making a point of hiring senior, aging folks for solving problems which require that level of experience. However, that of course has it's own difficult problems to solve (namely, a senior employee likely has a lot of his/her own personal overhead to cover, so salary requirements will be understandably greater). Still, if the problems were out there, perhaps a company like that could thrive. Perhaps.
Anyway, just the ramblings of a early forties techie who thinks/worries a lot about this. One day I'll take action either way, because there will come a time where there is no other choice ;)
> I personally employee two 60+ folks on my team, and they're great resources. I wish other companies would view them in this way. It seems there is something which could be done...even if it's a company which distinguishes itself by making a point of hiring senior, aging folks for solving problems which require that level of experience.
We have a late 50's engineer who we're constantly trying to keep from retiring. The guy is just so experienced and so good that we're able to do things that we'd otherwise not be able to do. I see the silver ceiling as a niche thing. There might be areas were fast young and cheap will win, but there are certainly others where having a bunch of highly skilled 60+'s is a competitive advantage. After all, this is intellectual work we're talking about, not basketball or something.
"namely, a senior employee likely has a lot of his/her own personal overhead to cover, so salary requirements will be understandably greater"
I wouldn't assume that, once the mortgage is paid off and kids have left home the cost of living plummets. In fact there could be a real cost advantage if nobody else is offering them a job.
Take the Bay Area...many people living here now that will likely never be able to buy a home if prices stay even close to where they are (let alone ever pay it off if they did). So then they have large mortgages or high rents.
There's also increased risk of major medical expenses, the baggage of paying for things like divorces, college, etc.
Right now you can assume those with high mortgages are in their twenties and thirties, someone in their fifties probably sorted their housing problem twenty five years ago.
Welcome to "this side" - the secret is that there are no sides, you might become a day more experienced today than you were yesterday. I don't feel (or act) my age and since I don't celebrate my birthday (or even let others know it's occurred), their guess as to my age is always way low.
In any case, you may not consider yourself employable, but there's almost always a bias for the "gets things done" person. If your blogging and comments here on HN are any indication, I don't think you'd have an issue with someone that's truly looking for the right person. Many institutions are looking for the politically correct person and like you, I don't have time for them.
I think you hit the nail on the head: "Many institutions are looking for the politically correct person..."
Politics so often dictates who companies hire and influence factors like gender, age and sex. Sad.
Though being able to work with people matters and being nice/kind is a good quality to have, the focus on making sure the right backs are scratched as become so pervasive in the corporate world that it actually holds back progress.
As someone in my early-towards-mid 40s, is it really hard to stay employed? I get that lots of folks are into consulting at this age or other versions of self-employed, but as a guy who got into this field fairly late, I'm concerned that I'm going to end up 50 and jobless which will really mess with my retirement plans.
Happy birthday from a 20 years away. I really enjoyed reading ideas from your perspective and I like the way you think. My only hope for the future, is that we could still read and comment other stranger's stories on the internet without violating some bullshit law and without needing to validate our identity with a DNA sample in order to express ourselves .
So much of this rings true for me, and I'm a few years away from 40.
As an expat living in the Netherlands who has never really believed in "formal speech", it really takes some getting used to when people (usually a lot younger than me) call me "u". I always think "wow, this kid is so polite, how bizarre!". I still haven't really gotten the hang of when I should use the formal you, and constantly call strangers "je". I've only ever had one Dutch person actually state explicitly that I should call him "u". It is maybe not a coincidence that he was a bit of a jerk in general.
At least living in the Netherlands, our creaking knees will always be able to bicycle where we want to! No big annoying hills like there seems to be everywhere back in the UK, or in other countries. ;)
Thanks Jacques. I first read about you almost 15 years ago. I think you did an interview about the creation of webcams and starting the first webcam community. What struck me was the typical Dutch resentment for success and those that dare to stick their necks out. Commentators would say you were lying or embellishing or try to downplay your successes. That typical envy. I hope you are now totally over that.
