It is beyond reason that we have agreed as a society that there is an age at which folks start getting the social security checks we all agreed to pay into our whole lives, but yet somehow that age does not disqualify us from public office.
It makes 0 sense to allow people to be in or run for public office who are also capable of collecting social security. The two ideas are diametrically opposed.
Again we have the founders never thinking that an 80yo would WANT to be in elected office; rather than at home walking the dogs.
In a rational world we’d be looking at someone in their 60s and thinking; are you really going to want to do THIS job? — in the private sector; we have effing age discrimination laws to protect those over 50?
It’s one thing to be an office drone at 65, it’s a completely other thing to be the actual US president.
It’s a new phenomenon, and almost certainly tied to Boomers being larger than subsequent generations way longer than normal, and refusing to tolerate the idea that someone younger could be better.
They vote for people older than them. And they almost always will.
I think it makes far more sense to tie this kind of thing to capabilities, rather than some fixed number.
Especially if/when biotech starts having a major impact…we may have people being capable for very much longer. Cutting it off at SS age would be very stupid. SS is probably where it is at because it has to account for jobs that may have a very physical component to them. People work way past that age all across the board anyway, and our politicians should be no different.
There’s a good deal of variation between people. A manual laborer can’t be expected to work past 65, but many white collar workers are perfectly capable well beyond. Compare Trump to Bernie.
So true. It’s probably why SS is where it is at. It’s fine to be able to draw down SS, but that should not be a metric on how people are forced out of the workforce, either. I was just talking to someone I know who is between jobs, thinking she may be forced to retire, just because she’s 76.
She has multiple recent and relevant certs, recent and relevant experience, has an active mind and is very capable. And yet, thanks to most people in the hiring process being younger than her (and in many cases, very young) she is faced with a lot of ageism. It’s a real shame since she’d be contributing…it’s not like she has to do manual labor.
She said, “I just want to keep working, but I’m not sure I’ll be able to. I may just have to retire even if I don’t want to.” I just shook my head. It’s crazy.
Maybe, and it’s hard to give up something you have than it is to block something. The restriction that you have to be at least 35 is basically the exact same thing.
The real issue is that someone with Aimee skin in the game, rather than someone just looking forward to retirement is way harder for the string outlets to control.
It is beyond reason that we have agreed as a society that there is an age at which folks start getting the social security checks we all agreed to pay into our whole lives, but yet somehow that age does not disqualify us from public office.
It makes 0 sense to allow people to be in or run for public office who are also capable of collecting social security. The two ideas are diametrically opposed.
Correct.
Again we have the founders never thinking that an 80yo would WANT to be in elected office; rather than at home walking the dogs.
In a rational world we’d be looking at someone in their 60s and thinking; are you really going to want to do THIS job? — in the private sector; we have effing age discrimination laws to protect those over 50?
Yep.
It’s one thing to be an office drone at 65, it’s a completely other thing to be the actual US president.
It’s a new phenomenon, and almost certainly tied to Boomers being larger than subsequent generations way longer than normal, and refusing to tolerate the idea that someone younger could be better.
They vote for people older than them. And they almost always will.
I think it makes far more sense to tie this kind of thing to capabilities, rather than some fixed number.
Especially if/when biotech starts having a major impact…we may have people being capable for very much longer. Cutting it off at SS age would be very stupid. SS is probably where it is at because it has to account for jobs that may have a very physical component to them. People work way past that age all across the board anyway, and our politicians should be no different.
There’s a good deal of variation between people. A manual laborer can’t be expected to work past 65, but many white collar workers are perfectly capable well beyond. Compare Trump to Bernie.
So true. It’s probably why SS is where it is at. It’s fine to be able to draw down SS, but that should not be a metric on how people are forced out of the workforce, either. I was just talking to someone I know who is between jobs, thinking she may be forced to retire, just because she’s 76.
She has multiple recent and relevant certs, recent and relevant experience, has an active mind and is very capable. And yet, thanks to most people in the hiring process being younger than her (and in many cases, very young) she is faced with a lot of ageism. It’s a real shame since she’d be contributing…it’s not like she has to do manual labor.
She said, “I just want to keep working, but I’m not sure I’ll be able to. I may just have to retire even if I don’t want to.” I just shook my head. It’s crazy.
I agree, but their argument is that by not allowing people of that age, that demographic then loses their representation in government.
Maybe, and it’s hard to give up something you have than it is to block something. The restriction that you have to be at least 35 is basically the exact same thing.
The real issue is that someone with Aimee skin in the game, rather than someone just looking forward to retirement is way harder for the string outlets to control.