I still feel older folks have wisdom they need to part with but not fit to lead in any manner.

I still feel older folks have wisdom they need to part with but not fit to lead in any manner.


##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism^Ⓐ☭ ___ ###⚠ Announcements: ⚠ ___ ###[NEW POSTING GUIDELINES! Help us by reporting bad posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/dy1oyh/important_what_you_should_and_what_you_shouldnt/) Help us keep this subreddit alive and improve its content by reporting posts that violate our rules and guidelines. ###[Subscribe to our new partner subreddits!](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/e5hkwk/make_sure_to_check_out_our_new_partnersubreddits/) Check out r/antiwork & r/WhereAreTheChildren ___ ###***Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for [socialist](http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) discussion.*** LSC is run by [communists](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm). We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. **This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry.** We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Our rulers rule because they're rich, not because they're capable


If anything, they've managed to live a long time. Even parasites can die young so they've got that going for them.


Well being rich helps with that


and being a coward. being a coward helps you live longer, but there's not a lot of merit in being one.


Sure there is! As long as there's suckers I can force to pickup the slack I get all of the benefits without the downsides! I even get to advocate for ever more sacrifices, since I know I won't be the one making them! Oh you mean for the community? What are you, some kind of communist?!


Backstory: I happened to be on Twitter for whatever reason and saw some people defending Musk. This pissed me off, so I looked up some articles to use as sources for why he's a POS. Turns out Musk is even a bigger POS than most of us realize. [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/13/tesla-workers-pay-price-elon-musk-failed-promises](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/13/tesla-workers-pay-price-elon-musk-failed-promises) Imagine being so cruel that you are indifferent to racism and sexual harassment. Alas, apparently under capitalism this cruelty is both applauded and rewarded.


This guy capitalizes \^.


Money does that. Also makes you look REALLY good compared to others your age.


Or in the case of US presidents, they're puppets/useful idiots for the rich and their interests.


They’re not idiots. Maybe the orange one was, but the rest are in it to screw you.


NO, they rule because THEY ALWAYS HAVE. There is a reason the US elected Joe Biden, and there is a reason they elected Donald Trump. The reason is CHANGE IS HARD.


Or even give a damn about us.


>Our rulers rule because they're rich, not because they're capable https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy Here's what America is not: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy


They're capable, they're just not necessarily working in our best interest.


What, the suggestion being that the general well being is somehow more in our best interest than lining the pockets of these crypt keeping ghouls? Because the solution to that is to Marie Antoinette a few of the worthless fuckers.


Guillotines aren’t horribly expensive.


I'm @ the point where I want to rip one of their geriatric heads off with my bare hands tbh.


Just wait for them to put the fabrication contract up for bids, I bet the sticker prices for the General Dynamics HX-1793 will blow your mind


This is the way


The bigger issue with this is they don’t see the long term consequences of anything.


I can't remember what comedian said this but, "you are making decisions about the future when you won't be apart of it"


Dave Chapelle. He said it's like ordering for the table just as you're about to leave the restaurant.


Dave probably agrees, but you quoted a John Mulaney joke


Hence the need for a stakeholder model of management. The US has a shareholder model of corporate control - shareholders have all the control. Europe and UK have what economists call a stakeholder model - shareholders *and the other stakeholders* participate in control. Other stakeholders include the workers, the surrounding neighborhood where the corporation pollutes or uses public resources for things like transport, law enforcement. The idea is all who have a stake in an enterprise should have a voice in how the enterprise is carried out. If young people are too young to meaningfully participate in development of pollution laws that will impact them, we must do as courts in the major industrialized nations do, appoint a representative obligated by law to pursue their interests under penalty of being liable for damages caused by failure to take reasonable action to avoid harm to those being represented.


The UK is a terrible example of the stakeholder model.


I'd argue the UK is worse than the US in a lot of respects. Just not as far down the neoliberal death spiral yet.


Fair point, but in relation to my comment, that's like saying aquamarine is a bad example of a blue color. Dude it's still blue, which is qualitatively different from red. Same for shareholder versus stakeholder models. Old people shouldn't be the only ones deciding the future of teens and 20 somethings.


> Europe and UK have what economists call a stakeholder model This is just so wrong. While environmental and worker protections may be strong in lots of european countries than they are in most US states, rich people still have an incredibly disproportionate amount of power compared to the communities that they do their business in








Sure, what specific mechanism would prevent a pipeline being built in the UK that doesn’t exist in the US?


