a completely inoffensive name
08-05-2017, 07:46
Link: https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21724814-get-most-out-longer-lives-new-age-category-needed-what-call-time-life
If you do not have access (cheapskate): Advances in longevity have added healthy years in the 60+ category that were not available to previous generations. Due to the reduction in Western birthrates, the "ratio of 65-plussers to working age people will triple by 2100". These people should be categorized as a new stage of life, separate from the decrepit end-of-lifers that is currently attached to all citizens past retirement. This has already happened in the 20th century when the concept of a 'teenager' created new marketing and social standards for a segment of society previously lumped with childhood or adulthood. Oh, and they should be called 'Owls' (Older, Working Less, Still earning).
'Owls' is an okay term, at the very least better than the other dumb terms the author also suggested (Nyppies? I'm not saying that, I don't care what the acronym would mean). But other than that, I am wondering how many segments do we already divide people's lives into. Newborns, toddlers, children, pre-teens, teenagers, young adults (although judging by Barnes and Noble this is just a different label for teens), adults (and here we have to divide everyone further by the first digit of their age), Owls, Elders/Seniors, Centenarians (we should call these people Super Seniors or Methuselah's). I am entering a new stage of life roughly every other presidential election.
In addition, I don't really follow the author's reasoning of applying the origin of the 'teenager' to the origin of 'Owls'. If these people are earning less/working less, then by definition they don't seem to be near as lucrative of a market as young teenagers just entering the work force. At least with marketing to teenagers, they build their brand in order to pay dividends later when those teens grow older and associate the brand with good memories of their youth. There are also key psychological developments that clearly distinguishes teenagers from the pre-teens and the adults. Anyone in their early twenties will testify how different they were from their 16-18 year old self. At 68 years old, how much does a person contrast with their 55 year old self? Maybe more than I realize as someone still many decades from making that call for myself.
I am sure sure that in some way, the author's notion of a new 'period' of life somewhere in your late 60's to early 70's will be widespread ; but it's not going to be the image of an older couple enjoying their bonus years on a beach. More likely the concept of the 'Owls' will be the image of a pair of forgotten Gen Xer's constantly screwed by the larger generations before and after them. A couple who now live in a society where the remaining Baby Boomers and heartless millennials pull the rug out from under their feet to redefine the Social Security Retirement Age as 74 years old, while taxing them to pay for Bernie's Free College Fund.
Why am I talking about this random article? Your guess is as good as mine, perhaps the baseless optimism bugged me somehow. Or maybe I am just sick of talking about Trump and Brexit all the time.
If you do not have access (cheapskate): Advances in longevity have added healthy years in the 60+ category that were not available to previous generations. Due to the reduction in Western birthrates, the "ratio of 65-plussers to working age people will triple by 2100". These people should be categorized as a new stage of life, separate from the decrepit end-of-lifers that is currently attached to all citizens past retirement. This has already happened in the 20th century when the concept of a 'teenager' created new marketing and social standards for a segment of society previously lumped with childhood or adulthood. Oh, and they should be called 'Owls' (Older, Working Less, Still earning).
'Owls' is an okay term, at the very least better than the other dumb terms the author also suggested (Nyppies? I'm not saying that, I don't care what the acronym would mean). But other than that, I am wondering how many segments do we already divide people's lives into. Newborns, toddlers, children, pre-teens, teenagers, young adults (although judging by Barnes and Noble this is just a different label for teens), adults (and here we have to divide everyone further by the first digit of their age), Owls, Elders/Seniors, Centenarians (we should call these people Super Seniors or Methuselah's). I am entering a new stage of life roughly every other presidential election.
In addition, I don't really follow the author's reasoning of applying the origin of the 'teenager' to the origin of 'Owls'. If these people are earning less/working less, then by definition they don't seem to be near as lucrative of a market as young teenagers just entering the work force. At least with marketing to teenagers, they build their brand in order to pay dividends later when those teens grow older and associate the brand with good memories of their youth. There are also key psychological developments that clearly distinguishes teenagers from the pre-teens and the adults. Anyone in their early twenties will testify how different they were from their 16-18 year old self. At 68 years old, how much does a person contrast with their 55 year old self? Maybe more than I realize as someone still many decades from making that call for myself.
I am sure sure that in some way, the author's notion of a new 'period' of life somewhere in your late 60's to early 70's will be widespread ; but it's not going to be the image of an older couple enjoying their bonus years on a beach. More likely the concept of the 'Owls' will be the image of a pair of forgotten Gen Xer's constantly screwed by the larger generations before and after them. A couple who now live in a society where the remaining Baby Boomers and heartless millennials pull the rug out from under their feet to redefine the Social Security Retirement Age as 74 years old, while taxing them to pay for Bernie's Free College Fund.
Why am I talking about this random article? Your guess is as good as mine, perhaps the baseless optimism bugged me somehow. Or maybe I am just sick of talking about Trump and Brexit all the time.