According to a NY Times essay two weeks ago: Older Americans Are Hoarding America’s Potential by Yale Prof Samuel Moyn, we "older Americans" need to give up some of our accumulated ‘loot’ (net worth) and transfer it to the younger generations – especially the Gen Zs and Millennials.
Moyn writes:
“'Ageism' identifies an enduring phenomenon: the mistreatment
of older people for no reason other than being older. Americans in middle age
and beyond are routinely passed over for opportunities because of the
irrelevant fact of a number on paper or how they act and look after getting
older.
In today’s world, the unfair discrimination they cite coexists
with a different kind of unfairness: a gerontocratic society in which the old
control ever more power and wealth, leading to overrepresentation in political
life and unequal power in social life."
Okay, hold strain. How can the unfair discrimination in earning power (i.e. being downsized from a well-paying job at 50) "coexist" with "ever more power and wealth"? It can't. So Moyn is effectively conflating the experience of millions in the middle with the unequal benefits bestowed on an elite upper class of elders. Thereby he gets to prattle about a "gerontocracy" dominated by the entire elder populace without distinction. As if that unequal power inheres in the entire class as opposed to a select small percentage.
With this logical misfire he is able to write his next babble:
"It is not ageist to ask whether older people should be required to give more to younger Americans and national priorities — it is critical to the future of our democracy and society. America needs to confront gerontocracy before the system collapses under the weight of its inequality and injustice."
It is not ageist but it is woefully illogical (and discriminatory) to ask whether ALL older be people be required to give more to younger Americans.". Especially as he is conflating two groups of elders - one in the elite or upper 1 percent, the other in the lower 99% or even lower 50%. The problem with his 'gerontocracy' then is it paints too wide a brush for his attacks when it ought to be focused on the elder elites. I.e. those who reach such a high income level ($184,500 in 2026) that they get their Social Security taxes capped, allowing them to retain more of their income compared to lower income earners. Does he take this into account? No, because it's far easier to tar an entire group. Maybe he needs to read a recent comment from a NYT piece on how millions are dropping health coverage:
“Early” retirees. Also known as people who got laid off from the jobs in their late 50s/early 60s, now in limbo because can’t get rehired because they are viewed as too." old and are too young for Medicare so they are eating away at their savings with high ACA"
But the clueless prof really runs off the rails of logic and sobriety in his next paragraph:
"Older Americans deserve a say over the future even when they
might not live to see it. But they do not deserve the stranglehold over it they
currently enjoy through overrepresentation in elections, which produces too
many regressive policies and too many seniors in the highest offices."
Hold strain there again! Overrepresentation in elections? You mean because we consistently show up more - for each and every election- we're to blame for a 'stranglehold over the future'? Left out also is that before we cast votes we seriously examine the issues and read about them extensively from legitimate media - not from podcasts by Joe Rogan, or Tik Tok blarney.
And to make the point even more clearly, let's bear in mind that it was the Gen Z voters who flocked to Trump in very high numbers, instead of voting for Kamala. This thanks to being snookered by Turning Point USA and its front man Charlie Kirk, e.g.
The Reality Of Charlie Kirk: Hate, Hypocrisy & Violence
S0 what has that ill-advised voting earned them? Well, sky high costs at the pump, as well as for their food and housing, given they fell for every lie Trump spewed - because they got most of their info from social media or podcasts. And we're supposed to have pity on them now, when they've basically wrecked the future for us regular (not elite) seniors too?
As I wrote in my post-election post in November, 2024:
Gen Z’s swing toward Trump while not solely political, had the effect of a political clusterfuck. It stupidly and recklessly tossed our democracy into the paws of a senile, power mad felon while insisting they were just offering a cry for mercy. The little imps claimed to be signaling that the world as young people know it is not working. So they opted to toss the nation and rest of the world into the proverbial shitcan. It showed me most of these "Zoomers" lack the intelligence or maturity to vote.
Does he take into account the monumental misfire of Gen Z in voting a felon liar (and insurrectionist traitor) back into office? A guy who's made their lives (and the rest of ours) worse with each passing day? Of course not! Professor Moyn just piles on the pseudo intellectual BS, writing:
"Older Americans are owed the care that everyone else funds.
