Why are so many people in the US in positions of power so old?

BattleCorp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah but it's true of old people that they don't have a clue about the world. Some are senile and still have a vote. That's absolutely insane.

You think all young people have a clue? :pac::pac::pac: There's more to the world than knowing the correct pronoun to call someone nowadays.

As an example of how disconnected old people generally are from the modern world, there's a running joke that when old people say racist things, the young people don't correct them. They are just old and set in their ways and they won't change - "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" a the saying goes. But we still allow the old people a vote that pretends they're up to date and understand the demands on the country now and in the future. It's not right.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

People who are renters for life are going to be the big losers when they retire. Income drops but their rent doesnt.......loads of homeless pensioners.

Yeah and in the past there were socialist building schemes that helped people get on the property ladder. Now the old people have far too much power and there's no way you could achieve anything so ambitious or forward thinking as they just wouldn't vote for it - because it's irrelevant to them. Age of buying first houses is going up and up and up as young people struggle to pay rent let alone save for a house or start a family.

Wanderer78

screamer wrote:

And the younger generations are stuck in that awful scenario, the future for them is going to be tough, and I really think we need to rethink this whole retire at X age cause that’s the rule.

Ah I suspect we re experiencing the beginning of a significant global change, the young have had enough, they know they're getting screwed, they know how it's happening, and they have some good ideas on how to change it, but it will require us adults to help and support them

BattleCorp

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Fcuk that, retire well before your 50's, and being a politican looks like the sh1ttised job on the planet, but if you have a disorder such as npd, it looks great

Unfortunately I'm neither intelligent enough, good looking enough or hard working enough to have enough money put by to retire well before my 50's.

Compared to our youthful 79 year old president?

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Yeah and in the past there were socialist building schemes that helped people get on the property ladder. Now the old people have far too much power and there's no way you could achieve anything so ambitious or forward thinking as they just wouldn't vote for it - because it's irrelevant to them. Age of buying first houses is going up and up and up as young people struggle to pay rent let alone save for a house or start a family.

....again, it ll be interesting to see what happens when these humans realise, there's other forms of capitalism!

Wanderer78

BattleCorp wrote:

Unfortunately I'm neither intelligent enough, good looking enough or hard working enough to have enough money put by to retire well before my 50's.

Enter my world, don't give a fcuk world! It ll work out, hopefully!

screamer

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah and in the past there were socialist building schemes that helped people get on the property ladder. Now the old people have far too much power and there's no way you could achieve anything so ambitious or forward thinking as they just wouldn't vote for it - because it's irrelevant to them. Age of buying first houses is going up and up and up as young people struggle to pay rent let alone save for a house or start a family.

That’s all old people fault? Seriously I’m starting to think you just hate old people

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

You think all young people have a clue? :pac::pac::pac: There's more to the world than knowing the correct pronoun to call someone nowadays.



:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

All young people? Obviously not.

I didn't mention pronouns. But i did demonstrate some of the ways we accept that old people are disconnected form the real world.

Young people always voted at about the rate the currently vote. They start out pretty disconnected from voting and then grow to vote more as time goes on. That's the way it's always been. It's out of whack now because old people live so much longer and vote more times as old people while becoming less and less connected to the world.

Quin_Dub

Politically speaking there are a couple of reasons why should a large cohort of the leadership is much older than you would see in other countries.

I would agree that Age is but a number , but the issue about a lot of those names is far less about their age and more about how long they have been in the position they are in.

It costs a LOT of money to get elected to high office in the US so there is a significant barrier to entry for a lot of people to run for the House or Senate.

The names mentioned in the Original post - All of them hold seats that are virtually bulletproof for their party due to the FPTP voting process and the stringent 2 party system in the US.

So , once they get in it's almost impossible for them to lose an election - Their only risk is in getting primaried by someone from their own party.

Tenure also brings influence and even more money , usually plenty enough of both to ward off any upstarts that might try to challenge in the primary.

The problem arises from the lack of any serious challenge internal or external , they don't really have to adapt and grow or update their opinions and positions based on current feelings.

People like Chuck Grassley and Diane Feinstein are never going to lose an election that they run in - The (R) or the (D) are far more important, so seats like that are theirs for as long as they want them.

That's not healthy for Democracy in the long run.

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That's not healthy for Democracy in the long run.

My point exactly. It's a terrible system. Also the fact you can be in power for DECADES is really bad. North Korea leader level bad.

El_Duderino 09

screamer wrote: »

That’s all old people fault? Seriously I’m starting to think you just hate old people

ALL old people's fault? No. But it's certainly out of whack that policy has to appeal to a growing cohort who are increasingly old and disconnected from the reality of how the world is changing and what needs to be done.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

ALL old people's fault? No. But it's certainly out of whack that policy has to appeal to a growing cohort who are increasingly old and disconnected from the reality of how the world is changing and what needs to be done.

.....reduce the power of the older vote?

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote: »

....again, it ll be interesting to see what happens when these humans realise, there's other forms of capitalism!

that's twice you've said that and I've absolutely no idea what you're saying. Would you explain what you're talking about?

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote: »

.....reduce the power of the older vote?

yeah, that's what i've already said.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That might be ok if the old people understand the world they live in and how the world will be in the future and how to act to make sure they make sensible decisions for the future and not just the short term. My experience of old people is that they generally disconnect from the world and focus on the short term. They pay lip service to "our children and our children's children" but it's only natural that they focus on the short term because that's all they have left.

