An Oligarchy of Old People | Hacker News Reader

An Oligarchy of Old People

theatlantic.com

33 pointssleepyguy17 comments

Scott Alexander wrote a piece[1] a few months ago which rebutts many of the arguments made in this article.

For instance, the article argues that boomers are NIMBYs:

>Older generations used the levers of government to create this situation. In high-cost cities, the building of new homes and apartment complexes is often derailed in local planning and zoning-board meetings.

However Scott notes:

>It’s not even clear that Boomers are that much more likely to be NIMBYs. From Pew:

>https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!wf8x!,w_1456,c_limit...

The article also talks about social security as benefiting boomers, but Scott notes:

>The Social Security Administration’s own website says that its generosity peaked in 1972, when the program primarily served the Greatest Generation; since then, it’s been one contraction after another.

[1] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-against-boomers

>It’s not even clear that Boomers are that much more likely to be NIMBYs

Most Boomers aren't NIMBYs, but most NIMBYs are Boomers.

This is a thing that uniquely threatens them because their home is their primary investment, so anything that can be leveraged to keep prices high, they'll do. Environmentalism is usually the weapon they reach for, and because they have nothing but time, they have the advantage when it comes to a court system that privileges this kind of retireded spam.

>Social security

This is more because everyone under 40 or so doesn't trust social security will even be around for them to collect, so that group sees it, correctly, as an unfair wealth transfer from young to old. Combine that with the above, and combine that with the abject refusal to even entertain basic reforms (which goes double for non-US nations), and that's where the resentment comes from. Throwing good years after bad ones.

Once the boomers die off, things will get even worse. Thiel and Musk aren't Boomers, but they're the Gen X's with the power.

We must have an enemy. Both sides of the aisle have chosen particularly stupidly IMO. The left has chosen Boomers and the right have chosen immigrants and refugees.

No war but the class war.

The left has not "chosen" the boomers. The "left" of the US hasn't chosen anything, even if there are some articles against boomers here and there.

I wish they chose to point the finger at the billionaires, but that's where their money comes from as well, so they'll keep being rather incoherent.

"Joe Biden, did not want to admit his senescence. "

No, not just Joe. There were a lot of younger people who did not want to confess Joe biden's state because it would reduce their power and a lot of them were under 65.

True, but there were also many younger people who never wanted him to run in the first place. One of the major downsides of the two-party system is that the major parties maintain a duopoly of power, significantly stifling alternative movements (like the Sanders progressives) from making major inroads politically even though public support is widespread. This is a systemic flaw in American politics.

This is an intentional feature of modern American politics. It's not what the founding fathers intended, but if you think that gerrymandering, lobbying, and 2 party dominance don't benefit those who currently hold power in the US you're crazy.

old vs young (as with so many other social cleavages) is real, to an extent, but nothing compared to the wealth oligarchy vs. the rest of us. These cleavages are pushed intentionally to divide and conquer.

poor (and even moderately wealthy) old people aren't the enemy.

True, but there's an inextricable link between life expectancy and wealth that can't be ignored and a very strong positive correlation documented between the two. Poor old people aren't the enemy as they never had power to begin with. Wealthy old people, on the other hand, represent one of the most regressive voting blocs in American politics, and have voted largely to expand the power of the wealthy.

They also love to determine their vote based on social issues rather than economic/political issues. I blame religion but regardless of the cultural motives it boils down to echoes of racism/xenophobia from their parents' generation.

This article simply seems to be stoking an ageist division where there needn't be one... The Greatest Gen and Boomers largely had a better set of opportunities than generations since. There are a lot of reasons for this... you could just as easily argue that feminism destroyed the labor market, or that opening trade to repressive countries that treat their own people like quasi slave labor destroyed the economy.

There are lots of reasons why the young today don't have the same opportunities of old. Hell, even with online advancements, it won't even match the early internet era pre and early after the .com bubble burst.

International free trade often isn't... because the labor and living conditions between nations varies a lot. And you cannot tax your way into a more fair market... you can only encourage more competition and enact some level of domestic protectionism.

Most of the people the article is complaining about simply did the right things... worked, steadily and saved or worked in companies that offered retirement options and pensions. But we want to be consumers first... we wanted cheap DVD players, televisions, appliances and phones. So, that's what we got... all the while markets are colluding, collapsing and expanding to extract every bit of potential value out of every product and market there is.

There's room for improvement, but I vigorously opposed socialism as the answer... I think we just need to adjust incentivization and adapt the limitations of liability offered to non-living entities. At this point, for the US, that will likely require a constitutional amendment.

The Atlantic is filled to the brim with spooks. Age of politicians is a symptom, not the source of our problems.

It’s effectively a decoy to distract people that “know something’s wrong” from looking at the real source of our governance problems: Citizens United. Throw in a little generational resentment for division purposes and now you’re really cooking.

What's your pitch for reconciling an overturn of Citizens United with freedom of speech and association?

It's a tricky problem. Banning political spending for for-profit organizations is an easy win, but not a particularly big one. The big issue is PACs, and I can't come up with clean line to draw between "me and my friends got together to oppose evil policy XYZ" (which is clear, unambiguous 1st amendment activity) and "me and my billionaire cronies got together to oppose good policy ABC".

Since when are political donations speech? Last I checked, financial transfers involve NO expression of sentiment beyond “I want this person to have my money”. By that same logic all drug enforcement / wire fraud enforcement is also a violation of the first amendment. And why should we allow wealthy individuals to have more “voice” than others? It’s the most anti-democratic setup imaginable.

I would love to know what % of PACs - weighted by size (or “voice”, as you call it) - are operated as truly grassroots organizations with a normal distribution of contribution size. I’d put my money on <5%.

My solution is pretty simple. Do away with political donations altogether. People can still get together and make signs and go door to door for a candidate. And split the cost of pizza among themselves.

Generally PACs don't directly hand much money to politicians or their campaigns. Instead, they make and run ads, they organize speaking events, they spend money instead of some politician's campaign. That's why all the political ads have some "This ad was paid for by Americans for Extreme Goodliness" taglines. They're not being run by the campaign itself (which has limits on its funding, mostly transparency stuff, but not necessarily), they're run by PACs.

And that's basically impossible to curtail, without seriously violating fundamental 1st amendment protections.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com