IMHO You're getting off topic. The topic is 70 and 80 yr olds making decisions that more greatly impact younger people. The stakeholder approach says younger people should be more involved because they have a larger stake in the matter. Saying stakeholders don't have enough power doesn't discredit the point that a stakeholder approach is better than the opposite. But let's look at your question, which corporation is more likely to stop a pipeline a shareholder model corporation or stakeholder model? I assume you'll argue they're both just as bad. A stakeholder model allows things other than profits to be raised and documented in the discussion process. CEO Moneybags might advocate a pipeline for the shareholders. But then Greta Goodneighbor, a neighbor and stakeholder who is also on the board, explains and presents evidence at the board meeting of how the pipeline will cause harm for which the corporation could be held liable for knowingly increasing pollution. Now, those who voted for the pipeline risk individual liability having heard Gretas evidence but ignoring it, when the pollution inevitably causes problems. I take ur point to be stakeholder corporations are still not democratic enough to change the profits above all else calculation that pervades the private sector. But that is not an argument for dismissing stakeholder models. It's an argument for moving farther away from shareholder models in the direction of more stakeholder participation in the process. Imagine someone arguing solar energy should not be preferred over dirty fossil fuels, because right now solar contributes the same level per device as fossil fuels. But if solar has a better potential for reducing fossil fuels, we should double down on them, not discard them, right? Same with stakeholder instead of shareholder models, no?


You asked for a specific question, promising to answer it. You did not in fact answer it and went on a diatribe. Have you worked in academia?


If you listen to press releases and public statements we're already there! Businesses have just replaced "shareholder" with "stakeholder". It's great doublespeak because shareholder's getting more lean and efficient refers to crunching workers, shareholder's facing hard times refers to customers, while ensuring/dispensing shareholder value refers to increasing profitablity for shareholder's. So you get back to back statements of "it's been a tough year due to COVID so no cost of living raises are possible for stakeholders" and "shareholder returns have been fantastic this year, buy more stock"


If that's what you need to call a dictatorship of the proletariat in order to get on board with it, I guess that's fine


That's what the term is supposed to refer to, but most of the time when I see tankies pull it they use it to refer to Stalin-era USSR, which is just. Not remotely equivalent.


And are the tankies here in the room with us now? There's no better way to lose all credibility than seething about straw "tankies" lmao I'd hope that the left learned enough from COINTELPRO to stop carrying water for fascists by inventing straw communists and getting mad at them


I mean the mods in most of the big leftist subreddits now autopost links to tankie subs as a sticky for every thread. I can go to r/communism and find a somewhat popular post about how Russian homophobia and anti-Semitism was cia prop or just "excising Mensheviks", and you can trigger a tankie to autopost a comment from their reply sticky after skimming your comment and seeing some hot button terms Do you participate in leftist discourse at all if you think tankies don't exist? Or are you just going to call everything cia prop to stifle discourse


Including more people in a decision making process increases democracy, which is a move away from dictatorship, no? How do you get dictatorship out of that?


I've actually read theory lol that's how. That's a Marxist concept. It means that the workers control the means of production and the state. And yes, it is more democratic than bourgeois liberal democracy like the west has


> a stakeholder model of management How about we get away from capitalist arrangements entirely?


that's what the US is ***supposed*** to be: representative of the people, a government *for* the people, *of* the people. no one runs against these schmucks, so they have reigns that last 30+ years, and then the people that don't compete bitch about how the incumbents are running them into the ground. sure you might not win, but throw enough people against them, and eventually more people will see that not everyone likes the guy. they didn't stay for 30 years because everyone liked them, they stood because no-one had the balls to run against them, and there was no-one to vote in *besides* that person.


Lots of people run against them. It's just that the media manufactures the consent to keep them in power through propaganda.


Chris rock said that when McCain was running against Obama. Saying he was too old years ago, and then what you said https://youtu.be/N29ahcqEabM


My employer’s CFO is 80 years old and his best attempt at “strategizing” is figuring out what he wants for lunch each day.


They see them, they just don’t care because they’ll be dead soon.


They don't have to. They'll be dead before it comes back around.


Do you think they would clean up their act if we discovered means for immortality tomorrow? Not all of the people running things into the ground are octogenarians.


No. That's when they start earnestly trying to establish living spaces off-planet.


And set up personal private utopias in the last remaining livable places on earth in the meantime.


It’s fucking strange: “Sure Brexit will hurt our economy in the short term but it will be WORTH IT in the long run! Trust me!” “Climate change mitigation will hurt our economy in the short term but will protect it in the long run? Lawl! I’ll be dead before the worst of it happens, I want my instant gratification NOW! Hashtag, YOLO!”


My friends dad is only in his 60s and is struggling to find a job after being made redundant. Even retrained and got some IT security qualifications, still tough as hell. He should give up and get into politics instead.


Aw that makes me sad ): some jobs are so agist, although politics should be an exception unless we require these politicians to get trained in new things like idk...how the internet works!!!!


If he doesn't mind taking a pay cut, there's a real shortage of IT/tech teachers right now and they won't care about his age.


I just found out that Biden is the oldest president elected in us history. And most of us presidents were in their 50's when elected. So it's not always been like that. [Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age)


Most US federal positions are either 2 or 4-year terms, with the possibility of being re-elected. ~~Meanwhile senators get 6 years (with a maximum of 12), and Federal judges are "for life", meaning retirement or death.~~ SENATORS AND HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES DO NOT HAVE A LIMIT TO NUMBER OF TERMS! Only in how long before re-election. This is the true craziness! No wonder Mitch McConnell was able to block a ton of Obama's legislation, and then do it again to Biden this year. This is also why a political party losing majority tries to stack the courts on their way out, as those judges won't budge once they're assigned, so their support keeps the "losing" party in the loop of major desicions. So much is wrong about the system, and it won't change anytime soon. EDIT: I have misplaced my trust in Google to give me an answer for max terms members of Congress have (NONE!), and have fixed my comment to reflect that. The numbers crossed out were from an article *discussing* term limit placements for them. My bad.


