I feel the same! In the early 2000s I attended a lecture at the Royal Institution about life expectancy which really struck me. The jist was: life expectancy has been steadily increasing as science figures out how to solve the predominant cause of death per generation. But as the percentage of older people outweighs the younger generation that's now causing (a) a pension crisis, because there just arent enough young people to pay for them, and (b) a political and cultural stagnation and generational conflict as the now too powerful older generation naturally is less open to new ideas or change. To solve the pension crisis we need to work longer (into our 80s if we're healthy), rethink our salary expectations as we age, reduce executive responsibilities and develop 'mentor-not-management' relationships between the older generation at work and the new career entrants. Because our salaries are tied to responsibility and 'intensity', and salaries are expected to increase ever upwards, we're stuck on this treadmill. But our needs for salary peak in our mid thirties. But once kids are grown, mortgages are paid off, and all toys purchased we dont need so much. But we also need to work longer because there just arent enough young people to pay the pensions. Yet, even if we need to keep working into our 70s and 80s, we'll be tired (biology being what it is). So the solution is to work with less 'intensity' and relinquish responsibility, be happy with a lower salary...but the key piece of this picture is the nature of that work and the relationship between the generations. After we've passed the peak of learning in a career, we could transition into mentors and work in partnership with a career entrant to pass on experience (most career entrants are just thrown in at the deep end) with the autonomy lying with the younger partner. Both partners would benefit in different ways. Just passing that on in case it sparks something