6

I will refer to the Triple Lock Pension in the UK as an example here:

"The triple lock was introduced in 2010 by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government. It was a guarantee to increase the state pension every year by the higher of inflation, average earnings or a minimum of 2.5%." (source)

I am wondering what the reasoning behind it is? Is it a concession made by a government in an attempt to pander to older voters, who generally have a higher propensity to vote? From an economic point of view, such a pledge doesn't make sense. The UK has been going through a period of austerity, with total public spending dropping by 3% in real terms from 2010 to 2011.

Pensions represent a huge portion of the UK's budget (£138.1 billion as of 2013). Pledging to always increase it every year ties the government's hands, economically speaking, as other areas of government are forced to take a disproportionately higher cut in order to compensate.

From a moral perspective, is it fair to always expect an increase? When the UK is recovering from recession, and spending is at a deficit, is it reasonable for such a pledge to be in place?

Anyway, I have only recently started following politics myself, and as such I am not aware of the circumstances under which this pledge was made, so my question really boils down to the following:

Most Western democracies have aging populations, and statistics tend to suggest that older people are more likely to vote.

So if the premise of my question is correct, is it considered an issue (perhaps unfair to younger generations who will have to live out the consequences of votes which are more decided by the elderly)?

Is there a tendency for democracies to pander to older voters, and if yes, should it be considered as a problem?

Jon of All Trades
  • 170
  • 1
  • 10
mrnovice
  • 527
  • 2
  • 10
  • 3
    There are a lot of different questions in this question. I see a few different empirical questions as well as one moral one. Please edit this to focus on a single question. – indigochild May 24 '17 at 13:15
  • @indigochild I added in the bold part at the end to clarify the question, is it okay now? – mrnovice May 24 '17 at 13:23
  • 2
    "should" is still asking for opinion. –  May 24 '17 at 17:47

3 Answers3

20

Yes.... and no. There is a tendency to pander to voters. Not "voters" as in eligible voters, but voters as in more likely voters.

In the United States, younger voters vote the least, as a percentage of those eligible to vote. One study/group, called the "Election Project," run out of University of Florida, tracks voter turnout demographics. Breaking down the age groups to 18-29, 30-44, 45-59, and 60+, you see slightly less than a 10% difference, roughly, in participation between each age group, representing about a 30% participation disparity between the eldest and youngest groupings.

Election Project: US Voter Turnout Demographics

Voters who vote determine who gets elected. It makes sense that those who make it a point to participate would get pandered to more than those who don't.

Is it "fair" that the elderly have a greater say in decisions that, arguably, impact the younger as much or more? Absolutely. It is entirely within the power of younger voters to actively participate and make themselves a group to be pandered to. They chose not to, collectively, and therefore abdicated the opportunity to have their voices heard in a more meaningful way in those decisions. It's a choice, arguably, that was made by the voters, and the priorities of the politicians in that regard only reflect the will, or lack thereof, of the voting populace.

At least, in regards to the United States, that is.

