It’s not a matter of their capability of doing the job. The problem is that their job is to represent my interests. Their actions here clearly demonstrate that they do not share my interests.
If they want to work, they should work. But they should be working in a job that values their workaholic lifestyle, not in a job where they are compelled to represent values they do not personally share.
When I retire, I’m going to do what I want. I plan to volunteer a lot. I plan to continue laboring at tasks that I want to perform, for the people I want to perform them for. But the important part is that I plan to answer to nobody but myself. I will no longer adopt the interests of others as my own.
That is not selfish: I will not be putting myself in a situation where other people are dependent on me doing my job. I will not be a lawyer, expected to put my client’s interests ahead of my own. I will not be a laborer, expected to bust my ass continuously between clock punches. I will not be a politician, expected to work tirelessly for the benefit of my constituents. I will make myself happy by giving what I want and what I can, without needing to worry whether it is enough. Such worry is “work”, and I will no longer be a worker.
Simply by running after retirement age, these candidates demonstrate their sheer contempt for retirement. They demonstrate they value work for the sake of work.
I want to see retired people enjoying themselves, and showing others how to enjoy themselves, not promoting their sick, workaholic lifestyles.
Sounds like you have a set of work goals and that’s fine. I just don’t think that needs to be imposed on others who have very different ideas of how to get fulfillment from their work. If the average age of retirement is 62, that means people on average would have 17 years (or more) of life where they are legally prevented from doing the job they love, even if they serve the voters’ interests. I’d say many people would love to continue doing a job they love far past the age of 62, and they should be able to do so, not have some arbitrary law keeping them from that. Ageism is already quite rampant in the private sector; I’m not sure it should be codified into public service.
If you (or any voter) find instances of politicians not sharing your interests, by all means, vote them out.
It’s not a matter of their capability of doing the job. The problem is that their job is to represent my interests. Their actions here clearly demonstrate that they do not share my interests.
If they want to work, they should work. But they should be working in a job that values their workaholic lifestyle, not in a job where they are compelled to represent values they do not personally share.
When I retire, I’m going to do what I want. I plan to volunteer a lot. I plan to continue laboring at tasks that I want to perform, for the people I want to perform them for. But the important part is that I plan to answer to nobody but myself. I will no longer adopt the interests of others as my own.
That is not selfish: I will not be putting myself in a situation where other people are dependent on me doing my job. I will not be a lawyer, expected to put my client’s interests ahead of my own. I will not be a laborer, expected to bust my ass continuously between clock punches. I will not be a politician, expected to work tirelessly for the benefit of my constituents. I will make myself happy by giving what I want and what I can, without needing to worry whether it is enough. Such worry is “work”, and I will no longer be a worker.
Simply by running after retirement age, these candidates demonstrate their sheer contempt for retirement. They demonstrate they value work for the sake of work.
I want to see retired people enjoying themselves, and showing others how to enjoy themselves, not promoting their sick, workaholic lifestyles.
Sounds like you have a set of work goals and that’s fine. I just don’t think that needs to be imposed on others who have very different ideas of how to get fulfillment from their work. If the average age of retirement is 62, that means people on average would have 17 years (or more) of life where they are legally prevented from doing the job they love, even if they serve the voters’ interests. I’d say many people would love to continue doing a job they love far past the age of 62, and they should be able to do so, not have some arbitrary law keeping them from that. Ageism is already quite rampant in the private sector; I’m not sure it should be codified into public service.
If you (or any voter) find instances of politicians not sharing your interests, by all means, vote them out.
That’s the problem I’m trying to address: the workaholic culture among our representative bodies.