Your Professional Decline Is Coming

[WSUCoug1994]

This is a long but thought provoking and insightful piece. 

https://amp-theatlantic-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/590650/

[SunnyDays]

Excellent article.  We would all do well to heed its message.  Thanks for posting.

[ender]

According to research by Dean Keith Simonton, a professor emeritus of psychology at UC Davis and one of the world’s leading experts on the trajectories of creative careers, success and productivity increase for the first 20 years after the inception of a career, on average. So if you start a career in earnest at 30, expect to do your best work around 50 and go into decline soon after that.

This means for most folks here, we're planning on retiring about at our best work - I hope to retire after about 20 years working :-)

[Alternatepriorities]

This means for most folks here, we're planning on retiring about at our best work - I hope to retire after about 20 years working :-)

Yeah, the article would seem to suggest I should do another 10 years of engineering, but I may have already hit my peak for the single minded focus design requires. lately my focus has been a shadow of what it was 10 years ago. Perhaps it's something like the author's French horn peak at a young age. Fortunately we are now FI and I'm going to spend this year pursuing other things like fabrication that don't require as much sitting as well as spending more time in the mountains. DW is a teacher and true to the article, she started her career later and has not yet peaked.

All around I appreciated the authors deep dive into the subject.

[Mr. Green]

Looking at the other side of the coin, perhaps I spared myself some misery, frustration, or struggle later in life because I didn't hang around long enough to get so good at a job that anything after that feels less than.

[wageslave23]

I've always wondered why people keep striving once they've reach a certain networth.  Like why do multimillion dollar homes and $100k+ cars even exist. As soon as I reached comfortable for the rest of my life money, I'd stop working no matter how lucrative my job.  Whether that was after 30 yrs, 10 yrs, or 3.  But maybe they are afraid of slowing down and becoming un-useful.

[Metalcat]

I've always wondered why people keep striving once they've reach a certain networth.  Like why do multimillion dollar homes and $100k+ cars even exist. As soon as I reached comfortable for the rest of my life money, I'd stop working no matter how lucrative my job.  Whether that was after 30 yrs, 10 yrs, or 3.  But maybe they are afraid of slowing down and becoming un-useful.

We've talked about this so many times here, and I feel like you might have participated in some of those long threads on this exact same topic.

Also, you're conflating two different things: people who spend a lot and people who choose to continue working beyond what they need to for financial security.

MMM is someone who continues to work and make way more money than he needs to. Meanwhile, the person buying the multi million dollar home and the 100K+ car could be in debt up to their eyeballs and nowhere near FI.

The people like MMM, like me, our hobbies include things that are lucrative. It's really quite simple.

As for why the spenders spend? Well, that has little to do with whether or not they want to work. They have been raised to and choose to continue believing that their purchases enrich their lives and represent their value in the world. Whether or not you agree with it, that's what they believe.

I don't believe for a second that you don't understand this. What I think you mean is that you can't relate to it because your priorities are very different.

[2sk22]

I've always wondered why people keep striving once they've reach a certain networth.  Like why do multimillion dollar homes and $100k+ cars even exist. As soon as I reached comfortable for the rest of my life money, I'd stop working no matter how lucrative my job.  Whether that was after 30 yrs, 10 yrs, or 3.  But maybe they are afraid of slowing down and becoming un-useful.

We've talked about this so many times here, and I feel like you might have participated in some of those long threads on this exact same topic.

Indeed I created a thread last year in which I posted a lot of links to interesting articles about this very topic:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/money-and-happiness/msg2485347/#msg2485347

[SAR]

Interesting article, but with some flaws.

First, the age-productivity relationship he described is male-specific--a peaked distribution with top around 34. Btw. it exists for all areas of human endeavor, including crime. Men peak in creativity and criminality relatively early in life. Fields do differ as he pointed out, and the fluid vs. crystalized intelligence hypothesis is credible. Mathematics is at the lower end (you are pretty well done by 28. Novelists, as he points out, probably more in the 40s.

However, for women, the distribution is not at all like this. In fact the distribution is both lower and flatter. Women can produce peak contributions in science, arts, business, early or late in life with fairly even likelihood.

The more reasonable explanation is found in work by Miller and Kanazawa. Namely, because of sexual selection, males have a greater potential rate of reproduction, thus producing a higher rate of competition for mates (explaining the sex difference). Males find mates by advertising their quality in their productivity (and resource acquisition), and peak productivity reflects that.

