How old is too old?

[PizzaSnake]

Feinstein? McConnell? Biden? Trump?

If there’s a mandatory retirement age for airline pilots, why not politicians? Which represents a greater risk?

[Olderbarndog]

Feinstein? McConnell? Biden? Trump?

If there’s a mandatory retirement age for airline pilots, why not politicians? Which represents a greater risk?

Like where you're going with this. Add term limits and I'm all in.

[a fan]

Feinstein? McConnell? Biden? Trump?

If there’s a mandatory retirement age for airline pilots, why not politicians? Which represents a greater risk?

Like where you're going with this. Add term limits and I'm all in.

All of them need to be retired. Enough.

It's not ok to treat another human like this. As much as I despise Mitch McConnell, he's a human being, not a doorstop. Watching him space out again? They need to remove him, and give him his dignity. Time to retire. Same for Feinstein...that debacle caught on camera for her vote call was inexcusable. Show some humanity.

[PizzaSnake]

Feinstein? McConnell? Biden? Trump?

If there’s a mandatory retirement age for airline pilots, why not politicians? Which represents a greater risk?

Like where you're going with this. Add term limits and I'm all in.

All of them need to be retired. Enough.

It's not ok to treat another human like this. As much as I despise Mitch McConnell, he's a human being, not a doorstop. Watching him space out again? They need to remove him, and give him his dignity. Time eneto retire. Same for Feinstein...that debacle caught on camera for her vote call was inexcusable. Show some humanity.

So no age limit? Cognitive test (real, not like tRumpy’s farce)?

When is “when”? Who decides? How?

[jhu72]

You would hope they could and would make that decision for themselves. Unfortunately, they have proven it is beyond them.

I am sure there are 80 year olds who could do the job, but obviously not all. You either set an age limit for the office, or a battery of tests to be passed, physical and mental before being allowed to assume office. Such a test could be applied for any office and at any age. Personally, I'd like to add some psychological testing as well.

[ardilla secreta]

I don’t have a problem with anyone in politics working into the twilight years. The problem lays in individuals that clearly fail to recognize when it’s time to hang it up as we have seen lately. It’s not an epidemic and the overwhelming majority retire in reasonable time.

Asking for testing for seniors is blatantly discriminatory. Should we performs tests on all candidates? Maybe. Would you like to know who’s on Adderall? How about those medicated for depression and anxiety? I’ll bet there’s a lot of that in politics. Is it ok to be in the White House under SSRIs?

[jhu72]

I don’t have a problem with anyone in politics working into the twilight years. The problem lays in individuals that clearly fail to recognize when it’s time to hang it up as we have seen lately. It’s not an epidemic and the overwhelming majority retire in reasonable time.

Asking for testing for seniors is blatantly discriminatory. Should we performs tests on all candidates? Maybe. Would you like to know who’s on Adderall? How about those medicated for depression and anxiety? I’ll bet there’s a lot of that in politics. Is it ok to be in the White House under SSRIs?

How do our peer nations handle the problem?? I have no idea as I sit here.

Yup. Testing would be highly invasive for the individual if it is to be meaningful and transparent. To avoid agism it must be performed regardless of age. The idea of a hard cutoff age is much less desirable I think. No matter how you cut it, the most effective politicians in recent times have been Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi. Ben Franklin was 81 when he served in the constitutional convention in 1787!

What we have is largely, not entirely, a perception problem.

[NattyBohChamps04]

We have a constitutional lower age limit for being president or a senator. That's technically agist as well.

No reason we can't have a hard and fast upper age limit. 65 sounds good to me.

A hard cutoff is better because it's objective vs. subjectively evaluating people. Plenty of bright younger people around.

[cradleandshoot]

Maybe they should attach a drool bucket on Joes mouth. He will be allowed 1 ounce of drool per day. Anything after that becomes problematic indeed. Afternoon nappy time can be excluded from this. We all drool when we nap.

[CU88a]

An interesting read: https://www.fastcompany.com/90933855/wh ... of-wharton.

"BMW is turning heads by pioneering the workplace, where as many as five generations of people collaborate and bring to the table their unique skills and perspectives. They have redesigned factories and the various sections within them so that several generations of workers feel comfortable toiling together, leading to productivity increases and higher job satisfaction."

Who is older, Mitch McConnell or Mick Jagger?

[ardilla secreta]

An interesting read: https://www.fastcompany.com/90933855/wh ... of-wharton.

"BMW is turning heads by pioneering the workplace, where as many as five generations of people collaborate and bring to the table their unique skills and perspectives. They have redesigned factories and the various sections within them so that several generations of workers feel comfortable toiling together, leading to productivity increases and higher job satisfaction."

Who is older, Mitch McConnell or Mick Jagger?

IMG_0896.jpeg (101.18 KiB) Viewed 349 times

[PizzaSnake]

An interesting read: https://www.fastcompany.com/90933855/wh ... of-wharton.

"BMW is turning heads by pioneering the workplace, where as many as five generations of people collaborate and bring to the table their unique skills and perspectives. They have redesigned factories and the various sections within them so that several generations of workers feel comfortable toiling together, leading to productivity increases and higher job satisfaction."

