New and Experienced Climbers over 50 #40

Jan Mcwrote:

I own 3 senior passes. The first I bought when I hit 62.  The second when a friend said he had a pass but then it was expired when we got to the gate in Tuolumne so I bought another.  The third I bought the day before they went from $10 to $80, just in case.  So all 3 cost me just $30.  Pretty good bargain and now my wife can use one of them without paying the $80.

Around here (Acadia and Cape Cod) they often ask to see both the pass and a photo ID (license) - so you can't share pass with another person.  That's if you are dealing with a human

Emil Briggswrote:

I confess to having mixed feelings about special rates for seniors. Sure it's nice I qualify but while there are plenty of poor seniors as a group we have more wealth than any other. And it's not just parks, lots of business's offer discounts if you're over a certain age. 

I've been hearing this more often, lately, things like what you said: "while there are plenty of poor seniors as a group we have more wealth than any other".
Isn't that to be expected? And is it a problem?

Let me expand on this, and please feel free to respond.

Speaking from personal experience, when I was young (in my twenties and thirties), I didn't have much money - like, nothing, negative because I had student loan debt. Please note, I am not trying to compare myself to anyone living today. I'm just looking at what I saw when I was younger and wondering why people are disturbed that old people today have more wealth than young people and seem to think it's a problem. As a youngster, I would have hoped and expected that older people would have more wealth than I did then. Isn't that the way things are supposed to work in the US? Class mobility means that you can start out poor and you can work your way out of that over the course of your life, if things go well.

So, people should end up with more wealth at the end of their lives, on average. Because they worked all their lives to build up that wealth. The system is designed to work this way. If you worked all your life and wound up with nothing at the end, you were either doing something wrong (according to the system), or were unlucky.

In the "plenty of poor seniors" category - they are generally living on a small, fixed income. They have no way to make more money, they couldn't find a job if they tried. There's no class mobility for you at the end of your life. Senior programs and discounts, I think, were originally intended to help people in this category, and I think they still help such people.

Nowadays, if you're super wealthy, you're going to a Michelin star restaurant and you don't get a senior discount. If you're kind of wealthy, maybe you're going to a diner and getting a senior discount. It's a deal between you and the diner. The diner has figured out that they're better off offering the senior discount to get people in the door.

Re the US parks discount, I suspect it's the same thing. The govt wants to encourage seniors to be healthier and exercise. Isn't it worth it to tempt them with discounts so they'll get out? Maybe they're more likely to get out with their grandchildren if they've got a discounted pass, helping with the loneliness crisis? It's an attempt at being nice to poor seniors. It's probably one of the cheapest nice programs we've got going in the US.

It seems to be too difficult/not worth it to means-test people in order to give them benefits, so the benefits are based on age. What other options do we have? Make all park entries free. One can dream. Or end all discounts?

I always thought it was a perk for people who paid income taxes their entire lives to support and build and maintain Nat'l. Parks. Of course now taxes don't bother to support or maintain Nat'l Parks.

We are not much of a society if we don't take care of our seniors. 

Happy Tuesday

dragonswrote:

I've been hearing this more often, lately, things like what you said: "while there are plenty of poor seniors as a group we have more wealth than any other".
Isn't that to be expected? And is it a problem?

Accumulation of wealth as one ages is to be expected. But remember the baby boom generation was enormous. Coupled with wealth accumulation that creates economic and social problems that can be hard to deal with so yes it's a problem. 

Let me expand on this, and please feel free to respond.

Speaking from personal experience, when I was young (in my twenties and thirties), I didn't have much money - like, nothing, negative because I had student loan debt. Please note, I am not trying to compare myself to anyone living today. I'm just looking at what I saw when I was younger and wondering why people are disturbed that old people today have more wealth than young people and seem to think it's a problem. As a youngster, I would have hoped and expected that older people would have more wealth than I did then. Isn't that the way things are supposed to work in the US? Class mobility means that you can start out poor and you can work your way out of that over the course of your life, if things go well.

See above. The size of the generations matter. And if you're my age your student debt would have been a fraction of what kids today average. A good part of that is people our age had political clout and wanted lower taxes which we got. So a larger fraction of college costs today is borne by students than in the past (some state schools even used to offer free tuition into the 1970s!) which is part of the reason US class mobility has nose dived since the 80s.

So, people should end up with more wealth at the end of their lives, on average. Because they worked all their lives to build up that wealth. The system is designed to work this way. If you worked all your life and wound up with nothing at the end, you were either doing something wrong (according to the system), or were unlucky.

In the "plenty of poor seniors" category - they are generally living on a small, fixed income. They have no way to make more money, they couldn't find a job if they tried. There's no class mobility for you at the end of your life. Senior programs and discounts, I think, were originally intended to help people in this category, and I think they still help such people.

Nowadays, if you're super wealthy, you're going to a Michelin star restaurant and you don't get a senior discount. If you're kind of wealthy, maybe you're going to a diner and getting a senior discount. It's a deal between you and the diner. The diner has figured out that they're better off offering the senior discount to get people in the door.

