I almost went to Yale for Grad study. I had a great fellowship and it was close to New York. But I have to admit I did not like New Haven. So back to Cambridge and the MIT of the 60s with left over WW II shacks for my offices.
Now out of Yale comes some Professor for reasons unknown has this thing about older people. In essence what this gentlemen seems to be saying is that older folks have made wealth and that they should not have it, it should be distributed to the younger people. It is not because they don't deserve it, they have earned it, but some how it lacks some form of equity.
Now let me comment of such equity. Back in the late 50s and early 60s at university, I had no phone, no Internet, no car, nor TV, one pair of shoes, two sports jackets, four shirts, six socks. Oh yes a winter coat and a sweater! I lived with three room mates in an apartment costing $120 per month for all 4 and made my own meals, eating just twice a day! When I moved into my New Jersey house the interest rate was 18.5%, yes it would be cheaper to use a credit card back then! Thus every nickle counted.
Now this Professor states:
To a gobsmacking extent, seniors, with their high rates of participation, dominate elections, especially the apparently boring local and off-cycle ones. The median age of actual voters these days — meaning that equal numbers of voters are older and younger — is about 52, and on the way up. Outside presidential contests, it is 55 or 56; in primaries, it is 65. Even older funders disproportionately finance the races. The most common age of donors in recent elections can run as high as 70. Finally, older Americans are backed by the best-funded advocacy group in world history — the AARP — and enjoy the most governmental benefits by a vast degree. The government is bought and paid for by those who are up in years and is organized for their sake. Trump’s “big beautiful bill” is only the most recent exacerbation, cutting down the welfare state — except elder entitlements — to make up for lost taxes.
Perhaps this fellow just missed the DSA races recently. You know, Medicare for All etc. He then states:
Older people are also hoarding jobs. Following the abolition of mandatory retirement in most professions, older people are choosing to stay in some of the best positions, accumulating more money and blocking pipelines. The average age of CEOs and professors alike has gone through the roof. The United States, which has the highest wage inequality by age in the world, has seen the numbers gallop: Between 1979 and 2018, the pay gap between those over 55 and under 35 has increased by 61 percent. In those same years, the proportion of older people in the workforce has also exploded: The share of workers over 55 rose a shocking 88 percent.
Two point here. First, think Silicon Valley! Not too many old folks there. This type of false statement seems to invade his entire presentation. The last insulting statement is:
The elderly possess the choicest real estate in great cities. The housing crisis, now well-known, is partly a story of old people refusing to downsize as they age. The age group most likely to own a home in America, at a rate of over 80 percent, is 70 to 74, with those 75 and older second highest. Shockingly, the age of the median homebuyer leaped from barely 30 in 1981 to 53 in 2022. The failure of abundant supply is also partly the fault of the elderly, since their political mobilization arrests development and blocks new builds. In defense of their incomes, wealth, homes, or land, they have driven tax revolts so that they don’t have to contribute to the common good.
My home was bought in 1981 but I was going on 40! Finally this person states:
While gerontocracy is hardly the only source of our difficulties, no one interested in how injustice and social strains are shaped and reproduced in America today should ignore how deep it goes. Gerontocracy has to be assessed properly, for the sake of a new intergenerational political compact. In the end, taking it seriously is essential for treating everyone appropriately and fairly.
So what does he suggest? Kill off the old folks? I did not see that, yet. In my opinion and my experience the major problem with the younger generation is that they spend when they should not, spending drives up costs and reduce available capital. In 1960 I ate on $5 per week! The young generation could not buy a cup of fancy coffee for that today.
Posts
