> They will be dead before they see the consequences of their policies

Don't worry, they used their time to make sure their kids are filthy rich. Yours though...

The reason our leaders suck is not because they're old, but because democracy selects mostly for charisma, showmanship, and if we're even more cynical - a lack of morals/ethics. Political careers are most expedited by telling people what they want to hear, and by selling yourself out to the highest bidder so you can get funded by corporations and other moneyed interests. A great conman would likely make a great democratic politician. A typical definition of leadership is the four Cs - character, competence, commitment, and courage. The democratic political system doesn't select for that, at all. We want e.g. generals who rose on merit, instead we get lawyers.

As for age itself, there's also a pretty straight forward reason that we tend to pick older leaders. As people age they're generally going to find their younger selves less than desirable - naivete, gullibility, ignorance, and just generally a lack of wisdom. So I'd be terrified of having a leader in e.g. their 30s simply because I don't think they'd have anywhere near the life experience to have accumulated a reasonable base of wisdom. And I suspect as I continue to age, that 30 is going to get pushed higher and higher. Even back in Ancient Rome one could not run for Consul until you were at least 42 years old. And people likely 'grew up' much, much, faster in those times than we do now a days, simply because life was so much more testing.

I read that book. William Golding, right?

I don't think it matters one way or the other how old leaders are. If they are capable, put them in charge. If not, don't.

As a parent a large part of my responsibility is making decisions and regulation about how they are allowed to interact with trends and technology I barely understand.

This is actually a criticism of democracy, not gerontocracy. The masses, who don't understand X, vote for people to regulate X.

Even under regimes run by young people their advisors are old people.

>The founding fathers were in their 30s.

The average age of the Constitutional Convention was 42 years old. Life expectancy of an adult[1] at that time was only about 48 years old, and the the median age of all American adults 18+ was about 30 (today it is 48).

[1]Avg life expectancy of someone from birth during this time was 37 years old.

It's one thing to be older. It's another thing to be rational and of sound mind as an older person. At some point, it's time for grandpa to retire.

Sounds like you don't know the right old people.

I haven’t done the math but I’m assuming if you look at the founding fathers and life expectancy for the general population in the 18th century they would have represented what people in their 60s represent today relative to the rest of the population.

Also you can’t really talk about a geriatric population ‘voting itself into power’ if it makes up such a small proportion of the population. Young people just abstain from voting in western democracies, which is a choice just as much as voting one way or the other is. Yes, a person votes in his own self interest - that’s how that works.

Right you have to distinguish between the executive and legislative/judicial.

The executive being young and legislative/judicial being old was pretty typical across the ancient world.

Also people tended to not live as long in old age as they do now, we have lots of advanced medical interventions we can do to keep our old people alive and accumulating power and wealth.

Also Rome had a much healthier triangle-shaped demographic/population pyramid so they had more youngish people to draw on for elite qualities. They also had an active military culture so young people could actually prove themselves in leadership positions and make a name for themself. In the developed world in the current period that is not the case.

In general, insightful social commentary have this sort of quality i.e. "I'm with you on this but where you've taken this idea seems out there", like by definition, but it does require a level of humility.

I'm not necessarily declaring what I'm saying to be insightful but what you're describing is what a typical reaction to insightful social commentary looks like.

The dollars you pay into social security today go to a recipient tomorrow. They are not invested in some pension fund.

That, and people who are old enough to collect social security are rich.

Combine those two facts.

Every young person in America is paying 6% (3% directly, 3% by their employer) of every pay check into a wealth redistribution program. Who receives the money from that program? Baby Boomers, who have an average wealth of $1.8 million, only ~$400k of which is in that house they don't feel pressure to down-size out of. The remaining ~$1.4 million is spread across a number of liquid-able assets that they could use to fund their lifestyle if they choose to [1].

It's funny that most politicians promise taxes on the wealthy to support social programs without mentioning that the overwhelming majoring of said programs involve forcing young people who don't own homes and aren't having families to give UBI to millionaires.

[1]: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-has-wealth-distribution-in...