Top
Best
New

Posted by littlexsparkee 19 hours ago

Does Employment Slow Cognitive Decline? Evidence from Labor Market Shocks(www.nber.org)
286 points | 267 commentspage 4
da_chicken 9 hours ago|
This still smells like the kind of paper that a think tank would fund to justify their billionaire-backed policy that social security should be abandoned and the retirement age moved to 75.
lenerdenator 9 hours ago||
More evidence that the US desperately needs to raise the retirement benefits age to 70 or 75.

Memory care is one of the most expensive types of eldercare.

rts_cts 17 hours ago||
A strangely click-baity title for an academic paper. What's next? "Four crazy macroeconomic predictions. You won't believe what's number four!"
jonas21 17 hours ago|
Seems like a fairly conventional economics paper title.

Perhaps you're misparsing the second sentence? "Shocks" is not used as a verb here -- it's a noun, part of the phrase "labor market shocks," which refers to sudden events that disrupt the labor market.

dominictorresmo 16 hours ago||
brain is the same as a muscle: if you don't use it he will deteriorate
cathyreisenwitz 10 hours ago||
I bet another reason women suffer less cognitive decline from early retirement than men is that women are less lonely and more integrated into their extended families and communities.
LeCompteSftware 17 hours ago||
It's 48 pages and I haven't read it fully, but it seems almost childlike that the paper doesn't address the obvious confounding variable:

"Does Unemployment Make It More Likely for Late Middle-Aged People, Particularly Men, To Drink Alcohol? Evidence From We Obviously Should Have Considered This In The Paper, Perhaps We Are Too Sheltered"

To be clear I am not being pedantic. The paper explicitly endorses the policy of pushing back the retirement age specifically because doing so likely reduces cognitive decline. I agree with this, in the same sense that shooting car thieves in the street without a trial reduces automotive theft. "Reducing cognitive decline in people near retirement age" might be better met with psychiatric intervention, so that unemployed people also get some of the benefits. Ignoring this confounding variable and prattling about "causal explanation" - while endorsing the policy of snatching away people's pensions until they work a few more years - is evil born from ignorance.

gruez 17 hours ago||
>but it seems almost childlike that the paper doesn't address the obvious confounding variable:

I thought that's the reason why they used "Evidence from Labor Market Shocks"? The idea is that when "Labor Market Shocks" (ie. mass layoffs) happen, the people who lose their jobs are somewhat random, so there isn't the confounding variable of low performers/sick people.

AnimalMuppet 16 hours ago|||
I'm not sure that completely addresses the GP's point, because "mass layoffs" are still somewhat selective. You're more likely to lay off the people that you think aren't worth their pay, which would include those who are already suffering cognitive decline, those who are drinking enough that it's affecting their job performance, and so on.
littlexsparkee 16 hours ago||
this paper uses a Bartik / shift-share instrument that looks at changes in sectors and the localized effects (exposure) due to concentration/reliance on that industry. It's an exogenous labor demand shock, not a mass layoff which frames the decision as made at the company level. Skills matter in this consideration but the point is to account for that statistically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_J._Bartik

LeCompteSftware 17 hours ago|||
It's not about "low performers / sick people," it's unemployment itself (especially sudden layoffs) making people more susceptible to substance abuse, regardless of their health when they're unemployed.
notahacker 16 hours ago||
Whilst that's a perfectly valid hypothesis, they explicitly did test for relationships with rises in opioid misuse and didn't find evidence to support it. There isn't even consistent empirical data to show unemployment as a causal factor in aggregate increased drinking, never mind it being concentrated among recently laid off early onset dementia patients. The reality is unemployment influences some people to drink more and others to drink less, the circumstances of the unemployment and the demographics of the individual matter as do the patterns of the drinking, and even the statistical relationship between drinking and dementia is complex as statistically the lowest risk behaviour tends to be "moderate" rather than zero alcohol consumption
littlexsparkee 17 hours ago||
I have to wonder how much of this is socialization and the valorization of having a job (and the detrimental health effects due to lack). We don't really paint a good picture of what else people could do with their time that's respected or interesting. So many people retire early but not to something - expressing feelings of loss, idle uses of time like TV watching because they haven't developed hobbies / interests due to hegemony of work. We've killed boredom with devices and work, now people can't deal with silence and the existential questions it raises - more comforting to just be told what to do.
doc_ick 11 hours ago||
How much of this article is written by ai?
SilentM68 11 hours ago||
The primary argument of this NBER working paper is that "employment, particularly near retirement age, can slow the rate of cognitive decline."

Would this not depend on the type of work being done and type of working conditions? Doesn't working in a boring, unchallenging, repetitive, dead-end job, dull the senses? Also, now a day, people continue to work even into their 70s, 80s, and even 90s, at least those that can find work. I don't see many people opting to retire when they have bills to pay.

Stan Lee used to say something along the lines of: “I’m not working, I’m playing!” If the job feels like fun, then the primary argument makes more sense to me. Based on past experience, however, I can relate to the later as my senses definitely got dulled, add to that compounding age-related health problems which did not help.

I try to do some Sudoku & Mahjongg puzzles at least twice a day, in my Linux machine, just to keep my mind awake.

keybored 17 hours ago||
> Nevertheless, our group-average findings, if replicated by others, would hold clear policy implications. Federal efforts to promote work at pre-retirement ages would not only reduce reliance on SSDI and enhance retirement security, but would also promote healthy aging through delaying cognitive decline.

Fuck you.

Christopher Lasch wrote that our “culture of narcissism” detests aging. Unsurprisingly we, the narcissists, are horrified when we ourselves become old. Because there is hardly anything left for us.

You can subtract pure biology, i.e. normal bodily degradation. But you can also subtract respect, esteem, wisdom (because who cares what grandpa has to say?), family (see care homes), and socializing.[1] You’re not an “asset” (to use familiar language[2]) to anyone. Just a burden.

What becomes the solution to any of that? No, no. We don’t need solutions to old people problems. We need solutions to them being burdens.

So how to make them less of a drag on our collective selves: encourage them to work at their shitty jobs for longer.

[1] See the old man who meets you again after six months and talks way too much about what he’s up to. Does he have any other outlets?

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47873477

psychoslave 14 hours ago|
No, but the lake of activity and intellectual challenges will certainly accelerate it, even for someone middle age with an official employment! Wrote this just by reading the title, and past the summary it clearly lean into that direction.
More comments...