10 ms·

I wonder if what we're seeing is a quantitative change leading to a qualitative change. It's undeniable that old people have always held power in society, from

• s_kilk 11y ago
  > we're seeing for the first time in history is a huge swath of healthy, long-lived older people... Exactly, and they cast a disproportionately long shadow over society and politics. EDIT: just look at the recent Irish referendum on same-sex marriage. A vast majority of the "no" votes came from the >60 cohort. I'll wager the age breakdown of last weeks election would reveal a similar dynamic: the young want change and meaningful progress while the old continue to vote for the past, keeping our culture and politics firmly rooted in the early/mid 20th century.
  • cunac 11y ago
    how is disproportional in a voting system where each adult has a vote? I would say it is proportional it is just that you don't like a proportion right now because people live longer so there is more older adults voting
    • tomp 11y ago
      It's disproportional in the sense of who's contributing to society (working) versus who's deciding what to do (voting).
      • mason240 11y ago
        This isn't the first time I've read this idea of only allowing taxpayers to vote be floated by someone on the left. There's been a weird number of things like this that I've seen bubbling up, like extreme anti-union rhetoric in regards the police. It's usually in reaction to a specific issue, but it's still weird to see.
        • tomp 11y ago
          You don't get to dismiss a valid idea by denoucing it as "leftist". IMO, the protections against the majority oppressing the minority is just as important for democracy as everybody having exactly one vote. Obviously, 51% of the population voting to enslave the "other" 49% would be completely unfair and IMO un-democratic (even if it was enacted by democratic means). We could argue about how much each subsection of the society should contribute (or get) for the world to be "fair", but honestly, I'm not even that concerned about that; what I'm concerned is the trend (of older people increasing in numbers (power to enact benefits for themselves by taxing others) but decreasing in productivity (contributions)). If that trend continues making the benefits/contributions disproportionate, at some point it's bound to become unsustainable and the system will collapse.
          • mason240 11y ago
            I didn't dismiss anything. I was remarking that it's unusual to see "only taxpayers should be allowed to vote" coming from someone on the left.
        • deleted 11y ago
          [deleted]
      • cunac 11y ago
        I am pretty sure that currently taxes paid by baby boomers (51+ age) outweigh taxes paid by millennials. And taxes are contributing to a majority (all?) of public services. Things look even worse for a millennials if you add my generation (gen X). That would include population 40+ which arguably is at a peek of earnings. I am not sure which contribution you are measure so I used a simple money based one. I would "love" to have vote proportional to taxes I pay (kidding ..)
  • pc86 11y ago
    Wrong. It's only "disproportionate" because that cohort actually votes. The only reason that group has more power than any other group is that 20-29 year olds don't vote. People in their 60's do.
    • Ambroos 11y ago
      We notice the same thing in Belgium however, where voting is mandatory. Younger generations tend to vote for far more progressive parties, while the older generations stick with conservative parties.
      • pc86 11y ago
        I was arguing against the use of the word "disproportionate" which implies unfair. I don't think it's at all strange that younger people tend to be more progressive, regardless of party.
    • coldtea 11y ago
      >Wrong. It's only "disproportionate" because that cohort actually votes. The only reason that group has more power than any other group is that 20-29 year olds don't vote. People in their 60's do. Wrong too, I'm afraid. In lots of Western countries the average age of the population has rose as high as 40 year old (in contrast with older values of even less than 30). So it's not always that 'young people don't vote', it's also there are less of them too.
      • pc86 11y ago
        It's still not disproportionate. Old people don't get more votes. They actually vote. Just because there happen to be more old people, and they tend to vote more conservatively, does not mean that it's "disproportionate" when they actually vote and influence policy. If all the baby boomers died tomorrow nobody would bemoan the disproportionate influence of 40-year olds in the next election.
