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

The Old Guard: Confronting America's Gerontocratic Crisis

harpers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 250 posts

Re: The Old Guard: Confronting America's Gerontocratic Crisis

#211

Post by lenerdenator »

WalterBright wrote: post #25
lenerdenator wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's happening in the US, too. I know of a senior couple where the husband recently retired after forty years of working in a professional field. They live in a house worth over $750k that is paid off. They have three new or late-model vehicles. Both the husband and wife could, if necessary, work for an income. They also collect Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance checks after enrolling for them. The common…

> Why the hell are they able to collect on that? People in the higher income brackets get far less back on SS than they paid in.

Why should they get back any?

It's insurance. It's there in the name. Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance.

I get far less value back than I pay into my property insurance, unless, of course, I've had a fire or a disaster. That means I've presented a need for the insurance. A casualty has occurred. I have a claim. I can then access the value that I paid into the insurance fund.

I don't write the insurance company and upbraid them for not helping me out on the down payment for a house, because I understand the meaning of the word "insurance".

We essentially have a bunch of people writing exactly that letter.

Re: The Old Guard: Confronting America's Gerontocratic Crisis

#212

Post by rexpop »

WalterBright wrote: post #58
hilariously wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they were promised it - fundamentally leaving the rich out of the social safety net doesn't even get us much and administrating the distinction costs money, and I am no fan of the wealthiest get additional benefits. I think solving inequality will not be about reducing access to said safety nets but increasing them for all.

The problem with "solving inequality" is there is no incentive for one to do better. If one can live as well as everyone else, with no effort, why should one make the effort?

[dead]

Re: The Old Guard: Confronting America's Gerontocratic Crisis

#213

Post by AuthAuth »

justin66 wrote: post #166
newsoftheday wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> she dropped out of the primary when her impending loss became obvious That is how voting and elections is supposed to work, not by saying people of a certain age, color, race or creed can't hold office because young people today are bigoted and feel they deserve more than all generations that ever preceded them throughout all of history.

I'd say party leadership endorsing a 78 year old candidate for US Senate is not how voting and elections ought to work - I'd say it's a pretty big problem. You're welcome to agree or disagree with that, but more relevant to the context of this comment thread, it is not a problem that would be solved by congressional term limits. > young people today are bigoted and feel they deserve more than all generations that eve…

She was the logical choice and a good candidate. Government is not a job anyone can step into and be sucessful. Look at the difference in effectiveness of career politicians vs populists outsiders. Its like 100s of meaningful bills passed compared to single digit.

Re: The Old Guard: Confronting America's Gerontocratic Crisis

#214

Post by Teever »

WalterBright wrote: post #201
cweagans wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they're self-made, they earned the praise. They aren’t and they didn’t. > Being a self-made billionaire means they created a billion dollars of value. They didn't take it from you or anyone else. Nobody is a “self made” billionaire. That value you’re talking about didn’t just spring into existence. It had to come from somewhere. There is always a source. Who flew the rocket? Who built the rocket? Who built the p…

What you're referring to are called "expenses". The value created is what somebody is willing to pay for a piece of that action (i.e. an ownership share). Expenses reduce the value. For example, if you bake a cake the value you created is what you can sell the cake for minus the cost of the ingredients and the use of an oven. For SpaceX, the money spent to buy materials and pay employees takes away value. > that nobo…

This is usually the part of the conversation where someone mentions slave labour in an emerald mine and immigration fraud and then comes the part where you usually say something along the lines like "hasn't been proven in court!"

Re: The Old Guard: Confronting America's Gerontocratic Crisis

#215

Post by dzonga »

underlipton wrote: post #136
dzonga wrote: post #101

this problem with older people not giving in to younger ones is prevalent everywhere. professors - with tenure - they can die on the job. board rooms are visibly older e.g average age of Apple board members 68. the partners at law firms etc. now very few companies have very few succession plans. in other parts of the world even worse e.g in Africa - you have presidents with one foot in the grave tryin' to rule.

Ha, that's the way to really get Western society to rethink its trajectory. "You know, the things you're doing? Sounds quite African." The Southern Strategy is underutilized as a tool to rebuild, rather than dismantle, works for the public good. (/s but kind of not?)

if you have ever met the African bureaucrat - typically has a PHD from a high end Western university.

selfish lot - old - would rather spend time playing golf and traveling while doing nothing.

sadly the West is now going through the same thing.

Re: The Old Guard: Confronting America's Gerontocratic Crisis

#216

Post by jgeada »

RickS wrote: post #100
johngossman wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go look at the demographics of the last election and then tell me which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote.

That's a response to an opinion I don't hold, but I could have been more clear. The claim I'm making is about the fitness to hold office. Specifically: septo/octogenarians belong at the ballot box, but not on the ballot. If you'd like to dissuade me of something, that's the meat of it.

