You're essentially saying that not working may not be healthy. That's one of the strangest things I've read today.

You may not view it as "not particularly healthy" because of the frame of reference, not because of "a fact" that not working is unhealthy.

If people "retired" at the age of 25, could you reasonably argue that we'd have an unhealthy population?

But it is true. An internal study at a megacorp I worked at showed that people who didn't retire ended up living longer.

It makes a ton of sense. Intellectual work keeps your mind stimulated and your body moving. Inaction ends up killing old people.

Not all activity has to be done in the service of providing value to a corporation. You can retire and take up fishing or rock climbing, play chess, write a book.

This idea that we've been conditioned to, that the only valid life is the life we trade for money, is insidious.

Nobody argues with this. But thinking that paid work is the only source of mind stimulation and body movement is just silly.

that generation tied a lot of value to the ability to work.

the current generation looks for all possibilities to not work.

A person who is a Uber driver and a dog sitter is unable to display much skill addition after years on these jobs.

i can only quote anecdotal data about the attitude to work among generations. On the other hand, because of the changing nature of the work, it is completely understandable.

You're getting downvoted for this statement, which is utterly ridiculous.

From what I see around me, the current generations work as much, if not way more, than previous generations (such as boomers).

it is also true that if a generation is chronically overworked, they will not be interested at all in working till their death.