Or as Jeremy Clarkson puts things. After this, you finish your breeding, buy a minivan, and wait to die.

Second, this is merely a distribution, and not the destiny that the author seems to think it is. There are men who do produce great work later in life. Consistent with sexual selection, those are the men who are less likely to be married. Think of Picasso . . .

I wonder whether some of these men who continue to innovate in their life aren't actually innovating. They were simply smart enough to write down a bunch of really good ideas when they were young and overflowing with good ideas. Not enough time to do everything, but when you get older you can probably make use of that crystalized IQ and execute some of those ideas even better than when you were young.

Finally, Darwin was perhaps distraught because of his terrible health. He must have been quite aware that his work would live far beyond him. But I guess that doesn't fit the narrative.

[ender]

I've always wondered why people keep striving once they've reach a certain networth.  Like why do multimillion dollar homes and $100k+ cars even exist. As soon as I reached comfortable for the rest of my life money, I'd stop working no matter how lucrative my job.  Whether that was after 30 yrs, 10 yrs, or 3.  But maybe they are afraid of slowing down and becoming un-useful.

A lot of people like their careers.

This is basically blasphemy on these forums but I know a ton of people who are working way past when they need to because they find their work meaningful, for a whole variety of reasons.

If you are at a point you feel what you are doing is highly meaningful, why quit?

[mizzourah2006]

I've always wondered why people keep striving once they've reach a certain networth.  Like why do multimillion dollar homes and $100k+ cars even exist. As soon as I reached comfortable for the rest of my life money, I'd stop working no matter how lucrative my job.  Whether that was after 30 yrs, 10 yrs, or 3.  But maybe they are afraid of slowing down and becoming un-useful.

A lot of people like their careers.

This is basically blasphemy on these forums but I know a ton of people who are working way past when they need to because they find their work meaningful, for a whole variety of reasons.

If you are at a point you feel what you are doing is highly meaningful, why quit?

Agreed. Work can be enjoyable.

[wageslave23]

I've always wondered why people keep striving once they've reach a certain networth.  Like why do multimillion dollar homes and $100k+ cars even exist. As soon as I reached comfortable for the rest of my life money, I'd stop working no matter how lucrative my job.  Whether that was after 30 yrs, 10 yrs, or 3.  But maybe they are afraid of slowing down and becoming un-useful.

We've talked about this so many times here, and I feel like you might have participated in some of those long threads on this exact same topic.

Also, you're conflating two different things: people who spend a lot and people who choose to continue working beyond what they need to for financial security.

MMM is someone who continues to work and make way more money than he needs to. Meanwhile, the person buying the multi million dollar home and the 100K+ car could be in debt up to their eyeballs and nowhere near FI.

The people like MMM, like me, our hobbies include things that are lucrative. It's really quite simple.

As for why the spenders spend? Well, that has little to do with whether or not they want to work. They have been raised to and choose to continue believing that their purchases enrich their lives and represent their value in the world. Whether or not you agree with it, that's what they believe.

I don't believe for a second that you don't understand this. What I think you mean is that you can't relate to it because your priorities are very different.

I have not seen or participated in a similar thread.  But yes, I understand that they need to continue working to support their lifestyle.  I cannot relate at all.  Yes spending doesn't always reflect networth, but if someone can buy a $5million dollar house and multiple $100k cars, I cannot imagine wanting to continue working in order to pay for them. Whether they pay upfront with cash or in the future with payments.   

I think MMM is an outlier, in that he makes a ton of money for very little work and that work is as you say more of a hobby.

The type of people I'm talking about are real estate developers and VPs making $500k+ a year.  I would work 10 yrs max and say see ya!  And I really don't understand (relate to) football players playing for longer than they need to.  But that's a different discussion

[wageslave23]

I've always wondered why people keep striving once they've reach a certain networth.  Like why do multimillion dollar homes and $100k+ cars even exist. As soon as I reached comfortable for the rest of my life money, I'd stop working no matter how lucrative my job.  Whether that was after 30 yrs, 10 yrs, or 3.  But maybe they are afraid of slowing down and becoming un-useful.

A lot of people like their careers.

This is basically blasphemy on these forums but I know a ton of people who are working way past when they need to because they find their work meaningful, for a whole variety of reasons.

