9 ms·

Collective behavior in response to COVID was a life transfer from the youth to the elderly.

cryptonector 5y ago
Very succint. Precise, correct, pithy.
scop 5y ago
I’ve pondered this on occasion. In this era of people in their 80s holding many of the major positions in government and business in the US, I wonder whether this was their final attempt to prevent transferring power onto the newer generations. I’m not saying this was a conscious strategy, but it certainly was a very interesting phenomenon especially after listening to Eric Weinstein decry the lack of generational transfer in the US.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  There should be a mandatory retirement age for government. 65 sounds about right.
  - ralph84 5y ago
    Absolutely. Airline pilots are forced to retire at 65 and their decisions only affect a few hundred people. Politicians' decisions affect millions.
    - laurent92 5y ago
      I’d rather be governed by people who have 65 years of experience with life, than by people who snort coke at 40 to be the shark they’ve always wanted. Politicians never seem to take correct decisions anyway.
      - dclowd9901 5y ago
        Really? I feel exactly the opposite. I wouldn’t trust someone over 65 to drive me to the store.
        laurent92 5y ago
        In our world, we often assume old people have wrong opinions. The core, though, is that they were betrayed more often than us, so they are less prone to fall into the next rhetoric trap.
        giantg2 5y ago
        It's seems they get set in their ways and don't take action to make positive changes either. Never mind the next rhetoric trap, they're still in the first rhetoric trap... Maybe all of this is a little bit of ageism, but we see that on the opposite end if the age spectrum too and I guess moving to a competency based test isn't practical.
    - sumedh 5y ago
      > Politicians' decisions affect millions. Dont forget the US Supreme court where you literally cling to your job till you die. Those judges are one of the most selfish and egoistic people on earth.
  - paganel 5y ago
    They kind of have that in China for public officials, if I'm not mistaken, and it's a big thing that Xi is the first of their leaders in a long time who seems to ignore it. On further research it's a rule imposed back in 2002 [1]: > In 2002, then-President Jiang Zemin tried to clear the ranks at the top of the party by instituting retirement age limits: 68 for top leaders and 65 for senior level officials. That rule has been followed with varying degrees of success. Mr Jiang himself delayed his own retirement. He stayed on as the chairman of China's military for two years until 2004 after relinquishing his other positions to his successor, Hu Jintao. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-21783353 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-21783353
    - dirtyid 5y ago
      BBC article has some mistakes. NOMINATION age between is 58-67. Lower for deputy / provincial levels. Provincial leaders has to retire by 60-65. National leaders have no formal retirement age, but are expected to retire at 70-75. There's also other norms like "seven up, eight down" for standing committee. Xi hasn't broken any age limit rules / norms so far, despite heavy speculation (Qang Qishan in 2017). I would say age limit is treated also sacricant vs term limits, which doesn't even apply to the most important positions for ruling PRC in case of Xi - general secretary, chairman of PLA. There's no good reason for west to throw conniptions over Xi being a dictator for life for another 5-7 years.
- basisword 5y ago
  Or maybe a deadly virus swept the world and they tried to prevent as many deaths as possible, regardless of the consequences.
fny 5y ago
Both are true. Fiscal and monetary stimulus drove financial assets owned mostly by 40+ and retirees to the moon. House prices have become more unaffordable just as millennials (already saddled with college debt) are getting ready to buy their first homes. Inflation has eaten into real wages even with increases. We also locked up an entire generation of zoomers in a house for two years. I was all for lockdowns in early COVID since we didn't know what we were dealing with, but we kept schools closed for far, far too long.
- dclowd9901 5y ago
  Honestly, blame the far left. This was their totem and they’ve been staunch about it. I consider myself a democratic socialist, but planting the flag of progressives into the dirt at the line of perpetual lockdowns was a _huge_ and likely catastrophic misstep, both politically and (more importantly) societally.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Apparently, majority of world is ruled by far left. Otherwise we can't explain lockdowna in other countries.
    - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
      It's not so much far left as it is authoritarian.
- simplestats 5y ago
  Assets going up in value isn't really a wealth transfer by itself. The buyer is just exchanging a lot more cash for an asset worth a lot more. Their wealth doesn't change overall. Rents are a different story perhaps. The unfair property taxes in California and similar states is certainly wealth transfer though, which got vastly more unfair.
  - fny 5y ago
    It is an indirect transfer. Central bank balance sheet coupled with debt monetization debases fiat. That means if I worked for an hour and made $10 and your house goes up by 30%, I can buy less house while you can borrow against your house at low interest rates to buy more financial assets or even my time.

