It'd Be Nice to Live in Less of a Gerontocracy(goodreason.substack.com)
goodreason.substack.com
It'd Be Nice to Live in Less of a Gerontocracy
https://goodreason.substack.com/p/itd-be-nice-to-live-in-less-of-a
31 comments
>This current trend of "we have too many old people in government" is really code for "the people in government don't represent my views", which is largely a generational opinion.
That is not "code", its a consequence. Generational divides include divides in culture, education and understanding of the world. If one generation disproportionately controls the government, of course they will not represent the views of any other generation currently living. No one is trying to hide this or pretend it isn't the case.
That is not "code", its a consequence. Generational divides include divides in culture, education and understanding of the world. If one generation disproportionately controls the government, of course they will not represent the views of any other generation currently living. No one is trying to hide this or pretend it isn't the case.
>As millenials age into the system, the government will start to more closely reflect their world views.
By what mechanism?
The reason those in government fail to represent the views of their constituents is due to class warfare and wealth.
Millennials are already reaching 40, yet the wealth of the Millennial generation is a tiny fraction of what Baby Boomers had in their 20s. To put it bluntly: it's too damn late!
It's not that those in power are simply out of touch, it's that they intentionally pulled the ladder up behind them.
So far the USA has robbed 3 generations in order to feed the capitalist class, and Boomers cheered it on because they also reap the rewards of this large-scale sacrifice.
Moloch smiles on the Baby Boomer generation.
https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.c...
By what mechanism?
The reason those in government fail to represent the views of their constituents is due to class warfare and wealth.
Millennials are already reaching 40, yet the wealth of the Millennial generation is a tiny fraction of what Baby Boomers had in their 20s. To put it bluntly: it's too damn late!
It's not that those in power are simply out of touch, it's that they intentionally pulled the ladder up behind them.
So far the USA has robbed 3 generations in order to feed the capitalist class, and Boomers cheered it on because they also reap the rewards of this large-scale sacrifice.
Moloch smiles on the Baby Boomer generation.
https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.c...
I doubt there will be any population in 100 years.
A president in his 80s. A Senate leader in his 80s. The Senate filled with people born in the 1940s. If it was the plot of a novel, the author would be laughed out of the publisher's office.
Well, that's nice cherry-picking. Older people rise to the top in institutions because they have the requisite experience, patience and people skills, and yes, sometimes, brilliance.
Now, let's talk about the other 99% plus. Older people are throw-aways in society, and will be served, like anyone or anything else, when there's a buck to me made. Need I mention pharma? And forget affordable housing.
I didn't have the patience to wait for another university department taking 2 months to make a decision about hiring me, so I left. And so on for the other above-mentioned skills at other jobs. The demographics of institutions will change when the rules of the game change. The excitement of young brash startup culture either burns you out, changes when you are acquired (or go public) or your founder/owner/CEO decides that laws and regulations are "for schmucks only".
The demographics of government will change when rules change, for example, term limits, but then you'll see more job-hopping and inexperienced people being ineffective locally and globally.
Voter demographics are changing, as more and more angry seniors spend time yelling at clouds and forget to vote, and as young people object to people who "got theirs" already wanting to exert some draconian control over the lives of others who haven't.
Now, let's talk about the other 99% plus. Older people are throw-aways in society, and will be served, like anyone or anything else, when there's a buck to me made. Need I mention pharma? And forget affordable housing.
I didn't have the patience to wait for another university department taking 2 months to make a decision about hiring me, so I left. And so on for the other above-mentioned skills at other jobs. The demographics of institutions will change when the rules of the game change. The excitement of young brash startup culture either burns you out, changes when you are acquired (or go public) or your founder/owner/CEO decides that laws and regulations are "for schmucks only".
The demographics of government will change when rules change, for example, term limits, but then you'll see more job-hopping and inexperienced people being ineffective locally and globally.