        • coldtea 11y ago
  • brightball 11y ago
    Not on the topic of SS marriage but just on the "young want change vs old vote to continue the past" point. As I've gotten older, one thing that I've consistently found is that the young want change. Always. Regardless of whether it's beneficial, been tried before and negative consequences were seen, would only benefit certain people or negative outcomes long term are clearly visible: they want change for sake of change. Older people have a lot more experience in observing human nature. There is a very big reason that the slogans around "Wisdom comes with age" and "Young know it alls" have existed for so long. They've been observably accurate. It's a lot easier to get people fired up about things that they don't understand, because any contentious subject has two sides and the fire generally shows that you only understand one of them. “When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.” - Mark Twain
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
      • aidos 11y ago
        Your parent specifically said that this was not about SS.
        • tomp 11y ago
          Right, I was reading it wrong. I'll delete my comment.
    • s_kilk 11y ago
      Good points, but I would contend that "Older people have a lot more experience in observing human nature" is not necessarily always true. Or at least it may not be the reason for their conservativism. It may also vary by location and culture, so I can only speak to my own experience with the place where I came from, where the elder population have acted as custodians for utterly retrograde policies and actively resist any attempt to move forward. I'd question the wisdom of any generation who (broadly) thought the Magdalene Asylums were a good thing.
• Spooky23 11y ago
  IMO, this is one of the reasons that people are into at least talking about Bernie Sanders style socialism. If these fundamental injustices don't get addressed, I fear the alternative is revolution in the long term.
  • vmorgulis 11y ago
    I'm sorry to say that but there is no real injustices in western countries. Everybody has food, education, a minimal healthcare and even luxury products like smartphone or TV. It's very different in Africa where life expectancy is near 45: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe... A lot of problems in western countries comes from the society itself (how the society is organized and how it works) and most of them can't be solved with laws.
    • branchless 11y ago
      I really dislike this line of thought. It reduces to: until living standards are as bad as Africa, don't complain. A recipe for getting living standards as bad as Africa.
      • JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Sounds like "Uncomfortable with privilege". I think that was the point of the comment - to make first world folks aware that their problems are first-world problems. In the big picture, maybe it doesn't matter exactly how comfortable 5% of the world is. Maybe the real issue is how bad things are in Africa. If people really all matter?
        • branchless 11y ago
          No this is a false choice. We can fight for equality at home and for better living standards abroad. The boomers are behaving disgustingly by ramping land prices in hock with the banks. It has sent living standards into free-fall for the young.
• jefurii 11y ago
  > Millenials will experience a lost generation and things won't start to look good until we're well into middle-age. At least Millenials have better numbers than Gen X. Nobody even mentions us anymore..
• VLM 11y ago
  "Millenials will experience a lost generation and things won't start to look good until we're well into middle-age." Reading between the lines you're a millenial (if so, sorry) and "they" are trying to manipulate you by claiming if you wait a decade or two, things will be better, just warning you they pulled that trick on us X-ers. I would not be pacified by the same old line. At least make them tell you a new lie.
• hiram112 11y ago
  You're right that old people have always held power. The difference now is that 'old' people are not the 45 year olds of previous generations. Instead, wealth is disproportionately concentrated in the hands of much older - 60's through 80's, thanks to modern medicine. This tends to push back the timeline of wealth acquisition: the boomers being such a big demographic along with the economic crisis in 2008, and what I see in my highly progressive US city is a massive failure for late Gen X and older millenials to form households: children, mortgages, and the typical consumption patterns this usually breeds. There are advertisements for IVF treatments on our metro. I'd say 30-40% of educated women are unable or unwilling to have children due to the inability to find a stable partner (who's also educated). I make well over 6 figures and my girlfriend also does pretty well. Together, we'd still need to pay half our joint salary to afford a mortgage on a typical home in a area close to our jobs. There is no way a couple with the median income could do the same without leveraging a huge amount of debt relative to income. Whether I'm able to do so or not, I'm defintely not willing. Jobs are not certain - I'm always waiting for the next crisis or recession and lay off. No way in hell would I want to be in so much debt in this system. Same for children (along with family court, but I digress). I'm guessing our politicians see this and understand that the whole pyramid will come crashing down, hence the elite's push for more and more immigration. Maybe the solution would be, instead of subsidizing foreigners, to create massive tax breaks for locals to procreate - housing, child care, etc. But that wouldn't do anything to push down wages, so it's obviously a no-go in today's political debate.