If you are at a point you feel what you are doing is highly meaningful, why quit?

I've heard this a lot. But I personally don't think that many people would still continue to do their same job, in the same capacity if they stopped receiving compensation for it.  Some sure, but most no.  If you liked certain aspects of your job and money was no object, then I think you could find ways to get the benefits without the drawbacks by accepting less money or no money in a similar activity.

[joe189man]

The type of people I'm talking about are real estate developers and VPs making $500k+ a year.  I would work 10 yrs max and say see ya!  And I really don't understand (relate to) football players playing for longer than they need to.  But that's a different discussion

the types of people making $500k a year dont work for money, they are driven by something else, something internal, Type A personality stuff, a drive to "succeed"

these people likely couldnt fathom a professional decline

[TrMama]

Interesting article, but with some flaws.

First, the age-productivity relationship he described is male-specific--a peaked distribution with top around 34. Btw. it exists for all areas of human endeavor, including crime. Men peak in creativity and criminality relatively early in life. Fields do differ as he pointed out, and the fluid vs. crystalized intelligence hypothesis is credible. Mathematics is at the lower end (you are pretty well done by 28. Novelists, as he points out, probably more in the 40s.

However, for women, the distribution is not at all like this. In fact the distribution is both lower and flatter. Women can produce peak contributions in science, arts, business, early or late in life with fairly even likelihood.

The more reasonable explanation is found in work by Miller and Kanazawa. Namely, because of sexual selection, males have a greater potential rate of reproduction, thus producing a higher rate of competition for mates (explaining the sex difference). Males find mates by advertising their quality in their productivity (and resource acquisition), and peak productivity reflects that.

Or as Jeremy Clarkson puts things. After this, you finish your breeding, buy a minivan, and wait to die.

Second, this is merely a distribution, and not the destiny that the author seems to think it is. There are men who do produce great work later in life. Consistent with sexual selection, those are the men who are less likely to be married. Think of Picasso . . .

I wonder whether some of these men who continue to innovate in their life aren't actually innovating. They were simply smart enough to write down a bunch of really good ideas when they were young and overflowing with good ideas. Not enough time to do everything, but when you get older you can probably make use of that crystalized IQ and execute some of those ideas even better than when you were young.

Finally, Darwin was perhaps distraught because of his terrible health. He must have been quite aware that his work would live far beyond him. But I guess that doesn't fit the narrative.

Thank you for this. As a middle aged woman in tech who has a few years to go until FIRE the above is pretty comforting.

[bmjohnson35]

Interesting article, but with some flaws.

First, the age-productivity relationship he described is male-specific--a peaked distribution with top around 34. Btw. it exists for all areas of human endeavor, including crime. Men peak in creativity and criminality relatively early in life. Fields do differ as he pointed out, and the fluid vs. crystalized intelligence hypothesis is credible. Mathematics is at the lower end (you are pretty well done by 28. Novelists, as he points out, probably more in the 40s.

However, for women, the distribution is not at all like this. In fact the distribution is both lower and flatter. Women can produce peak contributions in science, arts, business, early or late in life with fairly even likelihood.

The more reasonable explanation is found in work by Miller and Kanazawa. Namely, because of sexual selection, males have a greater potential rate of reproduction, thus producing a higher rate of competition for mates (explaining the sex difference). Males find mates by advertising their quality in their productivity (and resource acquisition), and peak productivity reflects that.

Or as Jeremy Clarkson puts things. After this, you finish your breeding, buy a minivan, and wait to die.

Second, this is merely a distribution, and not the destiny that the author seems to think it is. There are men who do produce great work later in life. Consistent with sexual selection, those are the men who are less likely to be married. Think of Picasso . . .

I wonder whether some of these men who continue to innovate in their life aren't actually innovating. They were simply smart enough to write down a bunch of really good ideas when they were young and overflowing with good ideas. Not enough time to do everything, but when you get older you can probably make use of that crystalized IQ and execute some of those ideas even better than when you were young.

Finally, Darwin was perhaps distraught because of his terrible health. He must have been quite aware that his work would live far beyond him. But I guess that doesn't fit the narrative.

Thank you for this. As a middle aged woman in tech who has a few years to go until FIRE the above is pretty comforting.