A few years back you took a few hours to just chat with me, in a period when I was really depressed and did not believe in myself. Thank for you that. It really helped and you demanded nothing in return. A very approachable, commendable spirit -- I hope there are people around you who do the same for you.
Jacques. Thanks man! Congrats, and here is to many more years!
I'll be hitting 50 in a couple of years, and like Jacques I've noticed my tolerance for bullshit and injustice has decreased. I've tentatively put the former down to a subliminal (mostly) awareness of having less time to waste. I feel more focused.
I've also noticed that my tolerance for cynicism has decreased significantly in the last few years. I'm not totally sure why, but I suspect that I've come to see cynicism (particularly about politics and environmental issues) as the laziness that fuels injustice.
I'd be interested to know of other people's experiences.
37 here, and that is exactly how I feel. I'm hardly an optimist about how a lot of things in the world are going, but world-weary cynicism (the world is shit, it'll never change, everyone is corrupt, etc) grates on me as cloying and juvenile. I always end up thinking it says more about the person than the world itself.
These days, I usually find myself starting to argue and push back against that, and occasionally I do end up coming down to "So the world is shit, you're not even going to try to do anything about it, what in life do you have to be proud of about yourself at this point?"
I feel better for not putting up with it, but it has led to some tense arguments with extended family, friends, hairdressers (haha, seriously).
> what in life do you have to be proud of about yourself at this point?"
I like to think that at least by not killing myself I've made a huge contribution to the happiness of my friends and family, even if the world as a whole is a hopeless cluster of growing misery.
I agree - the older you are, the more chances you've had to peek behind the curtains and see how truly corrupt the machine and people within it really are. Sure, try to make a difference here and there, but I'd advise not going too far out of your way, and never put your personal livelihood on the line. Better to focus that energy on family, friends and community, where you can make a difference.
If you're surrounded by cowards / people who will sell out and join the corruption given the chance, it's neither cowardly nor terrible advice. Everyone has to learn this lesson on their own I think.
I don't see anything wrong with cynicism _per se_. In fact, I have a hard time seeing how it's possible to avoid becoming at least somewhat cynical. Apathy and complacency on the other hand--those I have a problem with.
On the other hand, I'm not sure it's fair to come down so harshly on people who are feeling hopeless and/or powerless. I'm not sure getting indignant with such individuals is particularly constructive. There's probably a reason there are so many people who feel this way, and it's not just pure selfishness.
> When I’m in a group of people my own age I feel as though I’m around old people, I can’t help it.
This one really rings with me. Unfortunately, many old people act like old people. I once worked at a software agency where even the more ambitious young people acted like old people.
Age is just a number, but the only one who decides to fully favour the comforts of the known to the appeal of the new and risky is you. I know 80-year olds who prefer ipads and I know 25-year olds who prefer IBM ClearCase.
By the way, Jacques, I'm really curious about that story about not working for Eckart Wintzen. He died just when I started getting into the software industry at all, but his writings are very inspiring and he's been a force of positive change around me even after his death. Did you write that up anywhere?
I got to know Eckart because we both invested in the same company ( http://www.infocaster.net/ ) and one day after a shareholder meeting we decided to have a follow up with just him, my business partner Joyce and myself.
Eckart outlined his vision about the things he wanted to do now that he had a 'full toolbox' and lots of time and we saw eye to eye on so many subjects that it got me thinking.
After leaving with Joyce we went for dinner near Zeist where he had his offices and I told her that I was totally stunned by how our ideas dovetailed, only that Eckart actually had the tools to realize his vision.
It's very hard to translate the kind of feeling Eckart radiated but think of it as total focus on improving the world. This very much shows in his various investments, for instance Greenwheels, several medical start-ups, a school and so on, as well as the people that he surrounded himself with (average < half his age).
One thing led to another, we had a brief phone call where I told him I'd be happy to shut down my own stuff and work for him even if it meant a significant reduction in income on my side, he said let's talk in two weeks (after he had gone to France and returned). The next time I saw him it was wadded up in burlap bags (ecologically sound) for his funeral... :(
I'm meeting with Sander (the guy who runs infocaster) later today, not a March passes that we don't think about it. My birthday is the 20th, Sanders is on the 21st and I'm quite sure that in both cases we're thinking more about what could have been than our birthdays.
