3 ms·

I think this is the key sentence, and everyone seems to be glossing over it: > Americans 55 and older account for less than one-third of the population, but t

I think this is the key sentence, and everyone seems to be glossing over it: > Americans 55 and older account for less than one-third of the population, but they own two-thirds of the nation’s wealth—the highest level of wealth concentration on record. Running a national political campaign is a more than full time job for a period of several months. The median American worker can’t just take a few months off work to run for office.

xyzzyz 7y ago
There are millions of Americans below age 55 with means to support themselves for several months running the campaign. Suggesting that younger people do not run for office because they risk starvation and eviction is just absurd.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  The median net worth of people 45-54 is $124k. For ages 35-44, it's $59k. [0] Keep in mind that includes things like home equity. It gets worse when you look at younger age brackets. Not so absurd now, is it? --- [0]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-your-net-worth-and-how-do-you-compare-to-others-2018-09-24 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-your-net-worth-and-h...
  - smcphile 7y ago
    You wrote that the median American worker can’t take time off to campaign. That’s correct, they can’t. The point is that lots of people, of all ages, both young and old, who’s net worth is significantly above the median, can afford to take time off to campaign. So, yes, people with a higher net worth are at an advantage when running for president, but this doesn’t really explain a bias against younger presidents, since there are plenty of wealthy younger people, in terms of sheer numbers, just not in terms of percentage of the population. Also, you wrote that people over 55 represent 1/3 of the American population but own 2/3 of the wealth. This can at least partly be explained by the fact that most people’s net worth increases with age and not just linearly. Plus older people often inherit some wealth from parents who die, increasing again their net worth. If the same pattern stays in place for future generations, if they also get wealthier with age, I don’t personally see that as a big problem. Do you? If on the other hand the pattern doesn’t continue, and younger people don’t get wealthier with age, then, yes, I agree that’s a problem.
downerending 7y ago
AFAIK, AOC wasn't particularly wealthy when she campaigned.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Great, that's one example. Now name 50 more. Remember, there are 538 people in Congress. One example is an outlier.

xyzzyz 7y ago

There are millions of Americans below age 55 with means to support themselves for several months running the campaign. Suggesting that younger people do not run for office because they risk starvation and eviction is just absurd.

pmiller2 7y ago
The median net worth of people 45-54 is $124k. For ages 35-44, it's $59k. [0] Keep in mind that includes things like home equity. It gets worse when you look at younger age brackets. Not so absurd now, is it? --- [0]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-your-net-worth-and-how-do-you-compare-to-others-2018-09-24 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-your-net-worth-and-h...
- smcphile 7y ago
  You wrote that the median American worker can’t take time off to campaign. That’s correct, they can’t. The point is that lots of people, of all ages, both young and old, who’s net worth is significantly above the median, can afford to take time off to campaign. So, yes, people with a higher net worth are at an advantage when running for president, but this doesn’t really explain a bias against younger presidents, since there are plenty of wealthy younger people, in terms of sheer numbers, just not in terms of percentage of the population. Also, you wrote that people over 55 represent 1/3 of the American population but own 2/3 of the wealth. This can at least partly be explained by the fact that most people’s net worth increases with age and not just linearly. Plus older people often inherit some wealth from parents who die, increasing again their net worth. If the same pattern stays in place for future generations, if they also get wealthier with age, I don’t personally see that as a big problem. Do you? If on the other hand the pattern doesn’t continue, and younger people don’t get wealthier with age, then, yes, I agree that’s a problem.

downerending 7y ago

AFAIK, AOC wasn't particularly wealthy when she campaigned.

pmiller2 7y ago
Great, that's one example. Now name 50 more. Remember, there are 538 people in Congress. One example is an outlier.