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

RIP to the great Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The fact she was 87 got me thinking.

I would question in the US how so many people in positions of power are so old. Surely this isn't healthy for a democracy?

Trump is a bit unsteady on the feet and is rumoured to have had a stroke. Biden has had two aneurysms and Nancy Pelosi is clearly exhibiting signs of cognitive decline. Bernie Sanders had a heart attack. Hillary Clinton collapsed a few times during her last presidential run.

The last Democratic primary showed us that there is no shortage of excellent candidates, but for some reason they were ignored.

• Former first lady and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton: 71 years old
• Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI): 72 years old
• Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): 72 years old
• President Donald Trump (R): 73 years old
• Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats: 76 years old
• Former Vice President Joe Biden (D): 77 years old
• Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): 77 years old
• Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-V): 78 years old
• House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): 79 years old
• Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): 85 years old
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): 86 years old
• Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): 86 years old
• Anthony Fauci - 79 years old

screamer

Have you ever been to the US to see people in their 70s and older packing bags in Walmart?
Why not? Age should only be a number, if the person is able and experienced, their age should not be held against them. I’d actually ask why Ireland is so against older people working.

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

RIP to the great Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The fact she was 87 got me thinking.

I would question in the US how so many people in positions of power are so old. Surely this isn't healthy for a democracy?

Trump is a bit unsteady on the feet and is rumoured to have had a stroke. Biden has had two aneurysms and Nancy Pelosi is clearly exhibiting signs of cognitive decline. Bernie Sanders had a heart attack. Hillary Clinton collapsed a few times during her last presidential run.

The last Democratic primary showed us that there is no shortage of excellent candidates, but for some reason they were ignored.

• Former first lady and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton: 71 years old
• Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI): 72 years old
• Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): 72 years old
• President Donald Trump (R): 73 years old
• Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats: 76 years old
• Former Vice President Joe Biden (D): 77 years old
• Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): 77 years old
• Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-V): 78 years old
• House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): 79 years old
• Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): 85 years old
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): 86 years old
• Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): 86 years old
• Anthony Fauci - 79 years old

There's nothing wrong with having a little gray hair and wisdom about the place but the situation in the US is bordering on gerontocracy. The only other developed country I can think of ran by in large by pension aged people and above is Japan; and that's a country in serious decline in influence on the world.

Man with broke phone

As you get older you realise how stupid you were when you thought you knew how to fix everything.

You realise that rules were usually put there for a reason and the way things are done have been forged over centuries.

It takes you a few decades to realise your mammy wasnt telling the truth and you arnt some genius that can solve all of societies problems with very little knowledge of it all.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

nthclare

screamer wrote: »

Have you ever been to the US to see people in their 70s and older packing bags in Walmart?
Why not? Age should only be a number, if the person is able and experienced, their age should not be held against them. I’d actually ask why Ireland is so against older people working.

Well said, older people's dignity and abilities should never be undermined.

I know a lot of people who are old and they're quiet happy when they can do something today that they took for granted yesterday.

fly_agaric

Saw an article about this US phenomenon a while ago (it is about a year old) that made some funny comparisons to the old lads/fossils who used to wield power in the Soviet Union.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/03/america-gerontocracy-problem-politics-old-politicians-trump-biden-sanders-227986

...The U.S. doesn’t have a Politburo, but if you calculate the median age of the president, the speaker of the House, the majority leader of the Senate, and the three Democrats leading in the presidential polls for 2020, the median age is … uh … 77.

It doesn’t stop there. We heard a lot last November about the fresh new blood entering Congress, but when the current session began in January, the average ages of House and Senate members were 58 and 63, respectively. That’s slightly older than the previous Congress (58 and 62), which was already among the oldest in history. The average age in Congress declined through the 1970s but it’s mostly increased since the 1980s.

Maybe the US could do with an infusion of some more "youngsters" with a bit of energy & life into its politics alright. Obama was quite young when elected Preseident as leaders go I suppose but going by that article he seems to be an exception.

El_Duderino 09

screamer wrote: »

Have you ever been to the US to see people in their 70s and older packing bags in Walmart?
Why not? Age should only be a number, if the person is able and experienced, their age should not be held against them. I’d actually ask why Ireland is so against older people working.