> Meanwhile senators get 6 years (with a maximum of 12), lol wut?


Fuck, it seems googling the term limits brings up a ton of articles talking about a new piece of legislature being DISCUSSED about limiting Senate terms to what I said above, instead of giving me an actual answer on the current standards (answer: non-existent). My apologies, and thanks for speaking up. I'll edit my original comment to redirect here. This is the discussed piece: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/104th-congress/house-report/67 Longest served senator was over 50 years, jesus christ. Mitch is on nearly 37 years and counting. Here I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, even though the math sounded iffy. We desperately need those limits. [(The list of Congress members by longest served terms is a disgrace to glance through)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service)


So, you might want to do some research before just saying shit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States


I was actually right in the middle of editing my comment to better show info. When doing a little research during work break this morning, all results kept bringing up a possible new law that WOULD limit max number of terms to Congress seats, instead of the easily broken-down table you linked.


Or you could practice correcting people in a non-rude manor


Desktop version of /u/POSTAUS's link: --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)


I am in my sixties, and honestly, I think 68 tops. Then, go play with the grandchildren and enjoy your life.


Seriously, so weird watching Rudy Guiliani make a complete fool of himself when he could just retire to some beach front condo in Florida and golf everyday till he dies. I guess being irrelevant and owning up to the fact you're going to die is real.


Same with Trump. He's old and rich. What the fuck is he doing? Why is he trying to be president so hard? He hates the people, the country and the system. Is he just trying to ruin everything before he dies? Is it an ego trip? Why ruin so many lives?


He's a narcissist who needs attention, I don't think he even wanted to win in 2016. He's actually doing a rally right now. He's like god to these red necks so he'll continue to do them. Giuliani was just embarrassing himself.


His dick doesn't work so he needs to get off on abusing power instead


I think it could be a hold over from our more tribal days as a species when there were far greater selection pressures. Back in 100 BCE only the strongest, and wisest, and well liked members of a tribe would reach such an age and the very fact they accomplished that was proof they knew how to lead a better life than 90% of the other people, which is why they were awarded the position of tribal elder (or it's equivalent). Now a days living to 80 isn't even that remarkable but we still on a collective unconscious level treat it as an accomplishment that demands respect automatically.


Asian cultures also deal with this where you’re supposed to respect your elders no matter what


based on my own experience with my father's mental decline, 55 might be best. Or at least some sort of a test to prove they are capable. You'd think the most powerful position would have the most strict requirements for fitness for the job. If you pronounce nuclear as 'nukular', you're out. If you have an IQ under 120, your out.


In addition mental adaptability and emotional intelligence is very important. We need leaders who can think on their feet and not get stuck mentally in a past that only exists in their heads.


IQ scores aren't a real measurement of intelligence, so I disagree with the IQ score part. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iq-scores-not-accurate-marker-of-intelligence-study-shows/


Oh god I’m 30 and constantly making fun of that Bushism caused me to say “nukular” instead.


It's pronounced "knuckle-ear"


If you use your instead of you're, you're out.


If you rely on Swype texting without proofreading, you're out I lose


If you have actual dementia, believe it or not, you’re Dianne Feinstein


At a certain point, in a more rational socialist system, elders should just mentor younger people. Would it not be better to limit the elite class to a model of worker-controlled servant leadership? I dunno, just riffing.


It is concerning that boomers are retiring and most services are catered to them. New homes are mostly catered to retiring boomers. They are the ones buying new vehicles and paying for repair services. I work in communications and until this last month I was installing service in homes. Most of the new homes were for older people. Big homes 3-4 bedrooms with a basement and garage, and only 2 people living there. Boomers are the ones paying for their plumbing to get fixed or to have their Grass cut, really any repair work. If I have a problem in my home I have to fix it myself. I've learned many skills because I just can't afford to pay someone else to come and fix it for an extreme price. I often wonder what services will be popular for our retiring generation. It's not like many will have retirement, many of us are already piled with debt and it continues to climb. If we even get to retire. The economy is ran by boomers, war, and Wallstreet. Even though younger generations are now out numbering boomers we still don't have the economic power to influence.


You'll be too busy fighting over water and food to worry about retirement.


My retirement plan is dying in the climate wars.


I’m gonna be really embarrassed when my computer that I keep giving blowjobs to doesn’t take over the world.




Ah the Hunter S Thompson school of retirement. An effective one to be sure.


Same lmao


Geriatrics is already *booming* or on the brink of meltdown, depending on if you're a business or healthcare worker. I can't imagine what it's going to look like in 10 years. There's already jokes about putting a cath lab on every corner and statins in the water supply.