Indeed, they should get more of it than they get now — including funding for
long-term care at home or in nursing homes. But they also need incentives to
give up accumulated housing, jobs and wealth."
But how are they going to get that expensive long-term care, you claim we are "owed"- especially if we give up what limited wealth we have? You're not making any sense.
Undeterred he rolls on:
"In little more than a century, the extension of life has transformed American and global politics. It turned older Americans, who had been one of the most underprivileged groups in the country, into some of the most overprivileged."
Ah yes, we are definitely 'overprivileged' elderly - we, with arthritic pain so severe we can barely move most mornings. Then there are the incessant medical tests, treatments such as for the prostate cancer I've to deal with the past 14 yrs. Including a new PSMA scan last week and an MRI plus lab work tomorrow to see if the cancer has metastasized again. Yeah, it's a real overprivileged joy ride - the only upside being that Medicare pays for most of it. (Except we have to cough up for the supplemental insurance - oh, and there's nothing for dental, or eyes.)
"Some of the excessive power that the aging have amassed harms society, as they enjoy advantages to the detriment of others. "
Again he's conflating those of us who are more or less median 'upscale' seniors with the super rich seniors who own homes in Tahoe, Aspen, the Hamptons and Miami - and who have so much dough they can afford to buy two yachts, two small planes plus invest heavily in private equity stocks and crypto currency. There are plenty of ways the latter's amassed wealth harms society but I defy him to name one way those of us in the lower tier wealth class - if you can call it that (given most goes to home insurance, supplemental medical insurance, dental work and home repair) harms society. Especially the younger demographic.
More erroneous generalities:
"Older Americans favor
restrictions on immigration most, even when they need immigrant caregivers
most. Likewise, there is a correlation between age and resistance to policies
to halt the overheating of the planet or raise funds for education and other
civic purposes."
Again, excessive conflation. Yes, there are oldsters who favor restrictions on immigrants - but these again are plausibly in the elite rich overclass. That is given they have so much wealth they needn't fret about nursing home or at home care supplied by mainly immigrant caregivers. The rest of us in the lower tier know that if immigrant caretakers are not available we may get no care at all. As for the overheating of the planet, look again to the uber wealthy seniors who regularly fly around to Aspen and Bermuda on their private planes, then burn up fossil fuels after they land with their gas guzzler SUVs or yachts.
More bollocks and mental misfiring about voter participation:
"Seniors dominate elections, especially local and off-cycle ones, with their comparatively high rates of participation. According to Phil Keisling, a former Oregon secretary of state, the median age of eligible voters these days is about 48. But the age of actual voters is about 52, and on the way up: Outside presidential contests, it is 55 or 56; in primaries, it is 65."
So again, Moyn is blaming us for consistently voting? Seriously? Maybe before he fires off such nonsense he should recall the dithering of younger voters, and why many chose not to participate in the primaries back in 2024, e.g.
Brane Space: In Michigan Young Voters Displeased With Choices Opt Out: Give 'Em Their Sippy Cups
With one young twerp whining:
“I acknowledge the American right to vote, but we also have the right to not do so, especially if you don’t agree with any of the candidates,”
Got that? The twerp asserts he has the right not to vote if "he doesn't agree with any of the candidates. " Ever heard of choosing the lesser of two evils, sonny? Oh no, never! That is too predictable, too plebian, too common, too uninspiring. But it is necessary sometimes especially when a dreg like Donald Trump is a candidate -and who should always be the greater of two evils for any voter with an IQ over 70. Had the younger set not been so far in the clouds and beguiled by lies in 2024 they'd have voted for Kamala Harris. No questions asked. But they were too lazy to do the hard work, beyond just testing podcasts and the latest Tik Tok mush.
Some sobriety from Moyn for a change:
"There is no denying that ageism continues to be a scourge. An appalling number of older Americans live in poverty or barely above it and suffer routine discrimination. But it’s clear that older Americans have helped widen the chasm between classes in our neoliberal era."
