So many things factually wrong in this article.... > In January 2021, the three people most likely to be the next president—Biden, Sanders, and the incumbent,

So many things factually wrong in this article.... > In January 2021, the three people most likely to be the next president—Biden, Sanders, and the incumbent, Donald Trump—would each be the oldest president to ever give an inaugural address in American history. And until recently, we also had a serious candidate under the age of 40. > If you extrapolate this trend, it might sound like America’s next breakthrough presidential candidate will be some 35-year-old YouTube influencer who just recently learned about the filibuster. I thought the entire point of this article was that if you extrapolate the trend, the candidates would all be in their 90's? Also, some of what goes on in the private industry is transferrable to politics, and many of the names mentioned had substantial careers (some will argue effective careers, some won't) before they entered politics. > In the past 40 years, the average age of Nobel Prize laureates has increased in almost every discipline, My understanding is that the average age for starting a tenure track position has also increased as a result of increased specialization and competition. Wouldn't an increase in age for major career awards follow a similar trajectory? > Power concentrated in the hands of old people who are also rich will predictably lead to policies that benefit the old and the rich, at the expense of the less privileged. How does this follow? Does the author mean to imply that government officials are incapable of separating their own station from that of their constituents? Why would these old rich people favor the "rich" (usually defined as those with a high income) instead of the "old"? > The federal government already guarantees universal health insurance and a universal basic income to seniors, even as Republicans cry socialism when young people request versions of the same policies Maybe this is a useful fiction, but at least on paper we give these benefits to seniors because they paid into social security and medicare during their working years. Young people have not. Whether or not each one is wise, these are two clearly different things. The author just shows his own lack of understanding. > At the end of the Cold War, a common criticism of the U.S.S.R. was that the country was crumbling in part because the Soviet politburo was too old and out of touch to keep up with a changing world. Also, because it was a communist country that centrally planned everything, so couldn't reallocate resources efficiently. > Without encouraging voters or employers to be ageist... Even though this is pretty much entirely what this article is doing