When you're 67 and basically retired (as Einstein was at this time)?
By contrast, in his 20s, he wrote 4 highly-influential papers in a single year, in his spare time while also working full-time at the Swiss patent office.
Was it? Slacking off doesn't become "work" just because it lead to something more important than the job itself. See also, Feynman, who was quite openly talking about the idea that you need to goof off a bit to do anything interesting.
Nah, this wasn't work, that sounds more like the hobby that's in love-hate relationship with the work (need work to live, but it takes time and energy from the hobby).
It's not a very narrow interpretation of work - it's the one that matters in this context, and the one that matters day-to-day. Sure, you could define work as anything one did that had results you find interesting, but the narrower definition that's important here is things you do because you have to, because you're obliged to do them by others or by circumstances, vs. things you do for fun - because you want to, and which you control. A job vs. a hobby is a good approximation. It's not uncommon to see people being much more effective at their hobbies than at their jobs, even when both of them are in the same domain. It's also not uncommon to see a hobby to be more worthwhile than one's work.
You can flush your cache to relax. It takes effort. Usually 2 days of different activities.
I schedule 2-3 days at home, just lazying in front of TV or playing games to flush job out of my brain before starting vacations, to prevent carrying job over to the vacation and spoiling it.
10 hour work weeks are 520 work hours in a year. Even if you get paid $100 per hour, you’d have to heavily rely on govt benefits to support your family. (Avg. non subsidized health insurance costs for a family of 4 are $24000/year)
Doesn’t really then apply to anyone and everyone. Not like I can abandon my child or an ailing parent anytime I want. (Which is my point)
Besides, not marrying and having kids can be a choice that’s relatively easy. But cutting ties with your parents especially when they need you can be a difficult one.
In the UK, an industry body annually publishes estimates of retirement income needs. USD$52k is GBP£41k which is about enough for a “comfortable” retirement for a single and a “moderate level” retirement for a couple. We have good free healthcare of course.
Many people who “FIRE” in their 40s and 50s have targets that allow drawdowns much smaller than this.
When you hit 67, you’ll also receive USD$15k pa state pension, provided you worked for 35 years, even if you continue to work.
If you’re still a “family of 4”, it’ll take a bit more.
When you are fit you have a lower probability of events leading to trauma because you have better balance, reaction time, and strength when needed.
You can see this from the inverse too: as you age all of those factors (muscle strength, reaction time) diminish, as do other issues (osteoporosis) so falls become both more frequent and more serious.
Yes, you can be hit by a car at any age, and some fitness enthusiasts engage in activities that can lead to sudden injury (e.g. skiing). But in general, the OP is correct.
If you don't engage in high risk activities, you are almost certainly not going to break your leg. It's common knowledge that the young healthy folks who don't go adrenaline-chasing are subsidizing healthcare for everyone else. If you fit into that group, you're getting fleeced by everyone else your insurance company underwrites.
Personally, I've been on Medi-Cal for years. I've never taken a cent from it, nor have I paid a cent into it (not counting the taxes I pay). It's great. I feel bad for all the folks that haven't figured it out yet.
This reminds me of recently going to a hospital and there was a guy, probably around 20 years old, who had broken leg casted from heel to thigh. He has his friend cruising him around on just the back wheels of his wheel chair, running at full speed in circles on the minimal area there was. It's really a wonder how this kid broke his leg to begin with. The mysteries of life.
Something extremely interesting is looking at life expectancy in the past. I assume you, like most people, think people probably just tended to start dropping dead around 40, if not earlier. In reality, people tended to live comparably long to modern times, if they made it to adulthood. It's just that infant mortality was way higher. If one guy dies in childbirth, and another dies at 80 - you have a life expectancy of 40.
You can find evidence for this in numerous ways. For instance studies looking at classical Greeks 'of renown', found a median life expectancy was 70, and average life expectancy was 71.3. [1] Even in the Bible one finds numbers that match up basically exactly, 'Our days may come to seventy years, or eighty, if our strength endures; yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away.' You can also find things like the minimum age for Roman Consuls being 42 years, and so on endlessly.
And all of this was in an era when there were no vaccines, no knowledge of germs or how disease spread, and when cutting edge medical science had to do with balancing the 4 humors (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile) with some sort of an elemental association of air/water/fire/earth with each. Eating well and exercising can indeed take you extremely far, because it damn sure wasn't their healthcare doing it. That said modern medicine has basically been a miracle worker for childhood survival, but once you make it to adulthood - your body is strong enough, or can be made strong enough, to get you most of the way to your expiration date.
> people probably just tended to start dropping dead around 40, if not earlier. In reality, people tended to live comparably long to modern times, if they made it to adulthood
That’s not really true, though. As recently as ~1900 the likelihood of dying in your 20s or 30s was many times higher than now. Various infectious diseases were a huge risk at any age (even if the old/young severely disproportionately affected). Tuberculosis alone was a huge and killed massive amounts of young people every year, just consider how many artists, writers etc. died from it in the 20s/30s/40s and how it was a constant theme in fiction throughout the 1800s. Other currently easily treatable illnesses, malnutrition and/or dietary deficiencies resulted in a significant reduction in QoL even if they didn’t kill directly.
> For instance studies looking at classical Greeks 'of renown', found a median life expectancy was 70, and average life expectancy was 71.3
That’s mainly survivorship bias. Also I don’t think it’s actually true at all..
There were a few geographic pockets were average life expectancy if you survived childhood was close to that due to favorable climatic conditions, low population densities and abundance of resources/land (e.g. colonial New England) but for most of the population even in the most developed European societies that wasn’t the case.
Absolutely agreed on the dietary and other issues, and I think that largely ties into this point well. It wasn't survivorship bias because nearly all of the Ancient Greeks we know of would still have gone down in history whether they had died at 40 or at 80. But there is one major bias. Nearly all were upper class with ready access to the base necessities for a healthy life - clean food, clean water, basic sanitation (toilets/baths), and the ability to avoid the impacts of war.
I think you'll find that if you choose nearly to any comparable sample with similar access, near to regardless of the time era, you will again find life expectancy comparable to modern times. For instance here it is for the ten most famous Founding Fathers (data from GPT for convenience, so hallucinations are possible, but it matches up with my knowledge as well) :
---
George Washington 67 Acute epiglottitis
Thomas Jefferson 83 Natural causes (suspected kidney disease)
John Adams 90 Natural causes
Benjamin Franklin 84 Pleurisy
James Madison 85 Congestive heart failure
Alexander Hamilton 47 Gunshot wound (duel)
John Jay 83 Stroke
James Monroe 73 Heart failure and tuberculosis
Samuel Adams 81 Tremor, possible Parkinson's disease
Patrick Henry 63 Stomach cancer
---
The average age at death, excluding Alexander Hamilton, was 78.8, for people born from ~1700 to 1750! But yeah, like you mentioned - a major issue with is the masses at large were living in crowded unsanitary conditions while and eating/drinking unclean food, often while working dangerous jobs. So I think biasing our sample to the upper class of times past is quite beneficial because now a days even the poor have relatively widespread access to these 'luxuries', so we are more able to compare just life with and without modern medicine/knowledge.
Umm...have you had a broken leg? Sure, it needs to be immobilized (set and put in a cast). But after that you're body does all of the work, which requires proper nutrition. And then after that you need a great deal of exercise to rebuild muscle and relearn neural musculature control.
But more to the point, a well trained body will hardly ever get into a state where it needs medical attention. Most broken bones are due to poor muscle control and lack of strength later in life (think hip fractures). This can be mitigated by strength training that involves similar dynamic movements.
