Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye15

by that reasoning, most elder adults have started to lose mental ability. Should we also then cut off an age for voting, say, 68 years old? You can only vote between ages 21-68. Will that make both sides happy? It would eliminate a ton of baby boomers who vote republican without thought, and eliminate a bunch of college kids who vote democrat without thought.

---

My original response was mostly tongue-in-cheek, focusing on the issue of growing up and at what age people can "understand policy".

I don't really care what the voting age is, given that I believe that a majority of voters -- no matter what their age -- have precious little understanding of what they are voting for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye15

oh totally agree.

---

One thing you are missing in these age comparisons…

16 year olds have zero experience…in pretty much anything.

68 year olds have mucho experience

Lee Iacocca on e wrote in his book that with unions demanding retirement after twenty years the net effect is people with 20 years experience are leaving the auto industry in the 40s-50s and are being replaced with people having no experience. That didn't make sense to him. He's right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye15

at the current rate, plenty won't be able to afford it. Housing will change over time if costs aren't roped in.

---

Okay, but that's the future, and you are saying there will be more homeless in the future. But other than children and the homeless who doesn't pay rent/mortgage NOW?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

One thing you are missing in these age comparisons…

16 year olds have zero experience…in pretty much anything.

68 year olds have mucho experience

Lee Iacocca on e wrote in his book that with unions demanding retirement after twenty years the net effect is people with 20 years experience are leaving the auto industry in the 40s-50s and are being replaced with people having no experience. That didn't make sense to him. He's right.

---

On the other hand, they are voting on laws that impact the future. As Chris Rock said "how you gonna make good decisions about what we need in the future when you won't be in it?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

I'll go along with this if you start with the Supreme Court having mandatory retirement at the same age.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye15

oh totally agree.

---

Cosign

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

On the other hand, they are voting on laws that impact the future. As Chris Rock said "how you gonna make good decisions about what we need in the future when you won't be in it?"

---

Double cosign

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

On the other hand, they are voting on laws that impact the future. As Chris Rock said "how you gonna make good decisions about what we need in the future when you won't be in it?"

---

But their concept of the future is the next iPhone release. Their future is concert tours.

At 16 they are pretty much uninformed individuals in the ways of the world. Allowing them to vote is absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

But their concept of the future is the next iPhone release. Their future is concert tours.

At 16 they are pretty much uninformed individuals in the ways of the world. Allowing them to vote is absurd.

---

I agree 16 year olds voting is absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

One thing you are missing in these age comparisons…

16 year olds have zero experience…in pretty much anything.

68 year olds have mucho experience

Lee Iacocca on e wrote in his book that with unions demanding retirement after twenty years the net effect is people with 20 years experience are leaving the auto industry in the 40s-50s and are being replaced with people having no experience. That didn't make sense to him. He's right.

---

to me, that "experience" is outweighed heavily by the fact that a 68 year old voting, is voting for person/policy that will have minimal impact on their lives, since they won't be around much longer. To me, a 68 year old has already lived their professional life, a 68 year old views the world much differently (seriously, how common is the whole back in my day ****), etc. In fact, I think the voice of a 20 year old means more than a senior citizen when it comes to the good of all people. How far removed is a 68 year old from education, and how concerned are they of the next generation? 68 year olds do NOT face what 20-40s people do, which is to live in a time where the cost of living has gotten out of control. They stand on their podium, and tell us all about personal responsibility, and that having kids or going to college is a choice only, or that living in a certain area is a choice only. All of this while completely ignoring the reason they were able to make those choices so easily, is because it was far more affordable when they were in the heavy run of their careers. They have literally no understanding of what our young population faces in the future, which is to clean up their mess.

As far as your union reference, I am not sure why it applies? Any business has a responsibility to make sure they have varying tenured employees so as not to lose a lot of experience all at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

But their concept of the future is the next iPhone release. Their future is concert tours.

At 16 they are pretty much uninformed individuals in the ways of the world. Allowing them to vote is absurd.

---

look, a 16 year old voting is stupid. I think most agree. But, so is a 68 year old retired guy who has no vested interest in the future. So?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

Okay, but that's the future, and you are saying there will be more homeless in the future. But other than children and the homeless who doesn't pay rent/mortgage NOW?

---

no, there will be more public housing, more people living under one roof, etc. Housing costs are rising far faster than wages. As are health costs, childcare costs, and pretty much every other cost out there.

I mean, by all means, let's live like the chinese do. 7 people in a 2 bedroom apartment, sleeping on bunks in the living room, all because it's so expensive to rent/buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye15

look, a 16 year old voting is stupid. I think most agree. But, so is a 68 year old retired guy who has no vested interest in the future. So?

---

A 68 year old went to college at around 1970. In 1970 a year of college was $8,800 in today's dollars. A house cost $65,000 in today's dollars. They grew up in a different reality than we did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

A 68 year old went to college at around 1970. In 1970 a year of college was $8,800 in today's dollars. A house cost $65,000 in today's dollars. They grew up in a different reality than we did.

---

What does all this mean???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

What does all this mean???

---

It means that a 70 year old has about as little clue as to what 20-30 year olds face today as a 16 year old does. I'll give them some credit, they probably have a slightly better grasp, but not by much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye15

to me, that "experience" is outweighed heavily by the fact that a 68 year old voting, is voting for person/policy that will have minimal impact on their lives, since they won't be around much longer. To me, a 68 year old has already lived their professional life, a 68 year old views the world much differently (seriously, how common is the whole back in my day ****), etc. In fact, I think the voice of a 20 year old means more than a senior citizen when it comes to the good of all people. How far removed is a 68 year old from education, and how concerned are they of the next generation? 68 year olds do NOT face what 20-40s people do, which is to live in a time where the cost of living has gotten out of control. They stand on their podium, and tell us all about personal responsibility, and that having kids or going to college is a choice only, or that living in a certain area is a choice only. All of this while completely ignoring the reason they were able to make those choices so easily, is because it was far more affordable when they were in the heavy run of their careers. They have literally no understanding of what our young population faces in the future, which is to clean up their mess.

As far as your union reference, I am not sure why it applies? Any business has a responsibility to make sure they have varying tenured employees so as not to lose a lot of experience all at once.

---

If everyone over 68 simply disappeared, I wonder how many jobs would be left.

RE: para 2…with unionized/organized labor they have little say in keeping tenured employees. The tenured/experienced employees leave at a young age, get another job and wind up with two, usually pretty good incomes. Who wouldn't do that? Cop/Fireman retires at 45 at half pay with benefits and gets a cushy job using their skills in a similar field. Seems wasteful to me. But I would do it if I had the opportunity.