The systemic enforcement of gerontocracy in the U.S. was similarly intentional which, when reinforced by depression era policies that were designed to prevent indigent elderly from lives of destitution, gave rise to social security and Medicare as government commitments. As the proportion of elderly grew, coupled with public officials' deference to the power of older constituents, the proportion of funding required to sustain what was a good idea at first has become burdensome.
Moyn proposes a number of strategies to deal with and diminish the impact of a gerontocratic society. The first suggestion is term limits on public officials, including executive, legislative, and judicial branches. In addition, age limits could cap the number of years career politicians stay in their positions. Youth quotas would bring younger voters to the ballot box and could be adjusted to reflect population proportions. Controlling campaign finance, substantially funded by wealthy elders, would help to reduce elder power in positioning public officials who serve primarily their needs.
It's important to understand that Moyn does not blame elders (primarily boomers) but instead proposes how generosity could be expanded by promising them dignity, worth, and medical care in their final years. Why do the elderly hoard their money and positions of power and influence? Because of fear. The strategy to reassure elders' fear would be to guarantee health and long-term care as they age. Funding for such a commitment would come from closing tax loopholes and diversion so that the government can fund a commitment to a reasonable quality of life for everyone. Raising taxes for affluent elders would open new revenue sources and could be acceptable if they understood the tradeoff. Hoarding will likely always be a dynamic for some (e.g. Why would citizens celebrate the world's first trillionaire?) but it could at least be reduced by reassuring elders of a secure future. In addition, helping older citizens find relevance after their working lives through volunteerism, philanthropy, community engagement, and sharing across generations would reduce the inclination to stay in the workplace, thus helping to create better and more vibrant communities.
My blogpost introducing Moyn's book "Gerontocracy and its impact on education," illuminates one of the most difficult problems of concentrated gerontocracy (like Florida) - school funding and support for universities declines. This is an intergenerational travesty that will result in declining innovation, productivity, and quality of life for all. Stinginess and hoarding deprive others opportunity while at the same time eroding areas of life such as learning and engagement through which all can thrive.
In the "Conclusion" Moyn calls readers to face the ultimate question of growing old - "Eternal Life amid decline of faculties is not a blessing but a curse" (p. 207). Releasing power and dominance to make room for younger workers and public servants might open the way for a dignified and honorable final chapter of life without the worry of what will I do and who will care for me?
Some might criticize Moyn's proposal as being socialist and undermining the opportunities found in capitalism. When Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, who recently won a Democratic primary in Michigan, was labeled as a democratic socialist, he responded by quoting Adam Smith, credited with authoring the idea. Dr. El-Sayed asserted that what we have now is not capitalism based on supply and demand and free economic opportunity but corporatism that allows big business to control the economy to only the benefit of the wealthy.
Dealing with corporatism, requiring big business to pay reasonable taxes, would surely help to balance the budget of a more generous country with its elders as well as correct the extreme differences in wealth and economic opportunity that are now a signature of U.S. policy and presence in the world.