Who is older, Mitch McConnell or Mick Jagger?

IMG_0896.jpeg

Well, since Mick sold his soul to Mitch…

[CU88a]

An interesting read: https://www.fastcompany.com/90933855/wh ... of-wharton.

"BMW is turning heads by pioneering the workplace, where as many as five generations of people collaborate and bring to the table their unique skills and perspectives. They have redesigned factories and the various sections within them so that several generations of workers feel comfortable toiling together, leading to productivity increases and higher job satisfaction."

Who is older, Mitch McConnell or Mick Jagger?

IMG_0896.jpeg

WOW

I love Keith Richard jokes on this same vein...

[ggait]

Just have term limits. Duh.

Two term limits fixed the Roosevelt problem just fine. If voters want to re-up Joe, their choice. And Joe would be done forever in four years.

MM is in his sixth senate term. DF has also been re-elected five times. Stupid. Three terms max.

But the core problem isn’t age. It is entrenchment like the House of Lords.

Same goes for scotus. 18 years is plenty. The problem with Thomas or RBG isn’t age. It is that they are unaccountable and out of touch. And, barring a health crisis, they can effectively pick their successor. Total bs.

Term limits. Tests are a dumb idea.

[MDlaxfan76]

In our democratic system, voters make these decisions weighing all sorts of factors as to who they want to represent them from among the choices presented. We 'trust' the voters. (Caveat that money plays a huge role in these 'choices')

Personally, I think the more authority to be wielded, the more important experience should be to voters' choice. But character, policies, effective communication skills, all are in the mix...and versus the best alternative presented.

Voters are free to weigh various factors differently than their neighbors, often to frustrating outcomes, yes, but that's the process in a democracy.

And if age appears to be diminishing capacities such that an alternative would be better, there are primaries and general elections...(Perhaps we should make it easier for retirements with special elections to be held).

We do have term limits for Presidents and one could make a reasonable argument that term limits for other positions would be appropriate, though I think there should be a lot of terms allowed, enabling people to gain that experience, else the government would end up getting run nearly entirely by lobbyists and bureaucrats. We need expertise gained from both private and public civil service, yes, but we also need legislators (and judges) to also be able to balance this with their own experience.

So, maybe 24 years in any federal legislative position, theoretically 48 years if back to back 24 years in House and then Senate. Want that shorter? 40 years in aggregate? 30?

I'd do no more than 30 years for any federal judge additive, no lifetime appointments. Maybe just 18 for SCOTUS given how much power is granted (Like POTUS, fewer terms). Preferably on a clear rotation. Might need a few more justices on SCOTUS, with a random assignment of cases to 9 Justices.

None of this is likely to happen...

[youthathletics]

Alternatively....just stop voting for who is already in office, this helps simplify and and break down voting down party line, which also makes it that much harder for the incumbent who then has to actually work, instead of them assuming they'll just get our vote b/c of party affiliation.

[Andersen]

70 seems right for both office holders and judges.. Many people older than that formed their world view in the '60's and '70's which is often an obstacle for leading and making decisions in 2023. Being out of touch is an issue from what I've seen. I'd really think twice about hiring a 74 year old accountant or attorney. I'd question if they were at their best, and think I could find someone better.

My understanding with term limits for Congress is that is gives even more power and influence to lobbyists, etc.

[Farfromgeneva]

I don’t have a problem with anyone in politics working into the twilight years. The problem lays in individuals that clearly fail to recognize when it’s time to hang it up as we have seen lately. It’s not an epidemic and the overwhelming majority retire in reasonable time.

Asking for testing for seniors is blatantly discriminatory. Should we performs tests on all candidates? Maybe. Would you like to know who’s on Adderall? How about those medicated for depression and anxiety? I’ll bet there’s a lot of that in politics. Is it ok to be in the White House under SSRIs?

How do our peer nations handle the problem?? I have no idea as I sit here.

Yup. Testing would be highly invasive for the individual if it is to be meaningful and transparent. To avoid agism it must be performed regardless of age. The idea of a hard cutoff age is much less desirable I think. No matter how you cut it, the most effective politicians in recent times have been Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi. Ben Franklin was 81 when he served in the constitutional convention in 1787!

What we have is largely, not entirely, a perception problem.

Japan and Europe and f***ed demographically so there’s no hood road map for where our country is heading. I think more will hang on to their seats in the private sector as well as we grey as a nation.

[SCLaxAttack]

It should be a requirement to state your age (I just turned 67) before posting on this thread.

All those posting here that are <50 should tag this thread and come back to it to see how your opinions change in 15-20 years.

[njbill]

It should be a requirement to state your age (I just turned 67) before posting on this thread.

All those posting here that are <50 should tag this thread and come back to it to see how your opinions change in 15-20 years.

+1.

Remember, in the 60s we were told never to trust anyone over 30.

It's amazing how dumb the 30 and 40 year olds think the old fogies are. Equally amazing is how dumb the old fogies think the 30 and 40 year olds are.

Age 70.