Matt Taibbi went crazy the other day in his Substack about an opinion piece in the New York Times by Yale Law professor Samuel Moyn. The title of Matt’s post is “New York Times: Old People Suck, and We Should Just Take their Stuff.” Moyn undoubtedly touched a nerve.
Moyn’s opinion piece, titled “Older Americans Are Hoarding America’s Potential,” conveys its basic premise in its title. He has a book on the same subject coming out soon.
Moyn expresses concern about aspects of elderly life, such as the lack of long-term care options, but, on the whole, he thinks the damage that the age group inflicts on American society is worse than any mistreatment they receive.
As you will see later, Moyn is guilty of overgeneralization because he lumps several issues together as consequences of elder behavior when, in fact, they are not. Moreover, his neoliberal beliefs heavily influence his views. Let’s step through his points and see what you think.
He states that America is a gerontocratic society in which the “old” exercise increasing power and wealth, leading to overrepresentation in political life and unequal power in American society. He asks whether older people should be required to give more to younger Americans and national priorities, which he sees as critical to the future of our democracy and society.
He believes they do not deserve the stranglehold over it they currently enjoy through overrepresentation in elections, which produces too many regressive policies and too many seniors in the highest offices. Regressive to him is any policy that doesn’t support the neoliberal/globalist agenda.
He sees some elder power as detrimental to society, blocking its progress in areas like environmental remediation, immigration policy, and tax fairness. He doesn’t mention that half of the American public rejects his neoliberal position on these issues.
Conservatives in general are against them, no matter what age. And what about the older liberals, who support the ideas he supports? They’re already on board. Polls show the elderly split almost evenly on party affiliation. Does he want to penalize his ideological brethren?
Moyn asserts that our presidents are too old, as is our political class. A large majority of Americans would certainly agree with that, but the elites and politicians are the people who block the problem from being fixed. Ignoring that group in the argument, he goes on to state that the hidden depth of gerontocracy lies in the advanced age of voters and the concentration of wealth in this country.
Many in the elderly population have reached a point in their lives where they can live comfortably because of the careful watch they kept over spending and the amount of money they were able to save. In America, they were admired for their conscientiousness and for serving as role models for sound fiscal management.
Now, however, Moyn and his friends have defined this as anti-social behavior. Meanwhile, politicians and Wall Street professionals keep creating new investment vehicles to enrich themselves, such as subprime mortgages and junk bonds, which can disrupt the economy and cause recessions. They made the quick buck, and when their wonderful products failed, the middle class had to bail them out by paying more taxes.
He criticizes seniors for their high election participation, as if they’re doing something wrong. I thought we lived in a democracy where, in theory, government can be controlled by informed voter choices. What don’t young voters go to the polls and vote rather than just complaining?
Moyn discusses the growing wealth gap in America, which I agree is a real problem. Its cause is mainly the fact that wealthy people and politicians have rigged the system for their own benefit. Money grows faster when you have a lot of it, so the wealthy accumulate more. The money-making opportunities they have are closed to the rest of us.
Moyn wants us to believe that the elderly couple on Social Security is the villain. For that reason, he proposes a set of changes in the way elderly people live their lives.
He would start with putting age limits on politicians, something the whole country would applaud. This issue barely touches on the concept of genontocracy because the group of politicians is small. Put that issue in a different bucket with the other reasons for ineffective government.
His second proposal is to make voting easier, a core policy of the left. Most likely, that will only increase the number of registered voters who don’t vote. Civic-minded citizens don’t mind the steps they have to go through on election day, because they see voting as a privilege. The old line about showing an ID to vote being a barrier to voting is a lie. Ask any constituent in one of the “oppressed” classes in America, and they will tell you the truth.
Moyn’s third recommendation is to institute a mandatory retirement age, to open up those jobs to young people. About 20% of Americans over 65 are still working, 40% of them part-time. That’s 7 million people. The 60% who are full-time add up to 4.2 million people.
So the elderly make up 2.5% of the workforce in the United States. About 40% of those with higher education work in white-collar positions, and a large share of the remaining take jobs with flexible hours and/or provide health care. It’s hard to see how these folks can be ruining the careers of young people.
As many as 35% of Gen Y age people are being supported by their parents. It’s time for the men to shut down their game consoles in the basement and get going on their careers. The women need to stop posting so many photos on Instagram and start interviewing.
Moyn’s fourth recommendation is to impose a progressive tax on the elderly to force them to sell their homes. Like the job market, he sees the elderly as exceeding the acceptable limit of home ownership. Of course, such a tax could never be passed because it’s unconstitutional, and as a lawyer, Moyn knows that, but he must have needed another grievance to make his list longer, so he added this one.
The behavior of the elderly regarding staying in their homes is way down the list of factors affecting housing availability. The prime factors include interest rates, new construction, local regulations, demographics, and economic conditions.
I draw the following conclusions from the Moyn article. Writing an op-ed in the New York Times before a book launch is a marketing tactic aimed at selling books. Its publication in a progressive newspaper validates the author’s bona fides as a neoliberal/progressive. Surprisingly, though, his academic rigor is lacking, as one can easily prove by looking up the statistics supporting his assertions and seeing them fall apart.
That doesn’t matter to him, however, because he gets to add another book to his CV, and he also provides another Ivy League stamp of approval to the neoliberal ideology he discusses with his friends at cocktail parties.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
 | A guest post by
|