Not to your comment specifically, but Boomer hate is a politically inept strategy as it lumps all people into a political persuasion based on their age alone when we all don't think that way. Most of my family (myself included) are "Boomers" and older, and most of us are socialists if not in name then in ideology. Yes, we are wealthier than later generations but we didn't create that situation or support it as it exists now; it was just random chance as far as I am concerned, and understanding this and acting accordingly is the key. Thus I am not going to suggest that you learning skills that people want to pay for is possible (or desirable) for everyone, but it does transfer wealth from them to you. But Boomers have the same concerns every one else does - healthcare, housing, financial security post-employment, etc. and many share the same social concerns as non-Moomers, ie UBI, college tuition and climate change. We have children who are struggling with all of these things, and we care about our children, and yours too. If Boomers are in charge and as wealthy as many here assert (and many aren't, trust me) then appealing to common cause for the public good is a far better strategy than vilifying them (and again, I don't think you're doing that with your comment).


Thank you for this post. I've made some snide boomer comments in the past but will refrain from doing so in the future.


You say that, but you might find yourself in the minority for being concerned about future generations Most don't, they are nicknamed the "Me Generation" for a reason, full of narcissism, and as we all know, narcissism is the epitome of evil So I don't think the hate is unwarranted, blame your boomer brethren for being such genetically evil pieces of shit, I am sorry for you for being the only sane few in a group full of unrepentant psychopaths


You're definitely the minority. Most Boomers clearly don't give a shit about their children based on how they vote. Forgive me for being bitter that Boomers got to enjoy all the fruits of the previous generations labour and poisoned the well for the generations following them.


Revolt. General strike. Do something or put up with it.


Fuck yes! I've been saying this for years!!! We don't trust someone who is 70 to drive a car but we let them drive a country.


Actually we do in the USA. We fight tooth and nail not to test their driving abilities too. In their defense not driving and low physical mobility is like being in prison in 99% of the USA.


Here's live video of Boomers driving the country. We are the pedestrian. https://www.reddit.com/r/watchpeoplesurvive/comments/puf4jo/some_old_man_in_latvia_almost_killed_another_man/


*Is this the parking lot to Country Kitchen Buffet?*


key words there: "***we*** let them drive a country"


The only thing we can decide is if it will be a 78 year old or a 75 year old.


not true at all.


Was there another choice next to Biden and Trump?


Howie Hawkins and Jo Jorgensen? also, you know there's more to US governance than the presidential elections every 4 years, right? lots of local positions too.


Our system is not set up to allow you to vote for your ideal candidate in the general election. Vote with your heart in the primary, vote with your brain in the general. It’s a shitty saying, but oh so true.


The duopoly is corrupt to the core. Voting for the duopoly is a fool's errand. Independents/undecided and eligible non-voters are the largest voting block in the country. The vote blue/red no matter who people are minorities with little power when we start voting with our heads out of our asses. Vote for a strong third party and make the duopoly jump. https://peoplesparty.org/


These options literally exist, but don't have a hope of actually winning because the system is set up to exclude them. I support voting 3rd party, but we really need to stop lying to ourselves -- America isn't a democracy and never was.




Just because you didn’t research other options doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.


An option with no chance is not an option, it's an illusion.


it's still an option. it can be a shitty, dogshit, lame, useless, unreal option, but the fact remains that it's an option regardless of how you feel about it. don't like the option? don't fking pick it.


You're right, so many people still think they're being smart/practical/reasonable voting blue/red. They still don't get that serving the duopoly is one of the biggest problems in the USA . They don't understand how politics works, that you have to show you're willing to not vote for the duopoly before the duopoly will listen to fucking anything you have to say.


> we let them drive a country. Do we? Because I don't really think the American system is democratic; we don't really get to choose our leaders.


Yeah! Fuck old people!


I always figured that the baby boomers, a generation that was given everything and refused to share with the generations behind them, would hold on to power and not let go.


I have a weird idea I didn't really finalize yet, that people who made enough money to retire on median income right now should be thrown out to retirement and banned from any economic activity. You made enough money? Nice, go home now, let other people participate in the society.


you get a medal that says "you won capitalism" and every penny after a billion gets donated to social services that need them in your local area.


This is why retirement is a farce. My field is full of people in their late 50s and early 60s. They've worked 30+ years and are trying to retire to "enjoy their golden years", but are so wracked by mental/physical decline that they'll likely spend their last years suffering at home or as a patient of the hospital they were loyal to. Live your life now. After 60 it's pretty much a toss of the dice.


A little ageist, but true!


I really wish that we as a society would really at least try and recognize that the whole boomer generation was lead poisoned. Like, maybe they shouldn't be allowed in power?


I'm here to say the only old people anyone should listen to are old radicals... hippies, folk singers, anarchists, Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman etc. Fuck everyone else. Your granddaddy aint got shit to say!


All the old fucks are sitting on yachts while in office, not doing shit, not even reading bills, and yet they get to live a happy life and retire to their private estates to pass down that wealth to another generation of soon to be old fucks that will keep that influence. Can’t wait until I’m 50 and old enough to say fuck it. I’ll make my own power grab before I jump ship.