Voter demographics are changing, as more and more angry seniors spend time yelling at clouds and forget to vote, and as young people object to people who "got theirs" already wanting to exert some draconian control over the lives of others who haven't.
>Older people rise to the top in institutions because they have the requisite experience, patience and people skills
What is your source for this very opinionated claim? Statistics would conclude that older people rise to the top in institutions simply because they were there earlier and have more chances to move up.
What is your source for this very opinionated claim? Statistics would conclude that older people rise to the top in institutions simply because they were there earlier and have more chances to move up.
> Older people are throw-aways in society, and will be served, like anyone or anything else, when there's a buck to me made.
There's a wide chasm between being a societal throw-away and "we need to indulge people into their 80s and even 90s having the power to impact millions of people's lives". No-one is entitled to a position of power or influence.
There's a wide chasm between being a societal throw-away and "we need to indulge people into their 80s and even 90s having the power to impact millions of people's lives". No-one is entitled to a position of power or influence.
It's a demographic wave having auto rule in a democracy sweeping a social graph into power again and again. What is it with some people becoming minstrel bards to any fool in power to the point they do not even start to analyze.
The author next will probably present A Modest Proposal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
If society had more of a safety net, had more surplus capacity & safety, I think more people would get involved with government & try to run.
As largely software people, we're intimiately familiar with customer funnels, where X people see a thing, Y people click in and Z people sign up. The funnel winnows. The issue here just seems deeply personal & deeply simple: most people will not have the spare capacity to try to stake in to government. They won't make it to the first step.
It's bad for society that so few people can afford to try. There's a host of other factors about what on-ramps are available, what support there is, figuring out how to find & grow a base of constituents to represent... but before all these other factors, I feel like democracy is too expensive to even start to directly aid, requires such enormous sacrifice of time & energy.
Right now it seems absurd & ridiculous to imagine, but I hope some day we can dream up & experiment with participative online information architectures to such a degree where we feel like maybe democracy could or should start seeing if it can lower the entrance barrier some via online-mediated engagement, see if we can find ways to distribute power out better & more such that we can bring people in.
As largely software people, we're intimiately familiar with customer funnels, where X people see a thing, Y people click in and Z people sign up. The funnel winnows. The issue here just seems deeply personal & deeply simple: most people will not have the spare capacity to try to stake in to government. They won't make it to the first step.
It's bad for society that so few people can afford to try. There's a host of other factors about what on-ramps are available, what support there is, figuring out how to find & grow a base of constituents to represent... but before all these other factors, I feel like democracy is too expensive to even start to directly aid, requires such enormous sacrifice of time & energy.
Right now it seems absurd & ridiculous to imagine, but I hope some day we can dream up & experiment with participative online information architectures to such a degree where we feel like maybe democracy could or should start seeing if it can lower the entrance barrier some via online-mediated engagement, see if we can find ways to distribute power out better & more such that we can bring people in.
When do these arguments become agism? Are we assuming 70 year olds are less capable?
It's well established that most mental and physical faculties degrade with age.
For some people less so than others, and AFAICT moreso if one keeps exercising and maintaining good health in general.
In some countries past a certain age you need to re-test for driving licences every few years. It would make sense to do the same for other areas, I think.
For some people less so than others, and AFAICT moreso if one keeps exercising and maintaining good health in general.
In some countries past a certain age you need to re-test for driving licences every few years. It would make sense to do the same for other areas, I think.
And yet, somehow, the thought of being ruled by mostly young people is even more nightmarish than the gerontocracy we currently have.
How so? Young people aren't still seeing the world in terms of Cold War imperialist atomic dick-swinging contests and appeasing the wrath of the Old Testament God. Young people don't see technology more recent than the rotary telephone as weird and scary. Young people aren't still wrapping their head around women being able to vote, black people walking in the front door or gays... existing.
