Ticking away
The moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours
In an offhand way
Kicking around on a piece of ground
In your hometown
Waiting for someone
Or something to show you the way

Tired of lying in the sunshine
Staying home to watch the rain
You are young and life is long
And there is time to kill today
And then one day you find
Ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run
You missed the starting gun

  • GroundedGator@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Do not work more than what is advantageous to you. This is your own limit and can change throughout your career. There will be times when working extra hours may get you to the next level, this is a path you can pursue or walk away from.

    When I was just starting off in my career, my mentor told me about Scott as a cautionary tale. Scott was a hard working, and dedicated employee. He started with the company on a factory floor. He was known for always working overtime when it was available, and the first person to call if you needed someone to cover a shift.

    The company was investing heavily in IT and people it determined were intelligent enough and dedicated enough to do the job. Scott was brought into a training program, sent to some classes, and pulled from the factory floor to an office job.

    Scott maintained his work ethic, even though he was salaried he found value in working extra. He felt he was noticed and that his efforts were appreciated. He was also able to pick up new skills and knowledge much faster than his coworkers because he worked more hours.

    Scott never married. He tried dating a few times, but the women he dated didn’t like being second to his career. Scott lived modestly and talked to his parents a few times a month.

    Scott was the first one to arrive and the last to leave. The joke around the office was that he had a bed under his desk. He eventually got into gaming, late nights playing started to drag on him. But he was always at his desk before anyone else. Occasionally someone would catch him sleeping at his desk.

    One day the police came looking for him. His parents hadn’t been able to reach him. When someone went to his desk, he was asleep, but they couldn’t wake him.

    The coroner estimated he had been dead for 3 days. In that chair for 3 days. Coworkers walking by, saying good morning, jokes about not working too late. He had nothing really but that job.

  • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    You work your entire life to pay for your headstone.

    (Approximate translation of some french punk lyrics that capture the same sentiment)

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        This claim doesn’t really pass the smell check for me - can you point to where you get the notion from? Checking the lists for average hours worked per year per worker, richer countries routinely have lower numbers than poorer countries.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Mostly it’s for areas that aren’t even in the developing category yet. Once you’re developing you’re talking about 9-5 work with less pay and benefits than in the West. But traditional work doesn’t do office/factory hours. That means periods of lots of work and periods with little work where you live off the previous gains.

    • drathvedro@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Skyscrapers, most likely.

      I used to live in a resort city for the past year, and really missed big city things, like specialty stores - for the whole city there was only one PC store, one bicycle store, one music store - and all of them sucked big time. So I had to rely on online marketplaces… oh wait, there were none, so I had to order international and wait for months. Local taxi was also not good, food delivery business practically non-existent. Same for furniture and appliances, instead of home depot and radioshack you’d have to go to bazaars and ask around. But the most important one is opportunities. I was a digital nomad and lived comfortably, but locals, holy hell, I don’t have any idea how they survive with wages this low. Pretty sure some of those construction workers would trade it all away to live as street musicians in SF or NYC, as just surviving there would put them in like worlds top 0.1%, but instead they work for hours on dangerous jobs for what I would’ve spend on a cup of coffee in a local cafe catered to tourists.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    3 days ago

    This is a good place to remind everyone that if you wait for social security retirement in America you have a really good chance of dying shortly after that retirement. The great die off starts at 65.

    And yes you can live healthier to have better odds of getting higher on that chart. But you cannot add young years. So if your idea of Europe includes skiing in the alps or something then you need to go before you retire. Don’t let the idle rich dictate your life. They aren’t waiting around.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      And yes you can live healthier to have better odds of getting higher on that chart.

      Living healthier means keeping your stress low, saving time for exercise, and limiting your intake of fast food.

      But these are luxuries primarily reserved for the already wealthy. Luxuries afforded through cheap service sector labor.

      Like so much else in this country, good health is paid for with a labor tax on the poor.

    • exasperation@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      That population pyramid is a bit misleading because the baby boom coincides with the ages with the steepest declines. In part, there were significantly fewer people born in 1939 compared to 1959, so you’d expect way more 65 year olds than 85 year olds in 2024.

      Yes, the death rate is higher among older people, but the life expectancy of a 60 year old man is still another 20 years.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        the life expectancy of a 60 year old man is still another 20 years.

        Also, importantly, Americans (born in 1980 as a reference) have a 95% chance of living to see age 60.

        Even in relatively poor and disadvantaged states (W. Virginia or Mississippi) you’re looking at 92-94% odds.

        We’ve solved for a lot of the early mortality threats common to prior generations - childhood diseases most prominently. We’ve also seen a general improvement in public health with respect to smoking and drinking. And workplace safety has improved dramatically as we shifted from Ag Labor to Industrial work to Office jobs.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        You’re not wrong but you’re not right. Life expectancy is an average. Here’s a 1980 chart that shows the same trend.

        Also baby boomers are 60-78 years old. You can clearly see the die off happening within their generation.

        • exasperation@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          You don’t think that 1980 chart has a very different shape? The current chart is almost flat from 20-60, while the 1980 chart is actually pyramid shaped, with the steepness is only slightly sharper past 60. And matches the steepness of the range from 25-50. Nobody talks about a 25-year-old die off.

          You’re better off charting the actuarial tables to convey the data you’re trying to talk about (death rates), rather than relying on a stat that is influenced by birth rates and death rates in an opaque way.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            That’s the baby boom moving up the chart. It’s 1980, they’re 15-35. You can clearly see the normal population before the baby boom and it’s fall off.

            • exasperation@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

              That’s the baby boom moving up the chart.

              Yes, exactly my point. The boomer generation itself made the population pyramid look different at every stage of its life, which is why the 1980 chart looks so different from the 2023 chart. When you introduce a cohort that has its own slope from birth statistics, the shape of the drop off at 60 is confounded by the preexisting shape of the slope before they entered old age.

              So the appropriate method of isolating the variable that shows what you call a “die off” would be to just pull up the actuarial tables that show what percentage of 60, 61, 62 year olds, etc., die that year. Not to compare how many of those there are as a percent of overall population.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                Except they cover the period we’re worried about. Everyone figures anything after 80 is a gift. The oldest boomers are 78. You have 2 years on that chart that might be questionable. Seeing the die off start at 65 to 75 is all within the “new” paradigm.

                • exasperation@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  You keep calling it a “die off” because you’re being visually tricked by the misleading population pyramid. Use the actuarial tables instead.

                  Among 65 year old men, the probability of surviving to 75 is 76%. The probability of surviving to 85 is 39%. The probability of surviving to 95 is 5.9%.

                  For women, the odds are 84%, 52%, and 12% of getting to 75/85/95, respectively.

                  Yes, these are higher death rates than at younger ages. But nowhere near what the shape of the population pyramid suggests, where the 85 age cohort is about 1/4 as large as the 65, which misleadingly suggests a probability of 25% of living 20 more years, when the real number is closer to 45%.