Notice not even a micro difference between the first and second sentence. "Older Americans" in each case. We're still enduring ageism BUT have "helped widen the chasm between classes in our neoliberal era." But they can't both be true, certainly for the same elders. Hence, it must be that the elite upper 1% set are those referenced in the 2nd sentence but he doesn't make that clear.
More blunderbuss:
"Age discrimination also affects the young. In the United
States today, six to seven federal dollars go to seniors for every one that
goes to children. It is plain that privileging one group can raise legitimate
questions of unfairness. The benefits older people get relative to younger
people — especially lucrative tax advantages — mean they are already treated
differently."
Moyn excludes the fact that such imbalance makes sense - eminent sense- if the elder voting block vastly outpaces the younger ones. This despite the fact there are nearly 3 younger voters (GenZ, Millennial) to every senior voter. So why wouldn't more federal bucks go to the steady senior voters than the quixotic youth voters? There is simply no political motivation then to funnel federal funds to a demographic more invested in its Youtube shorts, podcasts and Tik Tok than voting.
Moyn goes on:
"Treating them differently should include limits and
obligations, too. It is not ageist, for example, to impose age ceilings on
political offices of all kinds (including federal judgeships). Nearly 80 percent of Americans support age limits for
federal elected officials, and politicians have made proposals to
cut them off at age 75 or some other reasonable threshold. America could, like
several other countries, explore age-related quotas to represent groups across
the life span, since age limits are likely to leave politicians clustering near
any maximum age set."
Agreed! But changing the rules will itself require the younger voters get asses out of their parents' basements and cast votes, i.e. in state referenda, to make such changes. Impose ceilings by all means, in either state or federal bills, but it will be useless unless the demographic that most stands to benefit comes out in vast numbers - exceeding the seniors - to cast votes. In other words, these limits, critical though they may be, can't just be imposed by fiat.
Moyn again, feeling his Yalie oats:
"Proposals range from making it easier to cast a ballot — since current requirements routinely hurt younger voters who move around a lot — to institutionalizing mandatory voting. A bigger fix might lower the voting age.
Agreed the casting of ballots ought to be easier for the young. But lowering the voting age? Uh, NO! Why? The legal U.S. voting age is currently 18 which still lags the attainment of full adult brain development by seven years. Making it lower, say 16 or 17, will tempt the political furies and more national chaos given all the dithering and inability to make voting decisions that already plagues the young voters. Also the god-forsaken attraction too social media memes and vibes as opposed to serious political reporting. So no, no lowering of voting age until the existing youth vote shows it can cast ballots responsibly.
Moyn offer this solution to diminish the power of his 'gerontocraacy':
"There are also direct ways of recognizing that age affects
opportunity and resources. The most obvious is to reinstitute mandatory
retirement in those employment sectors (especially white-collar work) where
generational renewal has been obstructed for years."
Totally agree! There ought to be mandatory retirement across most professions by age 70. The young need their opportunities to build up their own wealth and they should get them.
"In housing, besides circumventing the disproportionately high elder participation in town meetings where land-use decisions are made, I advocate a progressive tax on older homeowners to incentivize them to downsize rather than retain. The longer you stay, the more you should have to pay."
Uh, no. Sorry! We already have property taxes in the thousands per year and you want to add a 'progressive tax on older homeowners'? That is financially ageist to the core. However, I will agree the concept is a sound one to try to implement on the elite upper 1 percent of elders, so each of their 'vacation homes' - whether in Aspen, Jackson Hole or the Hamptons, gets a progressive tax to "incentivize" them to downsize.
Time now for Moyn to again express some fiscal sense:
"Since 1935, the rise of the Social Security program properly recognized the unique vulnerability of senior citizens, and Medicare provides for some of their care and treatment. At the same time, Medicare’s exclusion of funding for long-term care at home or in nursing homes understandably leads the aging to worry that they will run out of money before they pass away, which exacerbates and rationalizes their choice to stash for a rainy day."
Bingo! So what is your solution for us middling wealth seniors? I am waiting with bated breath.
"Improving the welfare state for all who need it — including
the old — could reduce the motivation for holding onto housing and jobs, not
just bank accounts and stock portfolios. In this sense, countering ageism and
gerontocracy sometimes involve the same reforms."
