Comment on Open Thread, May 11 - May 17, 2015

Wed, 20 May 2015 14:40:18 GMT

As I wrote in that post, there are some factors that lead to us thinking longer lives would be better, and others that shorter would be better.

Maybe this is easier to think about with a related question: what is the ideal length of tenure at a company? Do companies do best when they have entirely employees-for-life, or is it helpful to have some churn? (Ignoring that people can come in with useful relevant knowledge they got working elsewhere.) Clearly too much churn is very bad for the company, but introducing new people to your practices and teaching them help you adapt and modernize, while if everyone has been there forever it can be hard to make adjustments to changing situations.

The main issue is that people tend to fixate some on what they learn when they're younger, so if people get much older on average then it would be harder to make progress.

Discuss