Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is America becoming a gerontocracy?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 113 posts

Re: Is America becoming a gerontocracy?

#51

Post by hyhatqtv »

Chu4eeno wrote: post #38
zdragnar wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of people being old is a relatively modern problem. One could even argue that it is a problem specific to cultures that favor low or negative birthrates.

No cultures directly favor low or negative birthrates. But we've known since the 1800s that it follows from female education (and this seems independent of culture, it was first observed in France, but you can see the same trend in any African country, or even Iran), which is favored.

France went through a demographic transition 100+ years earlier than all other European countries and then had a population boom in the 50s and 60s. I doubt an average French women was less educated in 1960 than in the mid 1800s.

I don’t think it’s that straightforward, material conditions in combination with massively lower mortality in all age groups and a shift in social values must be playing a significant part

Re: Is America becoming a gerontocracy?

#52

Post by hyhatqtv »

defrost wrote: post #50
ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roman senators were 40-50 https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2003/2003.09.49/

From an alternative source, that varied: What period are we talking about? In the monarchy, the Senate were all men who could no longer serve in the military, generally believed to be at least 60 or older, and generally numbered 100-200 men. With Sulla's reforms in the 1st century BCE, you had a minimum age of 31, total population of about 600, with about 5% of that group needing replacement every year. The "elder st…

> In the monarchy, the Senate were all men who could no longer serve in the military, generally believed to be at least 60 or older, and generally numbered 100-200 men.

We really have no clue how it worked. If anything it probably was more related to being a head of a prominent clan/family.

Re: Is America becoming a gerontocracy?

#54

Post by defrost »

hyhatqtv wrote: post #52
defrost wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From an alternative source, that varied: What period are we talking about? In the monarchy, the Senate were all men who could no longer serve in the military, generally believed to be at least 60 or older, and generally numbered 100-200 men. With Sulla's reforms in the 1st century BCE, you had a minimum age of 31, total population of about 600, with about 5% of that group needing replacement every year. The "elder st…

> In the monarchy, the Senate were all men who could no longer serve in the military, generally believed to be at least 60 or older, and generally numbered 100-200 men. We really have no clue how it worked. If anything it probably was more related to being a head of a prominent clan/family.

The Roman historian Titus Livius (Livy's History of Rome (and various other names)) roughly covered how it worked from the founding through until 293 BC and from 219 to 166 BC.

The periods 293 through 219 BC and 166 to 9 BC are vague because of missing Livy volumes and lesser (or no) alternative sources for those ranges.

Aside from age, being a (primary major family) Patrician was a factor for some of the Roman Kingdom, at other times the pool expanded to include minor Patrician families. During the Kingdom the Senate largely worked as an advisory council to the king, grinding through legislative details, and more or less being responsible for the election of new kings (variously with or without input from "the people").

Re: Is America becoming a gerontocracy?

#55

Post by hyhatqtv »

defrost wrote: post #54
hyhatqtv wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the monarchy, the Senate were all men who could no longer serve in the military, generally believed to be at least 60 or older, and generally numbered 100-200 men. We really have no clue how it worked. If anything it probably was more related to being a head of a prominent clan/family.

The Roman historian Titus Livius (Livy's History of Rome (and various other names)) roughly covered how it worked from the founding through until 293 BC and from 219 to 166 BC. The periods 293 through 219 BC and 166 to 9 BC are vague because of missing Livy volumes and lesser (or no) alternative sources for those ranges. Aside from age, being a (primary major family) Patrician was a factor for some of the Roman Kingd…

The current consensus is that Livy only had a very vague understanding of the early republic let alone the royal period since his narrative frequently conflicts with archeological evidence and other sources. Basically he was constantly projecting the late republican system onto much older periods and implying it barely developed or changed over the years while there is strong evidence to the contrary.

> Patrician was a factor

We don’t really understand the patrician vs plebeian split and how it functioned before or during the founding of the republic. Again there is evidence it was only fully established decades later.

Re: Is America becoming a gerontocracy?

#56

Post by childintime »

jdw64 wrote: post #27

Most countries are facing similar problems. In the US, it's the millennial problem. In France, it's HENRY (High Earner, Not Rich Yet). In Korea, it's the '20-something male' issue. In Japan, it's the 'geneki sedai' (working generation). In China, it's 'neijuan' (involution). The common thread is that these are generations that climbed the class ladder early on, when infrastructure was lacking and there were opportuni…

you're right to mention the Boomer generation: gerontocracy == boomers hanging on to power. as they've always done, I might add.

Re: Is America becoming a gerontocracy?

#57

Post by defrost »

hyhatqtv wrote: post #55
defrost wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Roman historian Titus Livius (Livy's History of Rome (and various other names)) roughly covered how it worked from the founding through until 293 BC and from 219 to 166 BC. The periods 293 through 219 BC and 166 to 9 BC are vague because of missing Livy volumes and lesser (or no) alternative sources for those ranges. Aside from age, being a (primary major family) Patrician was a factor for some of the Roman Kingd…

The current consensus is that Livy only had a very vague understanding of the early republic let alone the royal period since his narrative frequently conflicts with archeological evidence and other sources. Basically he was constantly projecting the late republican system onto much older periods and implying it barely developed or changed over the years while there is strong evidence to the contrary. > Patrician was…

In context, the thrust of my annotation above was that comparisons of the US and Roman Senate is apples and hedgehogs.

There were some 700+ years of Rome before they occupied Britain and lasted for longer than the current age of the US senate system after that occupation.

During that long arc Roman senate ages, prerequisites and duties changed multiple times.

As for Livy, sure, like many historians attempting to cover several hundred years of events there are biases and myths laid as fact, etc. Even the events of the last twelve ears aren't agreed upon by all despite petabytes of live video and digitised records drilling down to the sale of individual shoelaces.

Re: Is America becoming a gerontocracy?

#58

Post by lifestyleguru »

gherkinnn wrote: post #33
lifestyleguru wrote: post #7

Welcome to the honorable club with with Italy and Germany. What's very specific is that the old pull up the ladder. They don't pass the knowledge, nor experience, not a single cent trickles down, no power is delegated. Even the opposite, with help of immediate family they vacuum up the money and power even further. What's quite mindblowing for an outside observer is that the birth year of American president has been…

Would you look at that. Clinton born in 46, Bush Jr 46, Obama 61, Trump 46 and Biden 42. And this why immortality is bad and death is not to be cured . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Unit...

Then birth year of American president is almost constant since 1993, with the exception being Obama.

Re: Is America becoming a gerontocracy?

#59

Post by gherkinnn »

lifestyleguru wrote: post #58
gherkinnn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you look at that. Clinton born in 46, Bush Jr 46, Obama 61, Trump 46 and Biden 42. And this why immortality is bad and death is not to be cured . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Unit...

Then birth year of American president is almost constant since 1993, with the exception being Obama.

I was agreeing with you
Post reply on HN