Perhaps someone who's spent more than half of their life living in the pre-internet world and likely is confused and infuriated by everything that's happened in the world after their adolescence can't comprehend the reality of modernity well enough to have an informed say in the future. They probably still read the New York Times and think it matters.
They say progress only happens one funeral at a time, but these old bastards and their regressive ideas aren't dying fast enough.
Perhaps someone who's spent more than half of their life living in the pre-internet world and likely is confused and infuriated by everything that's happened in the world after their adolescence can't comprehend the reality of modernity well enough to have an informed say in the future. They probably still read the New York Times and think it matters.
They say progress only happens one funeral at a time, but these old bastards and their regressive ideas aren't dying fast enough.
Nobody is saying that a 25-30 year old is what’s needed. Give us people in their 40s and we would probably be better off.
Define 'young'. Under 70? Who gives a crap. Under 25? Yeah that's a problem, obviously.
Yes, in many ways a 70 yo is less capable than a 40 yo. Mental acuity, stamina/fitness, rigidity of thinking (the lack thereof) and general health (mental and otherwise). Never ending political terms may also come with a sense of entitlement and disdain for the democratic process. As can be observed when someone from their own political side dares challenging figures like Pelosi, McConnell and others. Knifes are out and playing dirty is the name of the game then.
Where a politician who has “served” for decades does have the edge is knowing from experience how to pull the strings, cut backroom deals etc. They also have a far-flung network of political relations, essentially people who owe them favours. I don’t think these qualities are to the advantage of their constituents or the nation. They certainly help to keep them in power though, which makes gerontocracy a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Where a politician who has “served” for decades does have the edge is knowing from experience how to pull the strings, cut backroom deals etc. They also have a far-flung network of political relations, essentially people who owe them favours. I don’t think these qualities are to the advantage of their constituents or the nation. They certainly help to keep them in power though, which makes gerontocracy a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Modest proposal of 100% wealth tax at age 60, let's say with first 10 mln tax free. Can be used retirement for all 60 year olds. Immediately solves aging workforce problem as long as GDP doesn't shrink.
Oh... Its so much worse than anyone realizes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MGbkDGOAC8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MGbkDGOAC8
I agree, in general, with the point of the article. But why does everybody have to make fun of Biden's speech issues (Stuttering)? That's a pretty low blow, bro.
Since when does stuttering make you speak nonsense, be forgetful and tired?
He’s stuttered his whole life. It doesn’t have to do with his age. Now that he’s old, people act like he suddenly has trouble speaking.
Apart from the stuttering, the constant lying (such as his speech plagiarism decades ago) has been something of a concern. Framing it as an old-age thing is an act of kindness.
1) The share of the population over the age of 80 recently surpassed 10% in Japan. Japan is basically on the bleeding edge of population dynamics, and we can expect to see the same demographic changes coming to the US, China, and most of Europe fairly soon. India and parts of Southeast Asian are an exception (at the moment). It remains to be seen if they can take advantage of their young workforce by educating them properly and making sure opportunities are available.
2) Millenials in the US are the largest generation by population ever, and are having the fewest children of any generation ever. As they age, they will represent a growing plurality of the society.
3) This current trend of "we have too many old people in government" is really code for "the people in government don't represent my views", which is largely a generational opinion. As millenials age into the system, the government will start to more closely reflect their world views. So less and less will be done over time to "correct" this perceived defect in government.
4) Medical research and government policy remains focused on extending life, and less so on improving the quality of existing life. People will live longer and spend a longer period time in a deteriorated state, kept alive by medical "advances" and government policy that encourages extending life over all else. More and more money will be needed to take care of people in these advanced states, draining resources from the rest of the society. It's already happening - see the Social Security and Medicare debacle in America.
Not the most organized set of thoughts but I really think the decline in population growth (and eventual plateau at the end of the century) is going to have widespread impacts across all of society. Strangely enough, the representation in American government today is ahead of its time in that it is probably representative (age-wise) of what the population will actually look like in 100 years.