What is the justification? Why can someone vote for a future they're not likely have to endure?

We don't allow under 18s to vote, so clearly some age restrictions are legitimate.

Re: The Old Guard: Confronting America's Gerontocratic Crisis

#217

Post by jgeada »

coldpie wrote: post #185
mindslight wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Characterizing the problem as the electoral mechanism, wouldn't it make sense to push for better voting systems that don't empower the two party duopoly (eg Ranked Pairs) ? It feels that while gerontocracy is a valid critique to illustrate the problem, it doesn't fully capture why our processes actively choose such bad leaders. Rather it kind of papers over the problem assuming that mental faculties mean good policie…

I don't think a form of RCV would have a terribly significant impact on name recognition and incumbent advantage, which I think the are the main drivers of why we keep reelecting people who are obviously no longer competent. Feinstein's walking corpse being constantly reelected despite California having jungle primaries with many viable alternatives is a good example of how an alternate voting method does not solve t…

Maybe the problem is structural: there is an absurd amount of power to be gained by seniority in both houses. To a voter there is a significant advantage to choosing an incumbent as their power increase with seniority.

Re: The Old Guard: Confronting America's Gerontocratic Crisis

#218

Post by tekne »

WalterBright wrote: post #143
hilariously wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but I dont think any UBI scheme says "everyone live at the same level" more like "everyone gets enough to not die" which is a very different framing. Work or die vs Work to gain additional benefits.

We already have welfare programs. Nobody is starving to death in the US.

Perhaps -- "the baseline is a decent life". Lots of people are willing to work really hard for perks and glory -- honestly, you can even take more risks if you're young and you know your life's not on the line

Re: The Old Guard: Confronting America's Gerontocratic Crisis

#219

Post by mindslight »

rayiner wrote: post #190
mindslight wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is too much to unpack here. Perhaps you'd like to make your point in something other than identity politics anecdotes and personal attacks? If you don't like my phrasing of "boot on their necks", feel free to substitute your own when constructively responding to the point. The frustrations that have led to Trumpism are certainly palpable and understandable, so don't feign like I'm using hyperbolic language out…

[flagged]

> through the perspective of some 1930s West Virginia mine worker like you do.

That was the personal attack I was referring to. I was referring to the dynamic of the obvious frustrations seemingly driving much of Trumpism, and yet you're imparting that back onto me. That's called shooting the messenger.

> You’re starting from the values that you think should matter to people, then faulting them for not making decisions you think are rational according to those assumed values.

No, you're assuming here. As I said, I've been trying to steelman Trumpism in terms of any kind of constructive policy for some time and I can no longer find anything that fits.

> Your dismissal of “identity politics” is a good illustration of that

No, that dismissal is based on the red tribe making a good show of dismissing identity politics for the past ~16 years - aka stated preferences. Would you say that my assertion that people should be honest about their preferences is imparting too much of my own opinion about what should matter? The alternative of course, which seems to have good predictive power, is straight up hypocrisy.

> value different ends than what you think they should value

Solving for these values is exactly what I have been doing, as I have been saying. For example in 2016, I was the weirdo telling my blue tribe friends that Trump was likely to win as he was resonating with a lot of frustrations people have that the blue tribe just did not understand. Maybe from that you can see that I am capable of seeing, respecting, and even sympathizing with others' values even if there may be other values I prioritize instead?

Or alternatively you could just come out and state those values! This should be easy right? Rather than beating around the bush?

I would only insist that they be constructive values that aim to be beneficial rather than merely making some spectacle of hurting others. So for example "deport illegal immigrants" doesn't qualify as it's a destructive framing - the constructive framing would be something like "fix the labor market for blue collar citizens". But if this movement truly has some substance making our country better and is not merely just lashing out about our problems, this should be easy.

And of course since we're talking about continued support for Trump, those values should be congruent to the policies he is actually enacting.

Re: The Old Guard: Confronting America's Gerontocratic Crisis

#220

Post by FireBeyond »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #11
FireBeyond wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I've lived in Australia and the US. The fine isn't big, the attempts at suppressing voter turnout or inconvenience aren't there, and the privacy of the ballot box means that even if you turn up, and put a ballot in the box, no-one's stopping you writing "You all suck" and not casting any preferences.

But at that point you are choosing to explicitly express your non-support of the candidates. That is still more meaningful than simply not showing up IMO

The Australian system is certainly not perfect, but I think the indirection of the "leader of the party" choice and Prime Minister is helpful - it promotes a greater willingness of the party members to say "Okay, you're hurting -my- re-election chances now", with the result being, whether the ultimate motivation is self-interest, you often (or much more when I was younger) would see no-confidence votes and leadership changes, certainly far more than in the US, where I am now. And signals like you mention, "explicit non-support" seem to carry greater weight.
Post reply on HN