This isn't how anything works! It's why we have mandatory retirement ages or competency testing in many many professions!
This isn't how anything works! It's why we have mandatory retirement ages or competency testing in many many professions!
Right. There are major structural reasons why it is hard to get rid of senior leadership even if they aren't doing a good job.
A lot of it is US campaign finance laws I think www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Precisely! That's often why places implement hard retirement ages, because it becomes very hard to tell a powerful senior person that they've gotta give it up.
And it's specifically the powerful, why it's a -cracy. Simultaneously everyday old people face unfair agism!
Then there's all the powerful courtiers they have placed around them so they don't have to do the actual work.
Also, this is a traditionally conservative argument, but within a democracy it is dangerous if a non-worker majority can vote itself funding from a laboring minority.
Retirement should be based on WAR not age. (Wins above replacement executive.) Someone doing a bad job doesn't imply their replacement will do better!
In Ontario, drivers 80 & over must renew their license every 2 years, w/vision & cognitive tests + driver's ed. session. Seniors 65 to 79 must take a knowledge test every 5 years.
Yeah that guy doesn't know what a PAC is.
In Mass. we have mandatory retirement for judges at 70 and it is a good thing.
Sorry I can’t take anybody who doesn’t acknowledge the structural power dynamics within the 2 party system. Hell these people don’t even want to acknowledge rampant voter suppression. There are, in fact, an lot of ways our current political system is undemocratic & favors rich, elderly incumbents.
I say this as someone who has worked on 2 uphill independent electoral campaigns, 1 that won & 1 that lost. You fight the system THE SYSTEM FIGHTS BACK.
If you’ve never fundraised, hit the doors/phones, dealt with blow after blow of legal maneuvers to try to get your candidate of the ballot, tried to convert key constituencies who have are either being bought off or threatened in some fashion in a city with a big dem political machine:
Sit the fuck down & shut the fuck up. Show me your skills before you talk about our skills issues you absolute pieces of shit.
Law firms will let you hang around past 65 but they will de-equitize you and call you something like “senior counsel”.
Not everywhere, but the places that don't start forcing their elderly partners to wind down their careers in their 70s end up having Problems.
Yes. The older partners I worked for were also required to have serious transition plans that required integrating younger partners into the client work stream so that they could eventually take over.
Of course some of this got blown to hell when Dewey collapsed because senior partner and junior partner ended up going to different firms, but that was an unusual situation.
"The old man sees what's coming and jealously hordes his power and connections" is like humanity's 4th oldest problem. Pretending not to understand why so many institutions guard against it is insane
We used to solve this with convenient murders.
I ended up unfollowing that dude because his takes were just so boring, bad, and banal.
A poor man's Fecke
The stupidity in that thread is mind-boggling.
The US has a lot of dancing around "voters make really bad decisions with staggering frequency"
If we have a minimum age to get elected, we should have a maximum age.
Yes but what if we pretend all of that doesn’t exist and just work off debating point first principles? THEN WHAT??
This is the first generation to ever have this sort of life expectancy, yet that guy thinks “it’s always worked fine before” is a valid argument…
It is also the case that old people are allowed to vote, regardless of cognitive capacity, and young people aren’t. Lower the voting age to thirteen and see how competitive those incumbents are then.
"end run around democracy" is totally incoherent here too. trying to end run around democracy by raising an issue that you hope will get people to vote for you --or if he means pressuring people not to run, congratulations, he's discovered a non-electoral mechanism that perpetuates gerontocracy
Normalize primarying incumbents for being too old.
Yes, even that one.
Age-based seniority is a plagiarizing ploy of sly sinecurists.
Inexplicably I'm sort of surprised there are people out there defending Dianne Feinstein-type situations. What do they even possibly think they're defending here.
Like not only should she not have been in the Senate, she shouldn't have been allowed to drive, she needed constant supervision, how is this complicated.
and private organizations can move more quickly to replace someone when they vanish from work for four months because they've moved to a senior living facility for dementia care en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Gra...
45 year old normies face age discrimination and this guy is out here running interference for 75 year old do nothings. Crazy world we live in.
"Can't out compete the cheaper 19 year olds? Skill difference buddy!"
"People die and get replaced so its a solved problem" is very obviously not true. There's been a number of politicians who have been senile for years before they died and that's been the case for a long time.
I'm young, I can wait the current generation of senile elders out. But I'd prefer not to keep replacing them with a new generation of senile elders until eventually I can't wait them out because I am myself an old man.
That person has never watched their parents age and decline
"Competing on a level playing field" is such a bullshit way to frame a younger leader's experience in an old system inhabited by old leaders. There's nothing level about it. It's never a blind meritocracy.
Okay who enforces the criterion?
Many states have a retirement age of 70 for the judiciary. Many universities had mandatory retirement ages for faculty (and those were a good idea). And many places without firm retirement ages frequently work to determine whether you are still competent.
Imagine thinking that having the ability to declare war isn’t a “dangerous position.”
Even the Catholic Church for everyone other than the pope.
The number of attorneys I’ve seen in the courtroom who barely knew what was going on and were still working because they never developed hobbies and didn’t know how to not work… it’s scary when you have to actually help opposing counsel through an appearance.
The number of 20 year old clerks who don’t know shit in a courtroom and how to work. Or 30 year old ones. Or 40 year old ones.
A good idea for young people on tenure but not because the oldster couldn’t do their jobs.
Commercial pilots have mandatory retirement at 65. Air Traffic Controllers have to retire by age 56. That's not a typo.
And mandatory retirement ages work both to ensure continued competence and to clear the way for new people to assume those positions, rather than have the same people in charge forever with no succession planning.
Forget it, man. You are arguing with Diane Feinstein’s biggest fan. This guy loves seeing abused elderly people being used by their staff.
If the Democrats had a culture where Tina Smith wasn't an outlier I could be skeptical of mandatory retirement; but folks just don't want to leave power, and they aren't fostering the next generation. It should be a party level policy, though, not law.
The party is captured by the doddering geriatrics. Loyalty and seniority-worship factor in way more than the good of the party.
But the party has manifestly failed to make said policy, so I'm fine with putting it into law. If the constitution can specify that you can't run for office when you're too young, no reason it shouldn't do so when you're too old.
like the reason why people stay in office so long is that single winner districts and first past the post sucks they make it harder to break into politics, like mandatory retirements in non physical labor intensive jobs are ageist. the problem is that we age at different rates.
Anywhere where there is no easy way to test competency should have a mandatory retirement age. And we should be doing age competency tests for more things - driving, for example. Once a year, every year after you turn 75
If grandma can still drive safely at 90, that's awesome. I aspire to be like that. But if not, it's best for her and everyone else that she not drive. (I'm also very much in favor of more public transit investment, incl public transit targeted at seniors)
He is exactly wrong wtf. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act specifically exempts executives and high policymaking employees. That's literally the only category you're allowed to discriminate against by age