|
Edited on Mon Nov-29-10 10:30 AM by RandomThoughts
:D
Guess you would have to compare the value in the entirety of things of the work done at some place of work, and the value in some other choice of activity during retirement. And possibly think that if someone wants to be able to work on a hobby or even relationships with family and grandchildren, then someone else living an entire life of luxury, would not seem to be a valid argument to not let them retire.
I think you would first have to establish an argument for them continuing to work, before being able to ask for one on why they should be allowed to retire.
So in some cases, maybe someones contribution to totality of existence might mean it better in the whole of things for them to keep working, but in most cases, more can be gained by people having the time to pass on their knowledge, and to have time to reflect on their life in there later years to help collate all that experience into ways that can be shared with better results.
Then again, it seems right that after a life of work, time to reflect and share that in a way chosen by the person makes sense from any feeling thought on it. Maybe if production falls below demand again, their could be some economic reason to think on that, really doesn't seem like more production is the intent to keep people working, but the concept of millions with time to reflect on life and contribute where they feel it is most important, is not what a few want in society. There is a group that fears people having time to think, and want most people in a manner to just get enough to survive while under the structure of someone else for someone elses benefit, and even against their benefit many times, and without time to think on things.
:shrug:
Maybe it depends on each situation, would guess there are many considerations in such thoughts.
Or maybe there is a way to think on it about how it could change the amount of joy and suffering in the world?
|