The whole idea of mental decline while aging has been radically changed, it’s just not an actual thing. The original study that everyone here is going on was flawed. New studies show that you are more or less constant until about 3-5 years before you die. Not saying old white men should run the US, but let’s not assume all old people are stupid because of age.


On the point of mental decline I would agree, however, they also make decisions that they do not have to face the consequences of. "If im only going to live 10 more years, might as well make as much money on my way out and fuck the future generations that will have to die and deal with climate change."


I don't know man, I'm not even 30 and I feel it


>New studies show that you are more or less constant until about 3-5 years before you die. I hate to break it to you...


Them soemtjing else is going onwitj me


Could you provide some sources, sounds like an interesting topic to look into


Yeah nah I don't believe that. You just nonchalantly and confidently said how the old "science" was wrong. The old science is always wrong, just like the new science will one day be. These things aren't tangible and a study can be made to say anything. Old people mentally decline. Any human who has ever known an old person can attest to that. What is their methodology?


It's less about mental decline and skill mismatch (not entirely sure why you would consider anyone whose skills didn't match what you need but whatever). I can understand a construction company opting to hire younger, more physically fit people but lets compare like to like. A job that's less physical and more mental, since that's what legislating is. Really, companies tend to be biased in favor of younger because they're cheaper to hire and, if all goes well, they'll stick around for a long time. The hiring process takes time and money, you need to field candidates, interview, go through the paperwork and training. From start to finish that can be anywhere from a week to a month depending on the position. Someone at 70-80 probably won't stick around too long, so you're going through this hiring process again. Those problems aren't as severe in government. Everyone is getting paid the same flat rate in congress. So whether you're 25 or 75, you're getting paid the same. As for hiring, training and replacing, elections are held for reps every 2 years, 4 years for president and 6 for senate. In terms of legislators opting out early before their time is up, it's actually rare (assuming they're not leaving because of a scandal). If voters truly thought less of older senior citizens and were worried about mental acuity, well, just vote for someone else in the primary/election. Though, I'll admit I'm biased a bit, I do like Bernard Sanders a bit and he's definitely in the 70-80 age range. When I think of congressmen who might not be there mentally, I'm not really thinking of some of our older members. Really people like Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene flip an alarm off in my mind and one would certainly not consider them senior citizens.


Experience = Bias so it's not always a good thing


Y'all keep electing them.


It distresses me that so many leftists don't vote. You don't like any of the candidates? Fine. Do what I did and request a mail-in ballot, then put "Karl Marx" or "Samwise Gamgee" or "Big Chungus" as a write-in candidate. If even 1% of ballots have a protest vote on them, they'll have to pay attention.


> they'll have to pay attention. How exactly does that change anything? What actual quantifiable effect would that have that is different from not voting?


It creates a demographic of “younger people who went through the trouble of voting, but didn’t vote for any of the available candidates.” Politicians will try to figure out how to capture that demographic.


You know that in 2020 more than 1% of voters voted 3rd party, right? They literally don't care. As long as there is a veneer of democratic consent, it doesn't matter.


And the response in 2016 was to just demonize and shame 3rd party voters lol


Generalisations are generally true for the class but each instance of the class warrants individual attention. Some old people are more capable than many young. Just as youth is not a reliable qualification, age is not a reliable indicator of incompetence or of any particular feature of human ability.


To me the issue is not whether age is a reliable indicator of capability, it's more that people that age shouldn't hold the majority of positions of power, making decisions that they will never live to see the consequences of. Of course a bunch of 70 and 80 year olds aren't willing to enact radical changes to combat climate change. The whole crisis is abstract for them. They'll never live to see the real destruction, and making radical change means not doing what they want to right now. I also think a big part of why tech companies have been allowed to run amok is because the people with the power to do anything about it literally do not understand the technology and the business models they are supposed to be regulating.


Older people are very concerned about the future of the planet and hope that it will be left in good hands. What evidence do you have that older people don't care? Older people often have the freedom to care about the future of the planet whereas many young people are concerned only with maximising their profit. Old people often have grandchildren for which they care enormously. Young people do not have that investment in the future but often care only for their own careers and personal prospects. That is their job after all -- to find their place in the world. I can see the argument -- if we accept the argument that people act only out of selfish interest as determined by The Market. But this argument is false. Serious economists and policy analysts discarded that theory decades ago yet it persists in the popular imagination because it is so simple and easy to understand. Just like generalisations are simple and easy to understand. Generalisations are bad enough predictors but throw in the influence of failed theories of economic behavior and our predictions completely lose relevance.


>What evidence do you have that older people don't care? How about a congress full of geriatrics who have all the power necessary to address climate change but choose not to in order to protect their corporate donors?


Full of geriatrics? Please take a look at how old people in Congress actually are. Most are quite youthful -- unless you're looking from the vantage of a teenager. You're thinking ah - the octogenarian Bernie Sanders? Or the young and vibrant Krysten Sinema?


The average age of the 117th Congress is 59 years old and the median is 60 years old. The average age of the Senate is 63 years. So i would argue most are not "quite youthful". Although not geriatrics either.


