“It’s still enough for me”: The 2nd Mountain.

Every manager in the car industry is aware of this:

The car industry will shrink in the coming years.

Many of the approximately 12 million jobs in the European car industry (according to ACEA) will be lost. The population in Europe is shrinking. Sales figures have been declining in Europe for years. Electric platforms require fewer parts and less time to assemble. And the competition in China is gaining market share.

In the coming years, the last "boomers" (1946-1964) in the automotive industry will retire and their jobs will no longer be filled.

A "socially responsible shrinkage" in installments has begun.

Early retirement does not fit into the knowledge economy.

"Socially responsible downsizing through early retirement" was a mechanism in the coal and steel industry in the 1980s. Jobs were cut and physically hard-working steelworkers and miners were relieved earlier.

This does not work in the restructuring of the car industry.

The needs and interests of today's generation of managers, who work in offices and are being downsized, are different from those of steel workers in the 1980s.
The car industry is too big to "push away" this shrinkage. 12 million employees are equivalent to the population of Belgium, Greece or Sweden. The importance of the car industry for economic performance and social wealth in Europe is correspondingly high.
With every employee who leaves, society loses experience, productivity, competitiveness and therefore added value and social wealth. Whether this economic output can be compensated for by new mobility, automation, AI or other innovations, for example, is debatable.
Gen X (1965-1980) retires early, sometimes at 58, 57, 56 or earlier. At the same time, they are too young to retire as life expectancy increases. Studies on life expectancy show a clear correlation between binding social integration and life expectancy. "He who rests, rusts." Or: those who retire don't have long to live
With a life expectancy of 80+ years and life expectancy increasing every year, there is a 20+ year period of life ahead of them that not only needs to be financed, but also filled with meaning and social inclusion. The US is currently being led by a generation of politicians older than 75. Henry Kissinger traveled to China for foreign policy talks when he was over 100 years old. We should realistically assume that managers still have +/- 30 productive years ahead of them after they leave the company.
This creates a period of life that needs to be financed and filled with meaning and social integration. Studies on longevity, e.g. in Okinawa, show a clear correlation between binding social integration and life expectancy. "He who rests, rusts". Or: those who retire have less to live for.

Everyone should carefully consider and evaluate the idea of gainful employment followed by a passive pension. Those who no longer play are removed from the playing field. The upside-down age pyramid tells us that society cannot afford this.

Early retirement for healthy 60-year-old managers is not sustainable.

The contradiction between lost economic output, the expected passivity of retirement and the unused performance potential of the suddenly inactive could not be greater.

However, extending the employment contract is not a solution either.

The question is no longer whether "socially acceptable shrinkage" will become a problem, but when.

We have lit the fuse from both sides.

Decisions on early retirement are made by companies. There are no macroeconomic calculations that are discussed publicly.

And even if all the economic aspects could be resolved, the question remains: what are these people with enormous potential suddenly doing without jobs?

It has taken years and decades to build up a job and career and bring them into harmony with family, health, finances and lifestyle.

And from one day to the next, this structure collapses.

Because there was no time to build up a parallel structure beforehand. In the industry, people usually work very hard. Very few people have time for "side jobs" and it is not economically necessary.

But it would be good if there was a second structure alongside gainful employment.

After all, people need meaningful work in addition to many other things. We need the challenge and the affirmation. And we need the cooperation and recognition of our colleagues. And if that disappears, it's not a financial issue.

It's not right to put all our eggs in one basket.

When will Gen X recognize this dilemma for themselves?

Meaningful work is a misunderstood need.

Because it is confused with paid employment.

I know what I'm talking about.

In 2019, I took a one-year sabbatical from my employment at Volkswagen and went on a trip around the world with my family. The pandemic turned one year into two.

During the lockdown in Mexico, I received a project request. During the project, I realized that life under the tropical sun without work was simply not enough for me.

As a result, I founded my first startup in 2021.

I launched AutomotiveLearners in 2023.

Working means creating value for others. And not having an employment contract.

The "happiness" of not having to work is misunderstood.

When a boring, unsatisfying job disappears, everyone is happy. "Retire at last, lucky you." However, this happiness only occurs when the work has no meaning.

I would argue that this is only true in exceptional cases.

Most of my colleagues are excellent at what they do. And they do it with a lot of passion. Of course, it's often stressful and frustrating. But it's like playing soccer: Even if you lose a game, you don't give up playing soccer straight away.

I keep noticing that early retirees are looking for new fields of activity. Surprisingly, however, these tend to be temporary experiments: long trips, new building projects - things that have been put off for a long time are made up for.

The question remains: will this be enough to fill the next 20-30 years?

Achieving clarity about the "second mountain" in good time

The first mountain of life consists of education, career and financial provision. At some point it will be reached: the house is paid off, the children have moved away.

Behind it lies a valley: retirement.

Socially acceptable shrinkage will only get us there faster.

And the question: what happens when your current job ends?

Do I have clarity about my future and myself?

Our professional identity is tied to an employment contract that is secure for many years.

But our working life is limited and has a foreseeable end.

The industry is currently stagnating and shrinking. "It's still enough for me", is what we hear everywhere.

And then, suddenly, it's over.

In most cases, financial security is a given. But that doesn't mean that everything is done for the rest of your life. And that you are no longer needed.

European societies cannot afford this either.

Politicians are not finding answers to this contradiction, see Germany or France.

The answer can only be found individually.

In order to find individual answers, I have developed a program.

Practical and comprehensible.

This program is about finding clarity about how we imagine our future. It is about finding a balance between professional value creation and all other areas of life, such as finances, health, social network and lifestyle.