FREE NEWSLETTER
I noticed a book excerpt in the Harvard Gazette yesterday (5 Aug 2026) that goes into some depth on a topic that is raised here on HD with some frequency, notably by R. D. Quinn, most recently with regard to the Social Security issue. The book in question is:
“Gerontocracy in America: How the Old Are Hoarding Power and Wealth ― and What to Do About It” by Samuel Moyn, J.D. ’01, and published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
The argument is much more broad based than SS alone and provides much reasoned food for thought. Here is an excerpt from the longer posted excerpt:
“If modern gerontocracy functions through a new political environment, it
follows that a new range of solutions is required. Age limits for political office
are a must. Other fixes range from amplifying the political voice of younger
voters and disrupting the stranglehold of the old people’s lobby on our
politics to policies that facilitate intergenerational wealth transfer. The
schemes I offer seek to advance “intergenerational equity.” But unlike the
most vocal partisans of the cause, I don’t oppose the American entitlement
state for seniors. Such voices insist that an end or reduction of perquisites
like Social Security must occur in the name of fairness. The truth is the
opposite: only an expansion of our generosity, including the promise of long-
term care, can overcome the iron grip of old people on power.”
Please note that I post this not to defend any of the author’s particular proposals but only to provide access to reasoned argument on a topic frequently broached on this site. It does seem to me that he has identified and described well the major impasse to progress on the central issue of our common national finances.
I’ll not render an opinion of a book that I have not read, but several age impaired presidents and numerous lawmakers are a fine argument for age limits. Otherwise, like Mark and David write below, it’s no surprise that based on wealth and numbers, we boomers remain a powerful voting bloc.
It is not surprising that a large cohort of Americans, the Baby Boomers, have arranged the political landscape to further their interests through the ballot box. It’s not a bug but a feature of a democratic society.
From ChatGPT…
“Gerontocracy in America by Samuel Moyn argues that the United States has developed a deeply entrenched system where the oldest generations control the majority of political and economic power, creating significant inequality for younger people. To combat this, Moyn proposes “intergenerational equity” through reforms such as age limits, campaign finance changes, and encouraging a “socialist way of aging” to encourage older leaders to cede power. Learn more about the arguments and proposed solutions at Macmillan Publishers.
Core Arguments:
Proposed Solutions
Interestingly, this 54-year-old author berating today’s seniors benefited from a Harvard and Yale education… most likely funded by his “Boomer Parents.”
Also, based on his fields of study and education, stereotypically he is most likely a liberal Democrat politically, so I am not surprised that his solutions sound like they were written by AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Mamdani.
But…that’s just my opinion.
All the core arguments are what the status has been for as long as I have been alive.
Regarding wealth: Who generally is going to have a higher net worth a 65 year old who has been saving and investing for 40+ years, or a 40 you who has been doing the same for merely 15 years?
WARNING: The following is politically incorrect rant here:
More whining from the younger generation.
Recommendation:
Stop whining. Buckle your chinstrap put your head down and get to work. You’re not entitled to anything in life, and most people can’t have anything you want, especially if your in your 30s and 40s.
Look closely at what true needs are vs wants. Stop spending money you don’t have on wants, and start saving more.