He's 81
-
Seems to me that it wouldn't be the worst idea in the world to require that people in executive positions retire no later than maybe 75, or even 70.
I think the company I work for has a limit of maybe 65 or 67 for the CEO.
@Doctor-Phibes said in He's 81:
I think the company I work for has a limit of maybe 65 or 67 for the CEO.
The university had a policy that you couldn't be department chair after age 65. You could work, but not be chair.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in He's 81:
I think the company I work for has a limit of maybe 65 or 67 for the CEO.
The university had a policy that you couldn't be department chair after age 65. You could work, but not be chair.
@Doctor-Phibes said in He's 81:
I think the company I work for has a limit of maybe 65 or 67 for the CEO.
The university had a policy that you couldn't be department chair after age 65. You could work, but not be chair.
I think that's fair.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in He's 81:
I think the company I work for has a limit of maybe 65 or 67 for the CEO.
The university had a policy that you couldn't be department chair after age 65. You could work, but not be chair.
I think that's fair.
@Doctor-Phibes said in He's 81:
I think the company I work for has a limit of maybe 65 or 67 for the CEO.
The university had a policy that you couldn't be department chair after age 65. You could work, but not be chair.
I think that's fair.
I don't think it's good for anybody having executives working until they're ready for the grave. You have to question why somebody would want to do it.
-
I'd rather see some criterion other than arbitrary age -- some benchmark having to do with competence or smarts or energy level (doesn't fall asleep in the portrait like Justice Ginsberg did).
The trick would be how to compel them to take the test, but a smart, sharp, competent and lively 75-year-old or even older doesn't deserve to be driven out to pasture because of a birthday.
-
I'd rather see some criterion other than arbitrary age -- some benchmark having to do with competence or smarts or energy level (doesn't fall asleep in the portrait like Justice Ginsberg did).
The trick would be how to compel them to take the test, but a smart, sharp, competent and lively 75-year-old or even older doesn't deserve to be driven out to pasture because of a birthday.
I'd rather see some criterion other than arbitrary age -- some benchmark having to do with competence or smarts or energy level (doesn't fall asleep in the portrait like Justice Ginsberg did).
The trick would be how to compel them to take the test, but a smart, sharp, competent and lively 75-year-old or even older doesn't deserve to be driven out to pasture because of a birthday.
Person, woman, man, camera, TV
Genius!
-
You can't rely on subjective criteria. These guys are masters at gaming the system.
Pick a bright line and anchor it hard.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
You can't rely on subjective criteria. These guys are masters at gaming the system.
Pick a bright line and anchor it hard.
You can't rely on subjective criteria. These guys are masters at gaming the system.
What subjective? And if they're that good, maybe they shouldn't be thrown away.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
You can't rely on subjective criteria. These guys are masters at gaming the system.
Pick a bright line and anchor it hard.
-
You can't rely on subjective criteria. These guys are masters at gaming the system.
What subjective? And if they're that good, maybe they shouldn't be thrown away.
They're not that good. If you can't fix the country by the time you're 75 then you need to let have somebody else have a go, because it doesn't get any better at that point.
-
If the voters want to keep voting for an octogenarian, who are you to tell them otherwise?