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.

Wanderer78

They chose the right parents and the right date of birth!

screamer

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.

Wow, that is breath taking for all the wrong reasons

NSAman

There is nothing wrong with age.

I actually find the lack of older people in Europe to be ageist.

Lack of experience, huge egos and over placed confidence is my current bug-bear in Europe. OK ability to be energetic and stamina might be offset, but experience trumps most of that, unless the individual is very bright and a fast learner.

Allow me to say a little story. Quite a few years ago, we were looking for someone for the office in the States. Many young people applied, honestly, I could not have taken any of them, lack of skillsets, bad communication, in some cases just to "woke" and opinionated and just would not fit in with everyone else. I kept putting off one application what was from a retired man. Yes agesit I know. Eventually, I had to interview him. He wanted the job simply to maintain his healthcare for himself and his aging wife.

Little did I know when I interviewed him, what an absolute asset he would be!

He had the experience, he had the knowledge, he had the way with people and most of all he was just a fantastic human being.

Needless to say, a man of 65 became my right hand man, my confidante and most of all my friend.

All of our clients loved him, his sense of humour, he warmth and forthrightness, endeared him to anyone he met.

We lost him to cancer quickly 7 years ago. He asked me to make one promise to him and that was to look after his daughter. Needless to say, that promise has been kept and is being kept.

Never overlook those who maybe older.... they too have gifts to share!!

Yurt2

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.

That is a dangerous idea that quite simply should never be entertained.

However, you are correct that it appears societies top-heavy with pensioners end up with political systems servicing the needs of an aging class of people with accumulated wealth and are extremely slow at addressing urgent economic choke-points facing other demographics.

Western European population pyramids have never looked like they do now, and this phenomenon will get more pronounced over time.

Smee_Again

screamer wrote: »

Have you ever been to the US to see people in their 70s and older packing bags in Walmart?
Why not? Age should only be a number, if the person is able and experienced, their age should not be held against them. I’d actually ask why Ireland is so against older people working.

I don't disagree with the sentiment but I'd guess that a lot of those older people working are doing so more out of necessity than anything else.

El_Duderino 09

screamer wrote: »

Wow, that is breath taking for all the wrong reasons

Which reasons?

screamer

Smee_Again wrote: »

I don't disagree with the sentiment but I'd guess that a lot of those older people working are doing so more out of necessity than anything else.

Perhaps but at least they have an option if necessary, here they are forced out of the workforce and expected to just stop being useful. I don’t agree with that either, retirement should be an option not an order.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Which reasons?

Any idea if you think you ll get old?

El_Duderino 09

Yurt! wrote: »

That is a dangerous idea that quite simply should never be entertained.

However, you are correct that it appears societies top-heavy with pensioners end up with political systems servicing the needs of an aging class of people with accumulated wealth and are extremely slow at addressing urgent economic choke-points facing other demographics.

Western European population pyramids have never looked like they do now, and this phenomenon will get more pronounced over time.

I think it's a necessary change (though i accept it's radical). But the main change i'd like to see is more young people voting. But young people vote today at about the same rate that young people always voted. Young people just don't vote in a way that can change the thing.

Old people are becoming more numerous and they vote on issues that really don't reflect the needs of modern societies. I would support diminishing the vote of older people. They just don't have as much at stake in society as young people and generally, they don't have a clue about how the world is right now.

Glinda

I would say money - and a lifetime spent accumulating it. Not necessary to the same degree on this side of the Atlantic, but being in public life in the US costs a fortune, and much of their wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of the rich elderly.

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Any idea if you think you ll get old?

I certainly hope so.

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

bobbyy gee

the court is a job for life and they put you in after 50

BattleCorp

screamer wrote: »

Have you ever been to the US to see people in their 70s and older packing bags in Walmart?
Why not? Age should only be a number, if the person is able and experienced, their age should not be held against them. I’d actually ask why Ireland is so against older people working.

Because of the state of the social welfare services in the US, many old people can't afford to retire. It's not that they are all doing it for the fun of it.

