You hit the nail squarely on the head. In days past when people retired they'd still help raise kids or look after households. When we moved past requiring that sort of thing, we left the elderly without engagement.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but perhaps as a society we could be more intentional about creating roles where the elderly can still help and feel useful, but also have flexibility and a more relaxed lifestyle.

▲

wing-_-nuts 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I mean, we're about to enter a demographic reversal and to hear economists talk of it, corporations are going to really struggle to find the workers they need.

I guess we're about to find out if they're desperate enough to offer genuine flexibility or not.

If I could work 2d/wk remote as a software developer, I'd probably do it the rest of my life. Something tells me that most CEOs are still gonna insist on 50+hrs/wk RTO though...

▲

whatever120 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They shouldn’t just feel useful, they need roles that actually are useful. They’re not dumb.

	▲	tensor 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Of course, though I still think remembering that people need to feel useful is important. E.g. you don't want to force someone into a job that may be useful but the person is feeling "why am I doing this, it's not needed." The goal is also not to fill time or a money quota. It's to do something helpful such that the person actually feels helpful.
	▲	aidenn0 an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Either: 1. They are "dumb" and the original statement stands 2. They are not "dumb" and a role that is actually useful is a necessary condition for them feeling useful and the original statement stands.
	▲	tardedmeme 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There are useful roles that could either be done by a human or a machine and the machine is usually more efficient.