5 ms·

Why might Apple have a mandatory retirement age? Interesting that you can be too old to be in this position but not too old to be elected President.

mandeepj 3y ago
> Why might Apple have a mandatory retirement age? Apple is a private entity; I understand they are publicly traded, but not a govt entity. They can make their own rules for their efficiency
- sparky_z 3y ago
  The question wasn't why can they, it was why might they.
tharne 3y ago
> Why might Apple have a mandatory retirement age? Interesting that you can be too old to be in this position but not too old to be elected President. This is pretty common in business, at least in the U.S. Most decent-sized companies understand the risks of associated with a geriatric executive. The fact that our government doesn't understand this is a bit scary.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  He's turning 76 in a two months so it's quite sensible. I think the vast vast majority of people start slowing down, mentally, by then. Maybe 1 in a million outliers can stay razor sharp beyond that, but it's not determinable who falls into that category in advance.
freejazz 3y ago
We are free to pass a constitutional amendment that limits the age of the president or any other government position. Why act like there is some prohibiting this?
- supertimor 3y ago
  The median age of Congress is 59 (58 for the House, 65 for the Senate). Good luck getting the 2/3rds needed to pass a constitutional amendment when over half of the Senate is 65 and older, and over a third of the House is 65 and over. Doubt any of these people are going to want to legislate themselves out of their jobs or the possibility of becoming president.
  - tacticalturtle 3y ago
    It may be time to dust off the never-before-used Article V Convention: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendm...
  - freejazz 3y ago
    That's fine, plenty of other people can run on that platform if people will actually vote for it. We aren't slaves to our congresspeople. In fact, they shouldn't be making any decisions that don't reflect the interests of their constituents.
    - supertimor 3y ago
      Ok, but even if some politicians run on a platform of capping the age for eligibility to run for congress or the presidency, getting 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House to actually vote for it is near impossible, especially in today’s polarized (frequently gridlocked) political climate. But also, regardless of how popular this might be publicly, most politicians don’t run on platforms that curb their own power. The last time we amended the constitution was 32 years ago, and that was more than 202 years after the amendment was originally proposed and approved by Congress. This amendment effectively does not allow Congress to get a pay raise until their next elected term. Unsurprisingly, when this amendment was brought to the public’s attention in the 1980’s, Congress majorly pushed back about it. But the amendment was gaining popularity publicly and it was ratified by 2/3rds of the states, so congress had no choice but to accept the amendment as valid. This may have been otherwise impossible to pass if congress hadn’t already approved the amendment over 200 years ago in 1789. Just because Congress should be a certain way, does not in fact make it reality. Congress frequently makes unpopular decisions. And when you have some representatives that have an equal say in the vote that represents a fraction of the number a people of another representative, what the majority of people want doesn’t really matter politically in most cases. Now you’re right about one thing, if this platform is popular enough, there still might be a possible path forward to achieve a constitutional amendment. But it’s far from a certainty and more likely a long shot at this point. It could take decades or more until the amendment is both approved and ratified, if it’s even politically possible at the moment. It’s not as simple as, if the people want it, they can vote for it; because that is just not the current reality in American politics.

mandeepj 3y ago

> Why might Apple have a mandatory retirement age? Apple is a private entity; I understand they are publicly traded, but not a govt entity. They can make their own rules for their efficiency

sparky_z 3y ago
The question wasn't why can they, it was why might they.

tharne 3y ago

> Why might Apple have a mandatory retirement age? Interesting that you can be too old to be in this position but not too old to be elected President. This is pretty common in business, at least in the U.S. Most decent-sized companies understand the risks of associated with a geriatric executive. The fact that our government doesn't understand this is a bit scary.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
He's turning 76 in a two months so it's quite sensible. I think the vast vast majority of people start slowing down, mentally, by then. Maybe 1 in a million outliers can stay razor sharp beyond that, but it's not determinable who falls into that category in advance.

freejazz 3y ago

We are free to pass a constitutional amendment that limits the age of the president or any other government position. Why act like there is some prohibiting this?

supertimor 3y ago
The median age of Congress is 59 (58 for the House, 65 for the Senate). Good luck getting the 2/3rds needed to pass a constitutional amendment when over half of the Senate is 65 and older, and over a third of the House is 65 and over. Doubt any of these people are going to want to legislate themselves out of their jobs or the possibility of becoming president.
- tacticalturtle 3y ago
  It may be time to dust off the never-before-used Article V Convention: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendm...
- freejazz 3y ago
  That's fine, plenty of other people can run on that platform if people will actually vote for it. We aren't slaves to our congresspeople. In fact, they shouldn't be making any decisions that don't reflect the interests of their constituents.
  - supertimor 3y ago
    Ok, but even if some politicians run on a platform of capping the age for eligibility to run for congress or the presidency, getting 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House to actually vote for it is near impossible, especially in today’s polarized (frequently gridlocked) political climate. But also, regardless of how popular this might be publicly, most politicians don’t run on platforms that curb their own power. The last time we amended the constitution was 32 years ago, and that was more than 202 years after the amendment was originally proposed and approved by Congress. This amendment effectively does not allow Congress to get a pay raise until their next elected term. Unsurprisingly, when this amendment was brought to the public’s attention in the 1980’s, Congress majorly pushed back about it. But the amendment was gaining popularity publicly and it was ratified by 2/3rds of the states, so congress had no choice but to accept the amendment as valid. This may have been otherwise impossible to pass if congress hadn’t already approved the amendment over 200 years ago in 1789. Just because Congress should be a certain way, does not in fact make it reality. Congress frequently makes unpopular decisions. And when you have some representatives that have an equal say in the vote that represents a fraction of the number a people of another representative, what the majority of people want doesn’t really matter politically in most cases. Now you’re right about one thing, if this platform is popular enough, there still might be a possible path forward to achieve a constitutional amendment. But it’s far from a certainty and more likely a long shot at this point. It could take decades or more until the amendment is both approved and ratified, if it’s even politically possible at the moment. It’s not as simple as, if the people want it, they can vote for it; because that is just not the current reality in American politics.