Improving the WELFARE state? Are you total bonkers or have you inhaled too much fairy dust? Have you seen the degree to which the political right (and cooperating Dems) have already demolished the welfare state? Starting with the 'welfare to work' change in 1996 under Clinton - pressed on by Newt Gingrich and the Reeps. Barton Swaim, WSJ columnist and general pro-Trumper, even huffed barely 3 weeks ago that welfare as we know it ought to totally relegated to the past. So getting those "same" reforms passed you suggest have about as much chance in this country as inviting aliens from Tau Ceti to provide the 'welfare'. Indeed, as the Denver Post reported Sunday ordinary workers in Colorado can't even get SNAP benefits approved for their families, and you want welfare for seniors?
e.g. In response to an elder grandma who writes:
I have paid off my children’s education loans and am paying
off my daughter in-laws loans, have put money in education accounts for my
grandchildren and am helping my kids with housing expenses but I want to stay
in my own 1100 square foot home which is paid for. To move would be expensive.
Forcing older people out of their homes is cruel.
Yes — there are all kinds of fixes. I focus here on diminishing the authority and wealth of older citizens, but that’s just the obverse of policies that enhance the authority and wealth of younger citizens.
Next one:
The right question is not why older voters vote more, but why younger voters vote less. Hard to imagine that being younger and more mobile creates unreasonable barriers to voting. And where's the evidence? Also, is it surprising that people who have had more years to work and save have more financial resources than those just starting on that path, albeit with greater challenges that cannot be blamed inordinately on the elderly.
Moyn replies:
@Prof Reader There is always more than one right question. And
the answers to why older people vote more and younger vote less are
interconnected. Here are the lyrics to John Mayer’s song “Waiting on the World
to Change” — what you do you think? "Me and all my friends /We're all
misunderstood /They say we stand for nothing and /There's no way we ever could
/Now we see everything that's going wrong /With the world and those who lead it
/We just feel like we don't have the means To rise above and beat it.” He is
saying that alienation in the face of a world that elders built is the main
obstacle leading to younger abstention and apathy. I think he is onto
something. As for philanthropy, the entire point is that older people are often
the ones with the means to be generous.
Absolutely. We need to distinguish those who can retire
because they have extraordinary means from those who work under duress. As I
explain in the essay, one way to shift more older workers from the second
category to the first is to build a more generous welfare state. The
privatization of U.S. pensions is one big part of the why workers are left
without the possibility of retiring earlier
— from Robert Reich's Substack
David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, has reason to smile
Friends,
Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders voted last Thursday on the Ellison family’s purchase of the company. Some 1.743 billion shares were cast in favor of the sale; 16.3 million were cast against it, a ratio of roughly 99 to 1.
1. Great for a Handful of Super-Wealthy, but Bad for Workers and Bad for America
This vote came soon after more than 4,000 workers in the media industry — directors, screenwriters, producers, actors, editors, cinematographers, musicians, and composers — signed a letter predicting an industry disaster if the sale went through.
The Wall Street Journal reports in an article titled “Trump Tells Aides to Prepare for Extended Blockade of Iran” that:
“President Trump has instructed aides to prepare for an extended blockade of Iran, U.S. officials said... In recent meetings, including a Monday discussion in the Situation Room, Trump opted to continue squeezing Iran’s economy and oil exports by preventing shipping to and from its ports. …
“For now, Trump is comfortable with an indefinite blockade, which he wrote Tuesday on Truth Social is pushing Iran toward a ‘State of Collapse.’”
So, Putin — who Trump took orders from for a full 90 minutes yesterday — and America’s billionaires who religiously read the WSJ are officially tipped off to prepare for what may well be a worldwide repeat of the Republican Great Depression of the 1930s. Or at least a revisit to the GOP’s infamous Nixon-era crises of the 1970s, Reagan’s “Black Monday” 22% market crash, Bush’s 2008 “Great Recession,” and Trump’s 2020 massive botched-pandemic-response economic melt-down.
No comments:
Post a Comment