You're being intentionally obtuse and pedantic. Generalizations allow us to draw conclusions and have a discussion around a subject. You can find an exception to any broadly made conclusion. In general, elderly people who won't have to live with the consequences should not be the only ones making the big decisions that affect us all. Edit to add: The average age in Congress is around 58. The average age of the country is 38. Congress skews significantly older. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.


> making decisions that they will never live to see the consequences of. So under your logic, people with terminal illnesses, or those with diseases shown to shorten their lifespan would be included to in those you feel we shouldn't elect? You're running a slippery slope into eugenics by claiming we should not listen to certain people because their estimated remaining lifespan. A 70 year old could be here for 20 years or 5. But someone with cystic fibrosis at 35 could be here for 20 years or 5 as well. Saying someone must have a certain number of estimate years left on the earth to be a politician feels gross.


🙄 I didn't say that. I said they shouldn't be the ONLY ones making decisions. Currently, they in large part are.


> age is not a reliable indicator of incompetence or of any particular feature of human ability. That's not true at all. Age is absolutely a reliable indicator of deterioration, both mental, and physical. At different speeds for each person, but it's universally a deterioration. Just because some will deteriorate at a different rate, doesn't change this.


I think you missed the point of the comment. Now to make sure nothing gets lost in my interpretation: I agree. Age is a good indicator. For a general sweep. But there are always individuals who behave differently, so individual decisions are needed. Not everyone declines like with old age. My grandma is 80 and walks dogs daily, driving 15+ km on her bike to get to said dogs and those 15+ km back to get home. Her physical decline is clearly not the same as the general decline of people. Yknow? Generalizations are good for general statements, but they are not guaranteed to uphold in individual instances.


I know 85+ year old who golfs daily, is sharp as a tack and if you looked at her would think she's probably around 60. Why does the person above you feel like her opinion and abilities doesn't matter?


The difference in rate of deterioration, and the variable features undergoing deterioration -- physical, emotional, intellectual -- is exactly what I'm talking about. You cannot predict, with any meaningful precision, the intellectual abilities of someone in their eighties. You cannot take at random any young person and any old person and predict which one is a complete idiot and which is a thoughtful and intelligent human being.


There are people more mentally sharp at 70 than those at 45. Judging people by their age alone and not their aptitude is not fair. Of course there are general age related declines in physical and some mental aptitudes, but you can't judge an individual based on general trends. That's not fair, you're basically defending prejudice.


I’m convinced the vast majority of Twitter users have never take a statistics course.


this is what is wrong with the world. Old people should never be in power. they are close to death and have little to lose. they are selfish morons who are okay with sacrificing young people (most of those who die in war are young men).


When's the last time you heard "Y will not be seeking re-election for an Xth term"?


I honestly don’t pay the rent.


lol at people who think congress runs the country


Capitalism is when you vote for old people.


70-80 is too old, but it’s even worse than that. Senators like Grassley and Feinstein are already 88(!) and still not leaving office. Pretty sure I just saw Grassley is running again.


I seem to recall that the very word Senate and Senator comes from a classical language word for "old man", senex.


My favourite line is when they tell us they're working "100 hours a week for their constituents" at that age. Yeah, okay, buddy.


Should definitely have age limits


If you think experience is bad, try ignorance.


My Grandpa is 71 and he is mentally fine, he just has outdated views like the way to buy a house is just to save and to overcome mental health struggles you should just go to work because productivity=happiness to people like him.


They aren’t deemed unemployable due to mental decline. Most people working at that age are working remedial jobs. They aren’t as productive as younger people. I completely disagree. I don’t care how old a person is, I care more about their policies and ideas. Plenty of younger people have shitty policies and ideas. Pete Buttigieg is a perfect example.


Slippery slope. This type of ageism can be used to subvert a nation - say get rid of all supreme court justices that have served over x terms. Gerrymandering is probably a larger problem. Have you seen the latest crop of crazy congressmen and congresswomen?


Yeah. You’re right. Should people have stopped listening to Chomsky on his 70th birthday? Being younger does not necessarily increase competence.


Perhaps we should remove all ageism from official positions as well, then. You must be 25 to be in congress and 35 to be president. There's also no defined law for age of Supreme Court, so why have an age minimum on the other two branches? I say both minimum and maximum, or neither and age is undefined.


We live in a geriatracy.


The term is "gerontocracy"


I didn't know that the term was actually real; I was making a joke. We learned something today!


At least 20% of legislative personnel should be younger then 35. Ideally younger then 30. The young are the ones that understand the world as it is now.


what wisdom?


Experience. That can't be taught and it's a powerful teacher.


Obsolete experience. The world changes so fast now that the idea of the wise old person is ludicrous. I know a lot of 60, 70 and 80 year olds (my parents used to run care homes) and, honestly, they might be lovely people but they are completely clueless. There is nothing to learn from the old.


Everyone you ever meet knows something that you don't.