I remember talking to a respected female colleague in her 50's and she told me that her career took off in her late 30's.  She said that although she got her degree early in life, taking care of her children was a greater focus in her 20' and early 30's. Once her kids got to a certain age, she focused more on her career.  In her case, I would say her later career focus simply caused her career to shift out.  Studies like these tend to focus on generalizations and/or trends, but they are many variations in real-world conditions.

[bmjohnson35]

I was ready to leave my career around 3-5 yrs earlier than my eventual departure.  I had become disillusioned with the corporate BS and my passion for my career had dried up.  I had turned down several advancement opportunities and was ready for a change.  I focused a lot more time mentoring and training high-potential candidates my last few years. Passing along my experience and helping others succeed was much more fulfilling than continuing the chase for the next career achievement.

I witnesses my father struggle for years after his retirement at 55. He always felt the need to be productive and his identity and self worth was strongly tied to his career.  He didn't have any personal friends outside his career.  His only solace seemed to come from his pride over my professional success.  He didn't know how to relax, had nothing in common with my mother and no real hobbies.  I wouldn't describe his retirement years as healthy and happy.  He was very concerned when I told him that I was planning to retire early as well.  He passed about a year before my actual retirement. 

Although I retired around 10 months ago, I'm still working through the transition.  I'm past the initial vacation period, decompression period, temporary boredom and seem to be hitting my stride.  I'm looking forward to see what's next.

[American GenX]

these people likely couldnt fathom a professional decline

Yeah, there are a lot of people that excel at an older age.  You can't paint everyone with the same brush.

[SAR]

I suspect the sexual selection hypothesis can also account for some aspects of female creativity and productivity.

Like the example of women who focus on their families in their 20s through 40s, those later can switch their attention to their careers. But why evolutionarily speaking would they do that? Well, you have offspring to support, and we of course do that. If that's the case, then I'd predict that women with more children are probably the ones who are most productive later in life, if not necessarily creative.

Of course, just a correlation if true and allows for many exceptions to exist.

As for the 'why do people keep working when they have so much', well, I agree that there are careers that are highly satisfying for people and for them it's not about the money. But I suspect that is the exception rather than rule.

We are wired for social comparisons with others because we are hierarchical apes. Those at the top of the hierarchy live longer, are less stressed, get better access to resources, such as food and territories, as well as mates. So it's not the absolute amount of stuff you have that drives individuals, it's the comparative amount, because that's what predicts fitness.

Evolution has given us blind spots for many things, and the ability to tell when you have "enough" appears to be one of those.

[roomtempmayo]

Second, this is merely a distribution, and not the destiny that the author seems to think it is. There are men who do produce great work later in life. Consistent with sexual selection, those are the men who are less likely to be married. Think of Picasso . . .

I wonder if part of what makes someone great rather than simply good is the ability to continue to improve over a very long time.  Most people become complacent, plateau, and eventually decline once they learn to competently do their work.  A few people keep improving throughout life and do their best work very late.

That still wouldn't explain why there are lots of good young violinists, but hardly any good young writers.

[roomtempmayo]

I've heard this a lot. But I personally don't think that many people would still continue to do their same job, in the same capacity if they stopped receiving compensation for it.  Some sure, but most no.  If you liked certain aspects of your job and money was no object, then I think you could find ways to get the benefits without the drawbacks by accepting less money or no money in a similar activity.

See @SAR 's comment above about humans being "hierarchical apes."

If what you want is a high position in the hierarchy (call it power, prestige, having a personal secretary, a corner office, whatever) there's no way to get that without the big time job.

Lots of folks aren't working for the money, they're working for the position.

[Laura33]

I've heard this a lot. But I personally don't think that many people would still continue to do their same job, in the same capacity if they stopped receiving compensation for it.  Some sure, but most no.  If you liked certain aspects of your job and money was no object, then I think you could find ways to get the benefits without the drawbacks by accepting less money or no money in a similar activity.

My DH is doing advanced computing R&D that requires a fab whose value starts with a "B," not an "M."  His job is to take various concepts that are theoretically possible and figure out how to convert them into a functioning machine.  He has a Ph.D in the area and has been working to get to this position for over 25 years.  When he retires, he's done.  We could literally win the $600M lottery tomorrow and he'd still be shut out of doing his current work, because he couldn't buy the tools or hire enough people with the right skills on his own.  He wouldn't continue to work for free -- he'd be far too insulted -- but that is the primary reason why he resists retiring although we've been FI for several years.

