jdmartin wrote:As for the workaholics, I find it sad that they have nothing better to do with their life. The idea of "doing what you love so you never work" is fantasy except for a select few. For everyone else, it's minimizing the time spent doing unpleasantness so you can focus on the pleasant. Even if you're a hardcore doomer on the doomstead, there's going to be a bunch of crap that you hate doing but will need to be done in order for one to survive.
If its a fantasy except for a select few, then there is no need for regulatory prohibition on labor. Simply allow it to be possible for those at 62 to stop working. The ones that are "doing unpleasantness", will stop; those that are doing exactly what they want to be doing, won't. There shouldn't be enough of us to undermine the overall effect, if we are a "select few". [it gets old being 3rd SD, "select few", whatever... *NOT* lol]
However, I'm really wondering about this "focus on the pleasant". My observations about retirement, and those who are retired, is that they are, in fact, "doing the unpleasant" *AND* not getting paid for it. If I travel, I expect to get paid for it, and paid well. Socialize or sit and converse? You best have a fat checkbook. Watch TV? I don't even know any of the names of the current sitcoms or movies. Go fish? See Travel. Go sail? See Travel, except I think I have an idea concerning how to make money (low revenue, lower expense) while sailing, so it won't make me quite as angry. Exactly what is it about this "retirement" thing that I am supposed to enjoy?
What's interesting here, is that our system is going exactly in the opposite direction to Newfie's suggestion, making it ever harder for people to retire before 70, even if they wanted to. Every regulation in the work system favors paying overtime or contracting out, as opposed to picking up new hires.