this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
553 points (96.2% liked)

Asklemmy

44149 readers
1226 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago
[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

certainly. even lower. Some people can be vigorous in their seventies but they are not the majority, 50's many go down. That is one problem with raising the retirement age in general. There is only a subset that can keep working as age goes up.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Needs to be a little lower

[โ€“] VintageTech 2 points 7 months ago

60, no one should have to work past 60.

And while we're at it: 3 day work week for full-time employment. Society CAN NOT exist if more of our time is spent being at work than being at home with our family.

Get this shit right United States.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

No, because democracy. But we shouldn't vote for these old guys

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Not for House or Senate. Age just isn't a close enough metric for what you're trying to fix.

If you're concerned with age-related decline, vote them out if you see signs of it, or if they would reach whatever age your limit is during the term.

If you're concerned about longevity in office, use term limits or reform campaign finance such that longevity in office doesn't grant too high of an incumbent advantage.

SCOTUS, sure. I think Canada has appointments until 75. Does not seem meaningfully different from appointments for life except less randomness on open slots.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (3 children)

No. That's age discrimination. If you're concerned that a person could be suffering from mental degradation, require annual testing for it. I know folks in their 90's who are better critical thinkers than a lot of 20-somethings.

The problem we have is not that a bunch of old people run the country. It's that a bunch of young people put them there because they were the only real choices they had. Fix the two-party system first by employing ranked-choice voting. That will break the stranglehold that Republicans and Democrats have on the US political system.

load more comments (3 replies)
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I think it should be younger. Maybe 65.

Members of Congress and SCOTUS should also have term limits

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Term limits please

load more comments
view more: โ€น prev next โ€บ