I do geeky high-level legal stuff at a specialty firm.  Basically, I get hired to answer the questions that are too complex for people to answer without years of experience.  I work for the intellectual engagement.  I am much readier to retire than DH.  But my biggest fear is that there is no way I can keep doing this kind of work once I retire -- if I were to remain active as a lawyer, the work I could get would be the kind of stuff I did earlier in my career that bored me to tears.  Yeah, sure, I could go volunteer for a nonprofit that works in my area -- but the kinds of jobs that are comparable to my own are also high-pressure, full-time jobs, just for a lot less pay.  So just as with DH, when I do retire, I will be stepping away from something I won't be able to get back.  And that's a real loss, and very scary.  So instead, I've used my FI status to go part-time and have more free time now.

My mom would happily work forever, even if she didn't get paid for it.  Although she'd be pissed, because she really, really likes making money.  She's mid-70s, and pre-pandemic was traveling every week running her consulting company; being stuck at home and working on Zoom is killing her, and she cannot wait to get back at it.  Her net worth is comparable to ours, and her expenses are $30K/yr.  So it's certainly not about covering the bills.

People are wired differently.  Most people need some version of "work" -- paid or not -- to feel productive and valuable.  For some people, that "work" can happily focus on fixing up the house and working volunteer gigs at the food bank (what our neighbor has done for probably 50 years -- used to run the food bank and putter for fun, now he does both for fun).  For other people, that "work" can be teaching yourself to do all your own plumbing and starting a bunch of businesses without having to worry whether they succeed, like MMM.  But for some of us, work gives us access to really interesting stuff that is not available to volunteers. 

Seems to me that there are two basic ways of looking at this.  You can assume that anyone who works past FI is a power-hungry and/or money-hungry consumer sucka, and therefore either deluded, stupid, or wrong; or you can assume that if someone is voluntarily choosing to do something that seems crazy to you, they have some reason for it that makes sense to them, and you can try to figure out what it is. 

[honeybbq]

Once you have FU money working is much more enjoyable because nobody pushes you around (or if they do, FU!).  It allows you to take those risks to be creative, bring initiative, etc. It can be the best part of a working career once you have control of your destiny (because you actually don't NEED the job).

[roomtempmayo]

People are wired differently.  Most people need some version of "work" -- paid or not -- to feel productive and valuable.  For some people, that "work" can happily focus on fixing up the house and working volunteer gigs at the food bank (what our neighbor has done for probably 50 years -- used to run the food bank and putter for fun, now he does both for fun).  For other people, that "work" can be teaching yourself to do all your own plumbing and starting a bunch of businesses without having to worry whether they succeed, like MMM.  But for some of us, work gives us access to really interesting stuff that is not available to volunteers. 

Seems to me that there are two basic ways of looking at this.  You can assume that anyone who works past FI is a power-hungry and/or money-hungry consumer sucka, and therefore either deluded, stupid, or wrong; or you can assume that if someone is voluntarily choosing to do something that seems crazy to you, they have some reason for it that makes sense to them, and you can try to figure out what it is.

This is a really good post.

There seem to be a lot of folks here whose work exists at the intersection of unfulfilling and highly compensated.  It's good to have reminders that not all employment matches that description.

[mm1970]

People are wired differently.  Most people need some version of "work" -- paid or not -- to feel productive and valuable.  For some people, that "work" can happily focus on fixing up the house and working volunteer gigs at the food bank (what our neighbor has done for probably 50 years -- used to run the food bank and putter for fun, now he does both for fun).  For other people, that "work" can be teaching yourself to do all your own plumbing and starting a bunch of businesses without having to worry whether they succeed, like MMM.  But for some of us, work gives us access to really interesting stuff that is not available to volunteers. 

Seems to me that there are two basic ways of looking at this.  You can assume that anyone who works past FI is a power-hungry and/or money-hungry consumer sucka, and therefore either deluded, stupid, or wrong; or you can assume that if someone is voluntarily choosing to do something that seems crazy to you, they have some reason for it that makes sense to them, and you can try to figure out what it is.

This is a really good post.

There seem to be a lot of folks here whose work exists at the intersection of unfulfilling and highly compensated.  It's good to have reminders that not all employment matches that description.

Yep.  We are far from retiring (I mean, we could retire now if we were willing to move almost anywhere else).

