By Sherri Weiss, VAN Contributor
While perusing recent resource listings and opinion essays in the VAN e-bulletin, I reflected on self-determination as an aging asset, the economics of staying retired, the sense of purpose from unretiring, and the premise that workplace ageism impacts all ages. After reading a New York Times interview of Samuel Moyn, the author of Gerontocracy in America: How the Old Are Hoarding Power and Wealth—and What to Do About It, I began pondering this: Can it be true that we have an “old-igarchy” that is severely impeding how younger generations can succeed and prosper?
I have always believed that, no matter one’s age, contemplating the aging journey is a worthwhile exercise. Aging stereotypes affect all generations. How grateful we all could be if we Americans used our collective ingenuity to create policies and practices for an age-integrated society that benefit us now and into the future.
After reading a few reviews of Moyn’s book, I’ve found that opinions differ on the merit of his gerontocracy argument. He believes that older Americans control much of the wealth and housing in our country, that tax codes and housing markets unfairly benefit older people, that old politicians and institutional leaders dominate many sectors in society, and that young people face blocked career paths, high housing costs, and limited political voice. Hmm, some reasonable beliefs.
Moyn wants to create intergenerational equity through system fixes such as mandatory retirement ages for institutional leaders, age caps for politicians and political donors, voting power for younger Americans by higher weighing of their votes, wealth sharing by transferring assets of older generations earlier in life, and mandatory voting with streamlined registration to make political participation more accessible and balanced across age groups. Hmm, some interesting ideas.
In excerpts from a review of Moyn’s book by James Chappel, Associate Professor of History at Duke University, he says, “Strangely, for a book so concerned with wealth and power, Gerontocracy in America doesn’t have much to say about class. Is the problem with wealthy old people that they’re old or that they’re wealthy? Clearly the two are related, insofar as older people tend to be in a higher class. The book focuses on elite older people—university professors, physicians, CEOs, and the like—but it doesn’t follow from their disproportionate power that we should address age as an independent variable, seeking to restrict the power of older people in toto. Many older people are not wealthy at all, and in fact the poverty rate for Americans over 65 is almost identical to that for Americans 18-64.” And, “The truth is, we do not live in a gerontocracy. We live in an oligarchy where a disproportionate number of the oligarchs happen to be old. That’s a different social problem, requiring a different policy response: one focused on affordability and economic justice, rather than intergenerational equity.” Hmm, I think I need to research and ponder all of this more!
Nevertheless, I hold these beliefs about the aging journey:
- We are all equal members of society, wanting to fully participate in all parts of life.
- We continually change as we age, and each life stage has positive happenings and milestones.
- The energy and experience that we build as we age help move our personal and community connections forward.
- As noted earlier, by seizing the opportunity to reframe aging policies and practices, we could ensure all generations live longer and healthier lives.
VAN embraces vital aging as its mission. Hmm, sounds good to me.
“Aging is not lost youth, but a new stage of opportunity and strength.”
— Betty Friedan