That is a loaded statement that requires a full explanation of what you consider 'knowledge.' Knowledge is something that is constantly moving, updating, growing. Almost everything you 'know' will be wrong eventually. Knowledge is a process. And now, thanks to technology, it is an area increasingly being monopolised by machine learning systems.


Nothing, really? I have a hard time believing that. There's probably plenty of hings that don't have to do with tech that you can learn from them.


My comment was removed because I quoted an old person. So I will re-do this comment. Yeah, sure, I can learn all about the horrible mores of their time. Nothing like being told by an old lady that 'she doesn't believe in rape,' or that she doesn't want to be seen by "some n-g n-g doctor." I've been surrounded by the old my entire life, having to act as if their horrible views and desires are perfectly fine. Society moves faster than our minds can keep up. As you age your brain becomes less able to adapt. One day you'll be the bigoted old person too. And, when you get a critical mass of old people who haven't adapted their views, you get a society that looks back, instead of forward, and then collapses.


If you really think (all/most) old people are like that, you're not far off from being like the ones you describe yourself.




Your post was removed because it contained a racist term. You should receive a message from the automoderator telling you the exact term the post was removed for. For more information, see [this link](https://weeklysift.com/2015/06/29/slurs-who-can-say-them-when-and-why/). **Avoiding slurs takes little effort, and asking us to get rid of the filter rather than making that minimum effort is a good way to get banned. Do not attempt to circumvent the filter with creative spelling; circumventing the filter will result in a permaban.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Proposal: maximum age of office. Citizens are only eligible for terms of office that ***end*** before they reach the lowest average life expectancy at birth taken from all states and choosing the sex and racial cohort with the lowest life expectancy (rounded down to the nearest whole number). Want to do politics at an older age? Fine. Put measures in place to raise life expectancy for the poorest among us. The average life expectancy for men in West Virginia is 71.7. I don't have race specific data. That means senators can be no older than 65 when elected.


Jesus so much ageism here. Folks, just because a lot of people in a particular group have a problem, doesn't mean it's OK to judge that entire group based on that norm. That's how prejudice happens. Yes, we have too many ageing horrible people in power. But judge them on their individual competence, don't just say "old people suck".


I'll stop being ageist when old fucks stop being racist


Life is a bell curve, no one in congress over 70 could outwit a parrot


Here's the nuclear codes Joe... I said HERE'S THE NUCLEAR CODES!


Worth pointing out that this is worse for Dems than Republicans. The average age of Dem leadership is 72(!!!) and the average age of Republican leadership is only 48.


They're not doing any actual leading they're all puppets. They use senior people because they're easier to control.


Hahaha. No. Seniors are not easier to control. They just don't give a fuck that you want them to do X when their plan is to do Y. Imagine yourself at 80 yrs old and your kid or grandkid wants you to let them help you with their finances. Or wants you to move in with them "for your own good". But you refuse. You are happy in your own house with your own stuff. You are an adult and they can fuck off with what they want. My grandmother told off her 6 kids for trying to plan that her and grandpa move cities and live with one of the kids. She was in her 70's and grandpa had reached 80. They lived in their own place another decade. Once one of them had a fall, she started talking with them about a move. At that point, they were treating her and grandpa with a lot more respect. Only the truly infirm or senile can get pushed around. My family lives well into their nineties with sharp minds. Don't make simplistic assumptions when your basic premise isn't even sound. Why don't you actually get to know some older people - beyond their polite veneers that they show most people.


you can have a strong sense of wanting to do things yourself as you described, *and* not be a dick to your kids when they're looking out for their ageing parent's well-being (they should respect your want to be your own selves until you prove otherwise as well). maybe it's nice to know that there's an offer being extended that you're welcome to stay with your kids instead of just being put in a home in relative close distance to them? People could be so lucky.


The kids were being dicks (my aunts and uncles). They were having conversations together without including my grandparents - about the future for my grandparents. They were coming to my grandparents with a "We're going to move you... " That was completely disrespectful. My grandmother was a great lady. She raised great kids. But she also raised them to be decision makers. That was part of the problem. They apologized! Then they included grandma and grandpa back into the decisions. Once they did move in with one of the aunts... we all got to visit a lot. Yes, a very loving family that took care of their own. Yes, they were fortunate. She was a strong head of the family - afterward they laugh about how bizarre it was to try to make plans for her- without including her. Sadly, people do it with their elderly relatives all the time.