I can picture retirement though.  It's not like my FIL's retirement of drinking with friends and golfing.  It's not sitting at home watching TV.

It's probably a lot of little things.  Gardening.  Home improvement.  Cooking.  Lots of dog walks (maybe 2x the distance we do today). 

Volunteering - volunteering at the local schools, for example.  Or the food bank.  Or the soup kitchen (literally there are kitchens that make soup for cancer patients, or kitchens that deliver food to the elderly.)

But for now, none of that is as interesting as paid work.

[mathlete]

Just finished this today. Very good. Thanks for sharing it!

[partgypsy]

Thank you for sharing this article. It is very timely. This is something I am wrestling with myself. I wasn't a prodigy, but I was precocious and somewhat ambitious.  At some point I changed from doing my own research to being a project coordinator for other PIs. Overall it was a good fit because it allowed me to have kids and also dabble in a hobby. But now I sometimes wonder if it condemned me to mediocreness, just in two areas rather than one. and maybe I did that because of fear of failure if I truly gave one thing my all. I don't know. Anyways the article was good food for thought.   

[scottish]

I found that article unsatisfying.    Perhaps it's because I didn't find the anecdotes very convincing.    Or maybe it's my own professional decline...

For instance, I've been toying with the idea of starting a small business.    But it's a heckuvalotta work for a guy in his 50's.    Do I really want to commit to something like that?    If I were in the same financial situation in my 20's (i.e. financially independent with no kids), I would have jumped at the chance.

Is this my professional decline in action?     Or is it just that I want to spend my life doing other things?

[iluvzbeach]

Second, this is merely a distribution, and not the destiny that the author seems to think it is. There are men who do produce great work later in life. Consistent with sexual selection, those are the men who are less likely to be married. Think of Picasso . . .

I wonder if part of what makes someone great rather than simply good is the ability to continue to improve over a very long time.  Most people become complacent, plateau, and eventually decline once they learn to competently do their work.  A few people keep improving throughout life and do their best work very late.

That still wouldn't explain why there are lots of good young violinists, but hardly any good young writers.

I think the violinist vs. writer scenario is directly related to what Malcolm Gladwell writes about in Outliers. Essentially, most people need about 10,000 hours of practice to become exceptional at their craft. How many kids start out taking creative writing courses with daily practice at 2, 3, 4 or 5 years of age? Probably not many. However, not uncommon at all to begin taking music lessons at a very young age. In my experience it seems that people who write do so because they discover as tweens or teens that they enjoy writing and really begin from there. Even then, they very likely aren’t practicing an hour+ per day and preparing for competitions. It’s my (uneducated) assumption that this is why writers peak at such an older age.

Really enjoyed the article. Thanks to the OP for sharing it.

[Metalcat]

Total bullshit.

Capacities change over time, but there are skills that benefit from years of wisdom and skills that don't. Most people start their careers with the skills that benefit from youth and fresh energy, but it takes adaptation to capitalize on the skills that are stronger with age.

If someone stays stagnant in their skills and career, then yeah, if they were strong early on, they will likely decline. My former industry has a well documented skill peak at 5-7 years after graduation.

At 4 years, I started training in an area that is not appropriate for new grads, it requires a few years of experience to even try, and it benefits from tons of experience, so it was setting me up to peak much, much later.

Everyone has a particular combination of capacities and those capacities change over time.

[rothwem]

I've always wondered why people keep striving once they've reach a certain networth.  Like why do multimillion dollar homes and $100k+ cars even exist. As soon as I reached comfortable for the rest of my life money, I'd stop working no matter how lucrative my job.  Whether that was after 30 yrs, 10 yrs, or 3.  But maybe they are afraid of slowing down and becoming un-useful.

In addition to what the other's have mentioned, I think that there are a lot of careers that allow you to transition from "Grihastha" to "Vanaprastha".  If you're good at your job, there can be significant satisfaction that comes from mentoring others in your chosen profession...and you can still get paid for it.  Warren Buffet is big on mentorship, and several of his former protege's are pretty successful and I would bet that he gets a lot of satisfaction from seeing them succeed. 

Personally, I've wondered how I can make the transition.  I'm an engineer in an extremely niche field, and I'm in my mid 30's.  I know my decline is coming, and my ability to teach and mentor others in an official capacity is seriously hampered by my lack of graduate degree.