It's a real pity, genuinely nice people are few and far between, I think Eckart was special in many ways and compared to your average winner takes-all entrepreneur he was a proverbial (and physical) giant.
All this will sound like fawning adoration to those that haven't actually met the man, to those that did it will sound like I'm probably not giving him enough credit.
The problem with getting old is that one-by-one all the things that you dreamed of as young and you got to try when got older, feel old and demystified. Suddenly you look out and see less "magic", less mystery, less things to make you excited, fewer major surprises around the corner.
I'm only (//already) in my early 30s but it scares me to think how it might feel, at an older age, to not be able to see anything in the same exciting eye that a teenager does. And the things that might still feel exciting, to not be able to try, due to constraints that "grownups" have (health issues, family, work, other responsibilities, lack of friends willing to participate)
Proficiat Jacques, appearently I'll turn 40 next week, it's just another arbitrary number. For example, you're 42 in base-12 (a much beter base). We're all in the same boat... you're old enough te remember Bobby McFerrin (now 65) don't you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU
Happy Birthday! Prompted by your comment I found this from the Association of American Publishers: 'In the first three months of 2015 they (e-books) have plummeted 7.5% from the same period last year. Meanwhile paperback sales have increased by 8.9% giving further credence that people are switching back to print in greater numbers than originally thought'. I hope so.
A few years ago, I was the ultimate fan of ibooks/kindles. Still am in some regard - when talking about space or moving from place to place, lugging around any kind of books or physical media sucks. I did this before from one coast to the other and back (SF -> NYC -> SF). Lugging shit around is stupid..
I remember the first time I went to Japan in 2000. I was a little shocked how everyone seemed to be buried in their phones on the subways. Seemed a little weird, but after a while, I was like, meh, it's Japan.
Fast forward to 2015 and everyone has their face buried in their devices in the states. Walking. Driving (ugh). Bus. Stores. Subway. You name it. I do it too, of course, but not all the time. I still enjoy my walks around my city even if it's to re-appreciate the same things along the same route. There's something about disconnecting now; funny you have to even do this at all.
Books are a part of this. Not only the physical aspect, but words on a printed page that never change and always just are. It wasn't until recently that it dawned on me how important physical book authors are to society and culture. It's so easy to watch videos, movies, tv shows and nothing else. I love movies, but it's not the same thought process. I feel bad for people who are not encouraged to read more because they definitely do not know what they're missing.
To read a book...., that is a bicycle for the mind.
I don't get to read as much as I want to, but whenever I go on vacation (which doesn't happen much either :-\) I always being a few hard cover books. Yah, u lug them around, the additional weight sucks. But, having that book and picking out that chair or hammock, that's one of the best things ever.
It seems all relative... I'm 29 and wishing I was in my early twenties again. I'm seeing my younger ambitions slowly seeming less and less plausible. And yet, I've seen posts from 23 year olds wishing they had done more studying in highschool/college to get a better head start on their career.
Maybe it would help to try to imagine genuinely being another decade older in the same situation, looking back on today - and then do the thing you regret not doing!
^ Yes. I love my diary, and some of my entrires go back to when I was 18 (27 now). What gets to me is how drastic a mental change could be from just months ago to where I am now. I'll read something I wrote months ago and think "Ha, so young and foolish!" I genuinely think diaries are crucial to personal development because it allows you to see yourself speak honestly with the lens of an "outside" observer.
That's actually a great question. I'd love to hear the answer, not only from the guy you're asking but from everyone.