Through my different lines of work, I have gotten to know a lot of elderly people. Shit, my parents moved my grandparents in with us and they were begrudging af about it, so I can pull some anecdotal evidence of my own. And you're not exactly right. *Anyone* resents being told they are too infirm/mentally unwell to do basic things anymore, regardless of whether they are or not. But at a very low threshold of mental decline, if they are convinced that it was their idea to do something, it becomes much easier to get their goals to align with yours. Especially if your voice stands out as insisting they are capable when everyone else is telling them they need assistance. So now imagine you're an 80 y/o congressman. An oil lobbyist approaches you and makes some PragerU-esque case why you should relax regulation on their market, and it *just so happens* to include some free-market talking points you've espoused for the last 20 years. Then they sweeten the pot with some cushy speaking gigs once your term is up, and you realize you can retire in luxury with a nice nest egg for your loved ones. Maybe some logical/moral indiscretions in their case get overlooked. Or maybe you're too far gone to even think of them. We're not talking about control as in overt blackmail or commanding them. We're talking about massaging the squishy brains of easily-influenced people that are losing their grasp on the finer details of reality. Shit, if they're like most US politicians, their connection to the reality of how the world works outside of the upper echelons may have never been something they knew or cared about to begin with. Good for you if your grandparents had solid mental longevity and would admit they need help after a fall. Some people are genuinely introspective and smart to the end. But my grandparents started mentally declining in their 80s, and my grandpa had alzheimers early on. Given articles like [this](https://www.statnews.com/2017/10/11/pharmacist-congress-drug-delivery/), it's clear that not every politician is as sharp as your folks are. I wouldn't want someone like my grandpa passing legislation that decides if a new pipeline gets built or if healthcare remains as it is.


People generally get swayed by cushy speaking gigs in their 50's and sometimes on into their 60's. At that point, no they don't get swayed as easily. Of course, they also have people pushing at them from every single direction. Not just the closest to them. I have watched many YOUNG politicians and business people get swayed a helluva a lot more in bad short term directions due to their lack of personal experience, than I have seen older politicians make hasty bad decisions. However, I am not from the US. So, in my country I have also seen politicians switch parties or go independent when they actually get more life experience and realize that their "ideals" actually do have bad effects on a lot of vulnerable people. There are lots of people who die well before 80. I just don't think that making the assumption that your grandparents were declining is a good thing to assume about other extremely capable 80 yr olds. I have an 82 yr old great uncle that would still PHYSICALLY kick out butts and os very business savvy. He is a Farmer. But has a few hundred cattle, etc. Not your typical farmer. Of course he has lots of younger people with great and bad ideas. He has the ability to sift thru "we already tried that 20 yrs ago and got result X". That is experience on a multi-tiered scale that is way different than dealing with our own grandparents.


>People generally get swayed by cushy speaking gigs in their 50's and sometimes on into their 60's. At that point, no they don't get swayed as easily. I'm curious how you came to this conclusion. At least here in the US, corruption seems to know no age. It just so happens a lot of high-ranking politicians are seniors, so they get targeted for and take advantage of a lot of kickbacks. >Of course, they also have people pushing at them from every single direction. Not just the closest to them. I have watched many YOUNG politicians and business people get swayed a helluva a lot more in bad short term directions due to their lack of personal experience, than I have seen older politicians make hasty bad decisions. Could it be the older ones are just more subtle/experienced in hiding their backroom deals? >However, I am not from the US. So, in my country I have also seen politicians switch parties or go independent when they actually get more life experience and realize that their "ideals" actually do have bad effects on a lot of vulnerable people. God I wish this would happen here more often. It doesn't and probably won't, but I can dream... >There are lots of people who die well before 80. I just don't think that making the assumption that your grandparents were declining is a good thing to assume about other extremely capable 80 yr olds. Ok this is kind of an annoying, condescending point. First of all: they were diagnosed by their doctors, no assumptions made. It was clear from their forgetful, increasingly agitated behavior that something was happening. I didnt have a hunch and be like "ah, well it must be bc they're old". Also, I specialized in sleep and age-related cognitive decline. I'm not pulling 80 out of my ass- [Normal subject performance declines progressively with age on these more complex attentional tasks. However, simple attention tasks such as digit span are maintained in normal subjects up to age 80](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4906299/) Second, when it comes to other 80 year olds, I don't. It is absolutely case by case. However, when I see Pelosi, Clinton, Biden, McConnell, Trump almost doesn't count bc he was a dipshit from the get-go... exhibit symptoms of MCI, I wonder how many other, smaller profile Gov't officials have it or more extensive cognitive decline and continue to govern; the known unknowns. >I have an 82 yr old great uncle that would still PHYSICALLY kick out butts and os very business savvy. He is a Farmer. But has a few hundred cattle, etc. Not your typical farmer. Of course he has lots of younger people with great and bad ideas. He has the ability to sift thru "we already tried that 20 yrs ago and got result X". That is experience on a multi-tiered scale that is way different than dealing with our own grandparents. Again, it's awesome that you have sharp elderly relatives! Truly, that suggests that you have a good chance of being consistently capable yourself. Should we all be so lucky. But I truly don't know what you're suggesting here, because in the context of governing, we have a pretty detailed history of laws and regulation. Anyone can find how a certain law panned out through research, theres numerous legal and public opinion articles on particularly controversial ones. And whatever you mean by experience on a multi-tiered scale, its bizarre that you say this is different from dealing with grandparents when you're literally referencing your great uncle. If you're suggesting that unique personal experience outweighs the potential of losing the physical underpinnings of memory and critical thought, we're on very different wavelengths.


I can't imagine wanting to be in politics at 70, let alone 75 or 80 years old. What a nightmare!


Because America is full of bad faith arguments made by those who see a benefit for themselves.


Are "they".......