Re the US parks discount, I suspect it's the same thing. The govt wants to encourage seniors to be healthier and exercise. Isn't it worth it to tempt them with discounts so they'll get out? Maybe they're more likely to get out with their grandchildren if they've got a discounted pass, helping with the loneliness crisis? It's an attempt at being nice to poor seniors. It's probably one of the cheapest nice programs we've got going in the US.

It seems to be too difficult/not worth it to means-test people in order to give them benefits, so the benefits are based on age. What other options do we have? Make all park entries free. One can dream. Or end all discounts?

Yeah. It's a problem. Definitely an administrative nightmare. But there are certainly a lot of young working class families who are priced out of the parks while folks like me who won't even notice a $100 dollar annual pass can get a lifetime pass for $80. I don't have a perfect solution, just saying it's something I'm aware of.

RGold mentioning  RPs/brassies being useful at the gunks reminds me of the only time I ever used them at the gunks. I'm terrible with names but I remember a spot where there were two shorter single pitch 5.10s side by side and the one I chose to try(left one) had a pretty big runout around the roof until I saw a spot that took a couple of tiny ones that I quickly equalized with a sliding X . I had never been so happy to have those with me! They only get used every few years and aren't even on my daily rack anymore but sure come in handy when the shit gets thin!

I just went and picked up my half price Acadia pass this morning. I was late in getting one last year and they had run out of the half pricers.

“At either end of the social spectrum there lies a leisure class”- attributed to Eric Beck

Daniel Shivelywrote:

“At either end of the social spectrum there lies a leisure class”- attributed to Eric Beck

Was that Eric Hoffer's statement?

WF WF51wrote:

Was that Eric Hoffer's statement?

In the climbing context ( 1960s Yosemite Camp 4 to be specific) it has always been attributed to Eric Beck, but he surely could have 'adopted' the quip from someone else.

Thanks for these great photos, Dan. Please keep 'em coming! Only downside is they make me ache for the Eastern Sierra and you & Denise!

John Gillwrote:

Jim on the juggernaut in S Colorado, ca 1978. I would guess everything you read about Jim is true. He was quite thin, but exceptionally strong. After I was credited with V8 and V9 in 1958-59 (in retrospect), Jim jumped to V11 and V12 in the 1970s. He was probably the most amazing boulderer of the 1970s-1980s. But he left bouldering for bicycle racing of some sort, and never returned to the sport, to the best of my knowledge. 

Yvon as I knew him in the 1950s. He told me what I was doing was called "bouldering", and I assumed the S Ca climbers had coined the word. Forty years later I discovered that the Brits had used the term in the 1880s. The "Bleausards" had been practicing their skills even before, but their title implies a specific locality. 

Daniel, you and I are USAF affiliated, so you can appreciate how I stayed in shape at the airbase back in 1959-62. No climbing walls, of course, but on evening or midnight shift and the officer in residence at base ops, I would put on my shoes and climb around the metal stairwell to the top of the control tower. I also had some tricks I did at the base gymnasium. You had to improvise back then. 

John,
I have seen a lot of climbing photos over the years but I am confident I have never seen that one, either formally published or in social media or elsewhere. Every image of Jim Holloway is a rare and fleeting record of an individual who helped rewrite the script on what climbing would become, especially in building on your legacy. This type of terrain and movement would be the future of climbing; it just took a while for everyone to catch up.

Thanks again!

WF WF51wrote:

Was that Eric Hoffer's statement?

It sure seems like something Hoffer would have written, but like Mr Rubin correctly assumed, I was referring to what Eric Beck said. I was simply riffing about the concept of wealth and materialism after reading dragon’s thoughts about the perceived wealth of the more senior elements of society. I think that whether an individual’s locus of control is weighted towards internal versus external can be a major factor in their perception of what constitutes wealth and their methods used to acquire wealth. 

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

We are not much of a society if we don't take care of our seniors. 

Absolutely. And children, disabled people etc.

Penny Ante Boulder, Little Huerfano Canyon ca1978. Jim did "shift the bouldering paradigm". Besides introducing a next step in athletic talent, he and his peers spent more time and effort on individual problems than his predecessors - and so the difficulty levels shifted upward, leaving my old B-scale in the dust, even though Jim used a private system having three tiers. He should be about 71 now. I can't recall who the other two climbers are.

Peter and James, thanks for your comments.

Time shifts as we get older. Holloway was one of the 70s crew, the elders who were changing the game. "Those old guys sure could crank!"

By Mr Gill's reckoning, Jim Holloway is just 6 years older than me! Now on this side of the time shift, 6 years doesn't seem like a different generation, at all! I was just a younger slacker, in the same generation hahahah.

I don't know how I feel about that.

Times change . . .

John Gillwrote:

Penny Ante Boulder, Little Huerfano Canyon ca1978. Jim did "shift the bouldering paradigm". Besides introducing a next step in athletic talent, he and his peers spent more time and effort on individual problems than his predecessors - and so the difficulty levels shifted upward, leaving my old B-scale in the dust, even though Jim used a private system having three tiers. He should be about 71 now. I can't recall who the other two climbers are.

Peter and James, thanks for your comments.

The other two climbers look like Dan and Jim Michael. 

"The other two climbers look like Dan and Jim Michael. "

I believe so. Thanks

A rainbow crosses the north ridge of Wells Peak and highlights the Rabbit Ears, home to the classic climb “Smokestack”.