I'm 30 now. If I woke up 20 again, I'd like to be offered the following advice:
1) Don't accept blindly the first paid internship you get, no matter how "big" the "big corp" is and how blessed your parents think you should feel (bear in mind, this was Portugal 9 years);
1.a) If you do accept, you don't have to stay there afterwards. Don't "stay" just because you're comfortable, particularly if you know, deep-down, you're not doing anything worthy or you hate it;
1.a.1) Even if you stay, move - sooner rather than later - if you suspect you should've already been promoted or "grown" inside the company. I'd say that, if you're not promoted or adequately appreciated within 3-5 years, chances are you won't be, at all. You'll deeply regret the years lost at that company, particularly if you're not fond of the business;
2) Overtime is a an exception. I repeat, exception. No money will ever pay the time you wasted in OT, particularly if it was for a company you don't like or a product you don't believe in;
3) A company funded PhD is a lovely idea if you're in love with the company. If you're not, or if you have any kind of bad feelings about it, "run". It's a very long term commitment, and the company will make you pay if you leave. I did; I couldn't stand it anymore, so I decided to pay. Bear in mind, again, Portugal; tuition for a PhD is a lot of money here.
Well, if I didn't also have a family to consider - I think I'd move to another country. Just pick up and go somewhere interesting where I could challenge myself to learn a new language, culture, get a job in a new environment, and just generally make some really interesting memories.
I think that the big mistake I made when I really was 30 was to retreat too quickly toward comfort.
I moved to the US when I was 19. Now I am 34. I have been thinking hard for the past few years about living briefly in Eastern Europe, then somewhere "desertic" in the Middle East, and a full year or more in Southern America (Hello Costa Rica). Living somewhere for a few years in another country is something every man* should do.
*I say man because I think it will be hard for safety reasons for women to just pick up and live anywhere. They tend to get harassed a little more frequently.
Relishing the endless possibilities life can bring. Being more care-free/not burdened by the responsibility of providing for a family. Doing things on a whim.
I hit 50 two years ago. I didn't mind turning 50. It was the constant stereotyping that society(at least in the U.S.) that finally got to me.
I recall hitting 50 and not giving it much thought, but it seemed like when ever I turned on any from of media, I was reminded of all the pitfalls of getting older. It's so depressing, I am thing about getting rid of cable. I'll still watch movies on my devises, but I need to tune out the commercials, and warnings? And yes, I got it tobacco causes cancer. I smoke one, or two cigarettes a week, and been around people who smoked; yes--I got it. I raised my chances of getting cancer. Enough?
I have been kinda neurotic/hypochondrical my entire life; I don't want to be reminded daily I'm going to die. Oh, those cancer center commercials? I don't care how sick I was I would never go to one of those centers--just on principle. I really hope that company goes bankrupt. Actually, I wish we could ban all medical/Pharmacutical advertisement.
As to getting older, I don't like it. I had better ideas when I was younger. I guess because my testosterone is startling to go down, the world is definetly lets say-- a little less colorful? My sex drive is way down, but I'm kinda ok with that. I can focus on boring stuff better than when I was younger. And I find web developement boring! Sorry, I don't get excited about this industry. I'm drawn to it, but never got the romance some of you have for the industry? I am just a web developer, self employed, and always needed to do other things to make a living. Maybe that's why? Or, maybe I've never been totally in love with anything I've done? I have a ton of interests, but I never fell in love with any of them?
The one thing I really wished I did differently is I wish I made friends with people younger than myself? I know it sounds selfish, but it seems like so many people I knew are gone? For some reason, I didn't really like my generation.
I found I had more in common with people who were 15 plus years older than myself? I had some really good friendships. Friendships that were solid. Friends that I could trust with my innermost secrets. I don't have that anymore. I'm not feeling sorry for myself, but don't do what I did. It's lonely.
That's about it. Oh, yea, if you have an anxiety disorder, getting older does releave some of the symptmology. When I was younger, I just couldn't relax. I still can't, but I'm better than I was?
If you ever bump into me, please don't call me Sir. I am still not my father, and don't think I will ever turn into him. I'm still scared, and don't have confidence. I still look at the rest of the world, and still don't feel I'm one of the grown-ups? I am not one of them! I've never fell like I'm entitled. I don't demand respect. I know I need to earn it. I don't understand mean/narcisstic individuals. I like some rap, but don't get Kayne, or Beaver? Don't think I ever will? I think tattoos are fine, but never got one. (I never got one because I thought they looked like bruises, and reminded me of people who had liver disease.(platelets not forming as they should?). In other words, I'm not really that different than the young man I used to be, just look older.
