chapotraphouse

In the 1860s, The Economist stood nearly alone among liberal opinion in Britain in supporting the Confederacy against the Union, all in the name of access to cheap Southern “Blood Cotton” [...] and fear of higher tariffs if the North triumphed. “The Economist was unusual,” writes an historian of English public opinion at the time; “Other journals still regarded slavery as a greater evil than restrictive trade practices.”

from https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/economist-has-slavery-problem/

Or you could like develop a hobby or spend time with your family idk

Economist writers after age of 60 should be put in amazon fulfillment center, as a bit

People working in physical labor jobs:

when your job isn't a pit of despair sure, maybe you find it fulfilling and want to keep working rather than find other outlets in retirement, but capitalism ensures 99% of jobs won't be like that and so everyone who can retire pretty much does

https://www.economist.com/china/2021/06/22/chinas-average-retirement-age-is-ridiculously-low-54

They mean that you, the person reading the article, should never retire. Economist writers definitely will not continue working, if you can even call writing for The Economist a job.

My job will probably leave me disabled before I can retire.

Work sets you free

My father in law just got on disability after a life of construction absolutely destroyed his fucking body. Carpal tunnel like mad. Arthritis so bad you can see it on an x ray. No nerves left in his hands so he just randomly drops shit now. They’ve gotta fuse a bunch of the discs in his back. Cartilage is just gone from his knees. After seeing him for the first time in a decade, his doctor was baffled and asked him how he functions and he said he just ignores the pain. Personally I think the rampant drug use helps take the edge off but I’m no doctor. Retirement my ass.

I'm not going to retire I'm going to eventually get injured at work and go on disability like all construction workers.

Here, then, is the problem with the magazine: readers are consistently given the impression, regardless of whether it is true, that unrestricted free market capitalism is a Thoroughly Good Thing, and that sensible and pragmatic British intellectuals have vouched for this position. The nuances are erased, reality is fudged, and The Economist helps its American readers pretend to have read books by telling them things that the books don’t actually say.

How The Economist Thinks | Current Affairs

If were a whole article

The bosses want to work us to death.

Does anyone proof read there tweets or does ai bot summate the article?

I agree that those three things suck (or in any case that the family tree one is only fun on a finite scale and the other two suck), but you don't even need to leave the realm of stereotypical retirement activities to find better things, like learning a language or how to draw or running a marathon.

The only possible way I can see myself "never retiring" is after a lifetime of adventures and travels, I settle down in a cozy cascadian town to become a beloved college professor.

That's my deal, take it or leave it.

Behavioral economics posing as labor economics. Behavioral economics is completely fake and has no value. It's effectively social psychology for libertarians.

Economist