7 ms·

> 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 ove

by 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 ..)
    - tomp 11y ago
      > I am pretty sure that currently taxes paid by baby boomers (51+ age) outweigh taxes paid by millennials. How about in 10 years, when they stop working and retire?
      - cunac 11y ago
        then you will have same conversation with my generation (X) and after another 10 some other generation will have same conversation with millennials :-)
    - hiram112 11y ago
      Don't fall for the same tricks that the establishment uses. Yes of course the wealthy pay more in absolute taxes than the rest of us plebs. That's because they HAVE so much more. My parents lived at a time where their savings earned 10% at the local bank. The stock market did better. Houses were 3x one earner's median wage. University could be paid for via a summer job. So of course they're paying a lot more in taxes as most younger people have negative wealth. But the older are paying 15%-25% on capital gains and dividends, while the young are paying 30% on income. The old are living off of huge pensions and medical insurance being paid for RIGHT NOW by income from the young. They did not save it. That is why most localities are pretty much kicking the debt can down the road: increasing things like property taxes, fines (e.g. speeding tickets), toll roads, etc. all the while providing less services. The vast majority of the federal budget is not Planned Parenthood, the EPA, or road costs. It is the military, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which benefit the old. Even the military is more about keeping the US system propped up instead of ensuring our 'safety'. Two large oceans have always been more than enough.
  - cunac 11y ago
    to add another data point I am currently paying a bills for a two millennials so you should understand my skepticism about contributions of millennials :-)
    - tomp 11y ago
      I'm not sure why you're singling out millenials... There are other sections of the population (between 30 and 50) that are probably very productive but slowly loosing the power compared to 50+.
      - cunac 11y ago
        I really don't see me losing anything to any generation (older or younger) but I also don't have feeling of entitlement. It is "normal" to blame everything else for one's perceived misfortune/lack of opportunity but in most cases it is yourself. I don't prevent young people to vote for any type of change they want but if voting doesn't go your way it is not really fair to complain about it.
        tomp 11y ago
        I don't care much about "fairness" and complaining, I'm more interested (and concerned) about incentives. If people see there's no way for them to succeed, they won't even try. They'll check out of the society and stop being productive ("herbivore men" (Japan) or "the beautiful ones" (mouse experiment)). The problem is systematic, of course, but if disproportionately affects the young, which in average have much less capital and thus rely much more on their (present and future) work income.
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.

by s_kilk 11y ago

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 ..)
  - tomp 11y ago
    > I am pretty sure that currently taxes paid by baby boomers (51+ age) outweigh taxes paid by millennials. How about in 10 years, when they stop working and retire?
    - cunac 11y ago
      then you will have same conversation with my generation (X) and after another 10 some other generation will have same conversation with millennials :-)
  - hiram112 11y ago
    Don't fall for the same tricks that the establishment uses. Yes of course the wealthy pay more in absolute taxes than the rest of us plebs. That's because they HAVE so much more. My parents lived at a time where their savings earned 10% at the local bank. The stock market did better. Houses were 3x one earner's median wage. University could be paid for via a summer job. So of course they're paying a lot more in taxes as most younger people have negative wealth. But the older are paying 15%-25% on capital gains and dividends, while the young are paying 30% on income. The old are living off of huge pensions and medical insurance being paid for RIGHT NOW by income from the young. They did not save it. That is why most localities are pretty much kicking the debt can down the road: increasing things like property taxes, fines (e.g. speeding tickets), toll roads, etc. all the while providing less services. The vast majority of the federal budget is not Planned Parenthood, the EPA, or road costs. It is the military, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which benefit the old. Even the military is more about keeping the US system propped up instead of ensuring our 'safety'. Two large oceans have always been more than enough.
- cunac 11y ago
  to add another data point I am currently paying a bills for a two millennials so you should understand my skepticism about contributions of millennials :-)
  - tomp 11y ago
    I'm not sure why you're singling out millenials... There are other sections of the population (between 30 and 50) that are probably very productive but slowly loosing the power compared to 50+.
    - cunac 11y ago
      I really don't see me losing anything to any generation (older or younger) but I also don't have feeling of entitlement. It is "normal" to blame everything else for one's perceived misfortune/lack of opportunity but in most cases it is yourself. I don't prevent young people to vote for any type of change they want but if voting doesn't go your way it is not really fair to complain about it.
      - tomp 11y ago
        I don't care much about "fairness" and complaining, I'm more interested (and concerned) about incentives. If people see there's no way for them to succeed, they won't even try. They'll check out of the society and stop being productive ("herbivore men" (Japan) or "the beautiful ones" (mouse experiment)). The problem is systematic, of course, but if disproportionately affects the young, which in average have much less capital and thus rely much more on their (present and future) work income.

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.