I think the fact that so many people live to be older and vote longer and stay in jobs longer is one of the reasons that governments have become so lacking in ambition. The British created the NHS after WW2. There's absolutely no way that they could do something that ambitions with the state of the old people in government and the age profile of the voting population.

I'd support a gearing down of the value of old people's votes to the point that old people's votes count for half a young person's vote. Young people will look after the old because they will be old some day and want services to be in place for them when they get old. The old have no imperative to look after the young as they will never be young again and don't have to bother learning about young people or their problems or needs.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I certainly hope so.

Instead of asking a rhetorical question, why not just say what you want to say?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

that's twice you've said that and I've absolutely no idea what you're saying. Would you explain what you're talking about?

.....................

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Any idea if you think you ll get old?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

yeah, that's what i've already said.

..........

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote: »

.....................

I really don't think a series of full stops explains your position as well as you seem to think it does.

If you have a point, feel free to just explain it.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

If you have a point, feel free to just explain it.

When you become old, are you going to be both young and old at the same time, baring in mind, your own opioion regards voting?

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote: »

When you become old, are you going to be both young and old at the same time, baring in mind, your own opioion regards voting?

When I become old, am i going to be both young and old? No, when I become old then I'll be old. And I think old people's votes should be worth less than a young people's votes.

Could you explain your position without a series of quotes of what' I've said or series of full stops or rhetorical questions? Just a series of words that outlines what you're actually trying to say?

Does anyone else know what point this poster is trying to make?

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

When I become old, am i going to be both young and old? No, when I become old then I'll be old. And I think old people's votes should be worth less than a young people's votes.

Could you explain your position without a series of quotes of what' I've said or series of full stops or rhetorical questions? Just a series of words that outlines what you're actually trying to say?

Does anyone else know what point this poster is trying to make?

so you d be happy to accept this yourself?

gary550

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That might be ok if the old people understand the world they live in and how the world will be in the future and how to act to make sure they make sensible decisions for the future and not just the short term. My experience of old people is that they generally disconnect from the world and focus on the short term. They pay lip service to "our children and our children's children" but it's only natural that they focus on the short term because that's all they have left.

I think the fact that so many people live to be older and vote longer and stay in jobs longer is one of the reasons that governments have become so lacking in ambition. The British created the NHS after WW2. There's absolutely no way that they could do something that ambitions with the state of the old people in government and the age profile of the voting population.

I'd support a gearing down of the value of old people's votes to the point that old people's votes count for half a young person's vote. Young people will look after the old because they will be old some day and want services to be in place for them when they get old. The old have no imperative to look after the young as they will never be young again and don't have to bother learning about young people or their problems or needs.

I don't support that,

I'm young, 8/10 people in my generation are morons with little life experience who think they know how to solve everything. Me included :rolleyes:

Wanderer78

gary550 wrote: »

I don't support that,

I'm young, 8/10 people in my generation are morons with little life experience who think they know how to solve everything. Me included :rolleyes:

oh dont worry, us older folk think the same!

BattleCorp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'd support a gearing down of the value of old people's votes to the point that old people's votes count for half a young person's vote.

Must not feed the troll.

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so you d be happy to accept this yourself?

Oh my god, is that the question you've been trying to ask about all along?
Yes. Obviously i would accept that myself or else i wouldn't have proposed it. I know i will become old and that rule woul dthen apply to me too - I can't believe it took you so long to articulate that question.

People are living longer and longer and the problem will be even more acute by the time I become old.

What was your point about humans learning there's a different form of capitalism? You said the same thing twice so you must have thought it was a good point. So what was it?

El_Duderino 09

gary550 wrote: »

I don't support that,

I'm young, 8/10 people in my generation are morons with little life experience who think they know how to solve everything. Me included :rolleyes:

Ok but whatever proportion of people you think are morons now, that applies to old people too. So it's a moot point.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh my god, is that the question you've been trying to ask about all along?
Yes. Obviously i would accept that myself or else i wouldn't have proposed it. I know i will become old and that rule woul dthen apply to me too - I can't believe it took you so long to articulate that question.

People are living longer and longer and the problem will be even more acute by the time I become old.

What was your point about humans learning there's a different form of capitalism? You said the same thing twice so you must have thought it was a good point. So what was it?

what if those younger voters, vote for policies that could potential jeopardise your life and well being?

you d be surprised of the amount of people havent realised yet, there are actually others forms of capitalisms, you ll find many of these type of debates end up with capitalism v's socialism, i personally believe we really should be having these debates where its actually capitalism v's capitalism

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

Must not feed the troll.

I'm giving my opinion and the reasons for it. No need for you to resort to name calling without even attempting to offer a counter argument.

fly_agaric

I think the idea of "gearing" citizens' votes makes most people a little queasy to be honest. Seems a slippery slope.

It might make politicians pay more attention to the concerns of younger people.
However a weighted ballot paper is still worth zero if the voter cannot bother their arse to show up on the election day to fill it in. Old people vote.

Don't think it fixes the issue OP raised of an over-representation of the elderly in high political office either

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote: »

what if those younger voters, vote for policies that could potential jeopardise your life and well being?

you d be surprised of the amount of people havent realised yet, there are actually others forms of capitalisms, you ll find many of these type of debates end up with capitalism v's socialism, i personally believe we really should be having these debates where its actually capitalism v's capitalism

You mean like the way older voters are currently voting for policies that have led to some of the major problems we have now? A whole generation who struggle to afford a house or starting a family and that problem gathering pace. Do you know the average age of buying a first house, and starting families are going up and up and up and do you know the reasons why that's happening?