Very succint. Precise, correct, pithy.

scop 5y ago

I’ve pondered this on occasion. In this era of people in their 80s holding many of the major positions in government and business in the US, I wonder whether this was their final attempt to prevent transferring power onto the newer generations. I’m not saying this was a conscious strategy, but it certainly was a very interesting phenomenon especially after listening to Eric Weinstein decry the lack of generational transfer in the US.

throwawayboise 5y ago
There should be a mandatory retirement age for government. 65 sounds about right.
- ralph84 5y ago
  Absolutely. Airline pilots are forced to retire at 65 and their decisions only affect a few hundred people. Politicians' decisions affect millions.
  - laurent92 5y ago
    I’d rather be governed by people who have 65 years of experience with life, than by people who snort coke at 40 to be the shark they’ve always wanted. Politicians never seem to take correct decisions anyway.
    - dclowd9901 5y ago
      Really? I feel exactly the opposite. I wouldn’t trust someone over 65 to drive me to the store.
      - laurent92 5y ago
        In our world, we often assume old people have wrong opinions. The core, though, is that they were betrayed more often than us, so they are less prone to fall into the next rhetoric trap.
        giantg2 5y ago
        It's seems they get set in their ways and don't take action to make positive changes either. Never mind the next rhetoric trap, they're still in the first rhetoric trap... Maybe all of this is a little bit of ageism, but we see that on the opposite end if the age spectrum too and I guess moving to a competency based test isn't practical.
  - sumedh 5y ago
    > Politicians' decisions affect millions. Dont forget the US Supreme court where you literally cling to your job till you die. Those judges are one of the most selfish and egoistic people on earth.
- paganel 5y ago
  They kind of have that in China for public officials, if I'm not mistaken, and it's a big thing that Xi is the first of their leaders in a long time who seems to ignore it. On further research it's a rule imposed back in 2002 [1]: > In 2002, then-President Jiang Zemin tried to clear the ranks at the top of the party by instituting retirement age limits: 68 for top leaders and 65 for senior level officials. That rule has been followed with varying degrees of success. Mr Jiang himself delayed his own retirement. He stayed on as the chairman of China's military for two years until 2004 after relinquishing his other positions to his successor, Hu Jintao. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-21783353 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-21783353
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    BBC article has some mistakes. NOMINATION age between is 58-67. Lower for deputy / provincial levels. Provincial leaders has to retire by 60-65. National leaders have no formal retirement age, but are expected to retire at 70-75. There's also other norms like "seven up, eight down" for standing committee. Xi hasn't broken any age limit rules / norms so far, despite heavy speculation (Qang Qishan in 2017). I would say age limit is treated also sacricant vs term limits, which doesn't even apply to the most important positions for ruling PRC in case of Xi - general secretary, chairman of PLA. There's no good reason for west to throw conniptions over Xi being a dictator for life for another 5-7 years.
basisword 5y ago
Or maybe a deadly virus swept the world and they tried to prevent as many deaths as possible, regardless of the consequences.

fny 5y ago

Both are true. Fiscal and monetary stimulus drove financial assets owned mostly by 40+ and retirees to the moon. House prices have become more unaffordable just as millennials (already saddled with college debt) are getting ready to buy their first homes. Inflation has eaten into real wages even with increases. We also locked up an entire generation of zoomers in a house for two years. I was all for lockdowns in early COVID since we didn't know what we were dealing with, but we kept schools closed for far, far too long.

dclowd9901 5y ago
Honestly, blame the far left. This was their totem and they’ve been staunch about it. I consider myself a democratic socialist, but planting the flag of progressives into the dirt at the line of perpetual lockdowns was a _huge_ and likely catastrophic misstep, both politically and (more importantly) societally.
- watwut 5y ago
  Apparently, majority of world is ruled by far left. Otherwise we can't explain lockdowna in other countries.
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    It's not so much far left as it is authoritarian.
simplestats 5y ago
Assets going up in value isn't really a wealth transfer by itself. The buyer is just exchanging a lot more cash for an asset worth a lot more. Their wealth doesn't change overall. Rents are a different story perhaps. The unfair property taxes in California and similar states is certainly wealth transfer though, which got vastly more unfair.
- fny 5y ago
  It is an indirect transfer. Central bank balance sheet coupled with debt monetization debases fiat. That means if I worked for an hour and made $10 and your house goes up by 30%, I can buy less house while you can borrow against your house at low interest rates to buy more financial assets or even my time.