I sure miss my dogs! I wish they lived as long as we do?
>It's so depressing, I am thing about getting rid of cable.
Do it. Doesn't matter if you are 10, 50, or 150, get rid of any media that shoves so much advertising down your throat. So much of it is set to cause the problems they try to resolve. Take skin cream commercials for teens with acne; watch how they may acne out to be this horrendous thing you must cure. Watching those ads do nothing to improve your life.
This is not meant as an offense, but just a little joke: Ending statements with question marks makes people read your posts in the voice of a 15yr old girl, so that's age for you on the internet ;)
Happy birthday Jacques. This is definitely an interesting eye opener article for a young professional like me, giving a clearer picture about how life can be for a curious technical person at 50.
The bit about not feeling your age is so true. I am a little bit younger, but I really don't feel that different to when I was 20 - maybe just a little less angry about the world.
Look at it this way: even an old cat jumps into a tree like it was a young kitten. It simply doesn't know it is old. So why should we behave any differently?
This is actually more common than you think. Age groups 40-55 are often more competitive than others. This is the age when people suddenly realize they are aging and start training like maniacs. When I run road races, my overall ranking (among men) is always better than my age-group ranking.
Not uncommon, I'm 52 and still beat most of the men who are literally half my age. I even outright win a race once in a while if I'm not on the west coast (much more competitive, I've found). Granted, there's a bit of innate talent and hard training involved.
Frankly, I don't give it a lot of thought, I just run like I always have. It's not until someone else points it out that I'm like "hmm, I guess that isn't too bad for an 'old guy'".
As a sibling commenter pointed out, 50-ish is when the kids move out and you've finally got a little money and vacation time, as well as time to train. Time for that $7000 Colnago race bike you've always wanted, eh?
I swim (since I was 13, that is > 37 years). I also don't train like a maniac any more but simply try to improve my style and keep my fitness. But I hardly meet anyone in the pool half my age who has the slightest chance to keep up. This is not meant as boasting at all. The good non-professional athletes seem to be > 40 these days.
Is that a sign that we don't have good trainers? Or do others only start to work out after the doctor starts to pale while looking at the blood analysis?
These decadal anniversaries seem to get more onerous each time. 20? No problem, it just means you're not a teenager any more! 30? Okay, you're officially a grownup, but you can still party! 40 was pause for concern, but it isn't what it used to be, the threshold of middle age: that's 50. Oops ...
Well, as Terry Pratchett observed, inside every old man there's an eight year old wondering what just happened. I don't feel emotionally middle-aged. But my knees creak in the morning, I've survived medical conditions that would have killed me if I'd lived a century earlier, I can remember events -- as an adult -- that happened 30 years ago, and I don't have the physical stamina, mental agility, or energy of a 30 year old any more. (Mind you, what they say about experience trumping youth and enthusiasm? It's not exactly true, but the experience factor makes up for a lot of the gradual cognitive decline that comes with age.)
Like Jacques, I'm less inclined to put up with fools -- but I'm also less inclined to get worked up over things. And I'm probably unemployable these days. (15 consecutive years of self-employment will do that to anyone.)
But the biggest thing I've noticed? What look like big opportunities, vanishing in the rear-view mirror of age. When you're 30 you can think in terms of going back to university or forming a new start-up. You've got time to plan a new career or nurture a business ahead of you. But by the time you've hit 50, the future is looking cloudy. You don't want to train for a new career to see you through the next 30 years because who the hell wants to be working to pay off student loans when they're 80? So you get locked into whatever track you set yourself running down twenty years earlier. Changing is hard because you have less of a future ahead of you to change for.
If you're under 35, my advice would be to think about that. Do you really want to be locked into doing more or less what you're doing now when you're in your sixties? If not, now is the time to change. The later you leave it, the harder it will be.