I used to work there and saw an old guy struggling to get out of a cement truck. Being a stupid mouthy person, I got chatting with him and asked him his age. he was over 80 years old. I asked him why he wasn't retired (rude of me I know) at that age and he told me that if he didn't work, he couldn't pay his rent.

It's sad when it comes to that.

screamer

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think it's a necessary change (though i accept it's radical). But the main change i'd like to see is more young people voting. But young people vote today at about the same rate that young people always voted. Young people just don't vote in a way that can change the thing.

Old people are becoming more numerous and they vote on issues that really don't reflect the needs of modern societies. I would support diminishing the vote of older people. They just don't have as much at stake in society as young people and generally, they don't have a clue about how the world is right now.

They still have to live in that world though, and it’s very disingenuous to say they don’t have a clue about how the world is. If we said about young people, they don’t care what’s going on in the world, or perhaps they would use their vote....... we cannot make these assumptions and thankfully we are all equal when it comes to voting rights

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

Because of the state of the social welfare services in the US, many old people can't afford to retire. It's not that they are all doing it for the fun of it.

I used to work there and saw an old guy struggling to get out of a cement truck. Being a stupid mouthy person, I got chatting with him and asked him his age. he was over 80 years old. I asked him why he wasn't retired (rude of me I know) at that age and he told me that if he didn't work, he couldn't pay his rent.

It's sad when it comes to that.

Americans really don't like socialism. If that man could retire on a decent socialist state pension (as I think most people here would agree is right and proper) then the dreaded socialists would be winning.

screamer

screamer wrote: »

Have you ever been to the US to see people in their 70s and older packing bags in Walmart?
Why not? Age should only be a number, if the person is able and experienced, their age should not be held against them. I’d actually ask why Ireland is so against older people working.

Big difference in packing bags in Walmart and running a country.

This isn't about bashing old people - I'm nearly 50 myself - but at that age you simply are completely out of touch with what's going on in the world at large. I don't care who you are.

I'm not suggesting we let a bunch of teenagers run the country either, but for gods sake people in their late 70s and 80s shouldn't be calling the shots anymore.

I would question the arrogance and hubris of someone who thinks they are firing on all cylinders still at that age. That's not to say they can't make valuable contributions to society, but they should be doing it in the private sphere. Not in public office.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Which reasons?

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

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

......

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Americans really don't like socialism. If that man could retire on a decent socialist state pension (as I think most people here would agree is right and proper) then the dreaded socialists would be winning.

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

screamer

BattleCorp wrote: »

Because of the state of the social welfare services in the US, many old people can't afford to retire. It's not that they are all doing it for the fun of it.

I used to work there and saw an old guy struggling to get out of a cement truck. Being a stupid mouthy person, I got chatting with him and asked him his age. he was over 80 years old. I asked him why he wasn't retired (rude of me I know) at that age and he told me that if he didn't work, he couldn't pay his rent.

It's sad when it comes to that.

It’ll be sadder here in a few years when pension funds will run dry, and there won’t be enough tax payers per pensioner, and our pensioners will still be forced out of the workforce and discriminated against, leaving them with no option to work to keep themselves.

BattleCorp

screamer wrote: »

It’ll be sadder here in a few years when pension funds will run dry, and there won’t be enough tax payers per pensioner, and our pensioners will still be forced out of the workforce and discriminated against, leaving them with no option to work to keep themselves.

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.

Wanderer78

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.

Some people simply don't have a choice

BattleCorp

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Some people simply don't have a choice

Just like so many old people in the States who have to keep working well into their 70's and 80's.

I think myself I'd like to be relaxing with a pair of slippers on me when I'm in my 70's rather than working 20 hours a day trying to be President of the US.

El_Duderino 09

screamer wrote: »

They still have to live in that world though, and it’s very disingenuous to say they don’t have a clue about how the world is. If we said about young people, they don’t care what’s going on in the world, or perhaps they would use their vote....... we cannot make these assumptions and thankfully we are all equal when it comes to voting rights

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.

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.

Wanderer78

BattleCorp wrote:

I think myself I'd like to be relaxing with a pair of slippers on me when I'm in my 70's rather than working 20 hours a day trying to be President of the US.

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

screamer

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Some people simply don't have a choice

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.

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?