How old is too old?

[IDrinkaRum]

This is directed towards any and all people who have voted-in-to-office officials.

For those who don't know the ages of the people who are running for the American President, the oldest candidate right now is Senator John McCain. He's 72.

Is 72 too old for any office? I'm not talking about the possibility that he might die soon after taking office. (We know that may not be true as there are assassinations, sickness, etc. that can contribute to a young death). However, the older a person gets, there is the possibility of dementia. Not just Alzheimer's, but other old-age brought on dementia.

I don't think, if the person is in sound mind & body that 72 is too old.

What are others' thoughts on this?


And please, don't turn this into an American politics thread - again, this is for anyone who votes into office any type of Government official.

[aniwahya]

This is an issue that causes a great deal of internal conflict for me. On the one hand, I have a great deal of respect for the elderly, and being old does not equal incompetant or that you should be locked in a nursing home and never thought about again.

At the same time I can't help but remember being taught as a CNA that more than half of the population over 75 has some form of Alzheimer's and that the risk of developing it increases ever year. There are also small changes that become hard to notice from the day to day, but become more obvious over time. Different forms of dementia become more likely as you get older. That and risk of injury (osteoporosis and lessened ability to balance and react to things that may cause injury) increase, as well as risk of heart attack, stroke, and cancer among other things.

Except all of those things still apply to a younger person, especially depending on genetic makeup, eating habits, gender etc. Should we take Barack Obama's increased risk for stroke, heart disease and diabetes? Or what about Hilary Clinton's risk of breast cancer, greater chances of having a fatal heart attack, etc. A person could go around and around on these things endlessly fearing what might happen, and excluding everyone except for a small, utopian group of people who no one would vote for based on qualifications other than health.

So, in conclusion I feel that McCain should not be disqualified from being able to run for president solely because of his age.

[the_std]

No, he shouldn't be disqualified... But some part of me is very hesitant to put someone in office who is 72 years old. Maybe because, at twenty, I wouldn't be sure if he could understand and act on topics that are relevant to my generation.

That's the thing, I guess. As a leading political figure (not just president, but in any situation), is someone from a different generation going to jive with all the issues that the current generation faces? I know that the average age for president is somewhere in the high fifties to sixties, yes, but seventy-two?

I feel like an ageist making these statements, but the fact of the matter is that age can make a difference. It doesn't always, but it can.

[IDrinkaRum]

aniwahya and the_std - both are valid points. :)

As an older President might not jive with the younger generation in views & philosophy, can a younger president (like Obama or anyone else) jive with the older generation in views and philosophy?

[the_std]

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? The happy medium president, or whoever.

Leading political figures will always have issues that they want to deal with, and have to put other issues on the back burner to do so. No one is ever going to agree completely on which ones should be in the front, which in the back. But I do believe it's more probable (not a large degree more, but a degree nonetheless) that a younger head-of-country will be more abreast of issues that affect both the old and the young. They will have had experience with the younger generation, and hopefully any issues that older generation faces will be important as well, because it's something that they've grown up dealing with as well.

I'm trying to think of examples here... Global warming/the green movement/environmentalism is a good example of something that the younger generation will be concerned with, because soon it's our turn to deal with this planet and take care of it. What's a good one for the older generation? Social security, health care?... I'm stereotyping here, but I really can't think of anything.

(Obviously, I wouldn't make a good Prime Minister. :P)

[aniwahya]

True, I haven't thought of it from that perspective the_std. I have spent a lot of time with my older relatives, and am constantly finding things that can only be described as "generation gap phenomena". Things that we look at as issues, especially things like racial issues, my grandma doesn't get. She just doesn't understand why referring to people using racial epitaphs is a bad thing (not just morally, but safety wise). One of these days the old bat (I say that affectionately, and truthfully, as she is a feisty old bat) is going to get her ass when I'm
not around. Well that or she is going to get both our asses kicked. >< It isn't just racial politics either, that was just the first example to come to mind. There are already so many things that separate politicians from the average American, do we really need one more?

Sort of related, I have always held that supreme court justices and congressmen hold onto their jobs waaay past when it is time for them to retire. Which is something prevalent among older people, holding on past when it is time to let go, that is. No one wants to admit they are "too old". What I am saying is I don't trust someone to "do the right thing" and step down when they start noticing age taking effect, not with denial being so free, easy and addicting.

[AFPheonix]

Eh, I don't think it particularly matters how old a person is. After all, a 72 year old can still relate to several generations of the population just fine without having to be in a 20 something's shoes.

My biggest concern with Mccain is that he's already had two bouts of cancer that is statistically pretty deadly. While his health records are clean at the moment, that melanoma can come back and finish him off within 4 years' time, leaving whoever gets the VP slot in charge. That does concern me if he gets the presidency. (well, many things concern me about a Mccain presidency, but that's a topic for another thread)

[Boozy]

I suppose in the case of elderly presidents, or ones with a history of health problems, you'd definitely care more about who is selected as VP. The ticket is of greater concern than the individual in that case.

[Slytovhand]

My issue (with PM's naturally) of such an age is that...for everyone else, the retirement age is 65... so why doesn't it apply equally to politicians??

[Boozy]

You're not forced to retire at 65 in Oz, are you?

That would be a shame. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience to be had from those over 65, especially in the medical and academic fields.

[Slytovhand]

Well Boozy... I'm pretty sure they can't just kick you out on the street... but it's the age when the pension becomes available (we have automatic superannuations built into our pays, and supported by the government... usually at 9% of pay).

But (and since I'm not quite there yet, I'm not 100% sure), I would suspect that when you get to 65, and the company really doesn't have a need for you, you could get nicely asked to remove yourself...hint hint.... But I would imagine it all depends on the place you work...

[aniwahya]

I believe what Slyt is talking about is that at 65 businesses can force employees to retire (I think that is how it works). It is based on an arbitrary number and not individual competency.

[AFPheonix]

You'd think businesses would be happier to be getting something out of their aged employees instead of having to pay their pensions without receiving any work.

[aniwahya]

Around here they do "buyouts*" to cut down on pension costs, and to get people to retire early.

*They pay retirees one lump sum instead of paying them a pension.

[powerboy]

If the mind is still up to it, then no age is too old.

[Slytovhand]

You'd think businesses would be happier to be getting something out of their aged employees instead of having to pay their pensions without receiving any work.

/confused

No... over here, for your entire working life, you are putting funds into a 'trust' account, and when you retire, you get the 'proceeds' of that (not in a lump sum... but there are ways to access it if things get desperate) - paid out as a % of your pay (depending on the amount in there) and for the rest of your life.

So... there's no instance of 'paying without working' stuff...

Aniwahya - if they want to remove someone early, they can also do a lumpsum payout, but it doesn't affect the pension...much :p


Slyt

[AFPheonix]

We also do that (see Social Security), but especially in some industries over here, the business is responsible to help pay for funding the older person's pension. This is part of the reason why Ford and Chevrolet have been sucking, they're paying a huge portion of their budget on "legacy workers", ie, paying into their pensions and insurance.

A lot of companies are either buying off their pensioners or doing away with benefits like that entirely, which some people my age are not happy about. It just means we have to be smarter about our retirements and save better now.