PoloHoleSet
  • 20,854
  • 3
  • 55
  • 89
  • 1
    The question asks about democracies in general, but this answer is focused on the U.S. What about the rest of the world? – indigochild May 24 '17 at 14:50
  • 2
    @indigochild This answer is focused on the US because that's what I have readily available confirmable statistics for. I believe my answer is a universal one, but can't back it up with the kind of numbers I posted here, so I restricted it to what I could provide evidence for. If I find more examples across societies, I will edit. I am aware of that shortcoming. Thanks for the feedback! – PoloHoleSet May 24 '17 at 14:59
  • 5
    "It is entirely within the power of younger voters to actively participate and make themselves a group to be pandered to." Not necessarily. It's a lot easier to take time to vote when you're retired than when you're working full-time. 18-22 year-olds are also often away from their home state for college and unable to travel back just to vote. Voting by mail is possible in some states, but you generally need to set it up in advance. – Andrew May 24 '17 at 20:30
  • 5
    @AndrewPiliser - No, not "some states." There are exactly zero states that don't allow for absentee voting. 18-22 year olds can also register and vote at their at-school residence. Yes, it is easier for a retired person, but there's just as much, if not more, going on in the lives of 30, 40 and 50 year olds. One might also argue that the elderly are physically more challenged to get to the polls, so, no, the disparity is one of choice. I'd be interested to see if you have anything that claims otherwise. – PoloHoleSet May 24 '17 at 20:35
  • If you are registered, in almost all locations, you can request a ballot via email. 22 states allow you to vote online. Oregon is 100% mail-in voting. I'd say you're off the mark on this. – PoloHoleSet May 24 '17 at 20:36
  • Also, young voters seems to have higher propensity to vote for third party candidates, essentially wasting the vote in USA, a country with two-party system. If established political parties would consider such voter "fickle" and not reliable, they will obviously cater for the more reliable voters. – Peter M. - stands for Monica May 24 '17 at 20:39
  • @PeterMasiar - or they could turn out in massive numbers and put third parties onto the landscape as meaningful players (hey, I can dream, can't I?). – PoloHoleSet May 24 '17 at 20:40
  • @PoloHoleSet In your dreams only. In USA in both 2000 and 2016 young voters delivered presidency to their LEAST preferred candidate, by wasting votes to third parties. – Peter M. - stands for Monica May 24 '17 at 20:54
  • 1
    The last paragraph implies that young voters deserve the negative consequences of older people voting based on a choice other members of their ascribed identity made. I imagine a lot of people consider this unfair. – aebabis May 24 '17 at 22:20
  • 1
    @acbabis - No, the last paragraph explicitly points out that the reason why older voters are pandered to, their greater participation than younger voters, is a factor that is entirely within the control of the younger voters. If you have control over your own destiny, crying "unfair" when you choose not to exert that control just amounts to whining. If they voted in greater numbers, and still did not get the respect and attention of other groups, then we'd have something to examine in the realm of unfairness. – PoloHoleSet May 25 '17 at 13:41
  • @PeterMasiar - Yes and no, again. They sent messages about the establishment status quo. Their votes were there to be captured, the campaigns made the conscious choice of ignoring appeals to those voters, assuming they'd have nowhere else to go. That's as much on the losing campaigns as the young voters "wasting" their votes. Don't even get me started on Gore's "I will distance myself from the historic peace and prosperity I've been a part of" election strategy.... – PoloHoleSet May 25 '17 at 13:45
  • @PoloHoleSet - I agree with you (and upvoted your answer) in sense that this situation is in control of young voters, and so "fair". Interesting mental experiment would be to strip voting rights from people who rely on government for income (like basic income, welfare, pensions, disability) because they can (and do) vote to increase their income, paid by others. This government giveaways may include other re-distributions, like mortgage deduction for first (and second) home. – Peter M. - stands for Monica May 25 '17 at 14:23
  • @PoloHoleSet My problem isn't with politicians focusing on voters; that's a rational decision. I'm challenging your assertion that it's fair for "the elderly have a greater say". In one sense, the outcome is fair because process was followed, but from the perspective of any particular young voter, the situation is unfair because they're negatively affected despite voting. They did not "collectively" decide not to vote; any particular young person only controls themself. I see this as a "tyranny of the mob" situation where the minority isn't young people, but rather young people who vote. – aebabis May 25 '17 at 15:23
  • @acbabis - sorry, but democracy is a collective process. There's nothing inherently unfair about those who choose to actively involve themselves being given more consideration than those who don't. My answer does talk about the focus politicians give, as does the original question. You trying to extrapolate a greater meaning in rebuttal is creating a straw man. If you don't have a problem with politicians focusing on voters, you don't have a problem with my statement about their criteria for doing so to be "fair" and in the control of those groups. – PoloHoleSet May 25 '17 at 15:29
  • @PoloHoleSet You're conflating the fairness of politicians' behavior with the fairness of one group having more power. I'm not strawmaning you; you explicitly stated it's OK for older people to have more political power, and you're talking past that point. Some policies are unfair regardless of who voted for them, as is blaming young people for other young people not voting. – aebabis May 25 '17 at 16:15
  • @acbabis - I'm not sure how you separate them, since the politicians' behavior is the basis of the execution or practical manifestation of the power you are talking about. We're talking about why certain *groups* of people are being pandered to, and whether that is unfair. The separation you claim between young people and other young people is not a realistic one. Demographically, they are young people. Demographically, they don't vote in percentages of any other group. Collectively, their voices don't carry as much weight. That's all I'm saying. – PoloHoleSet May 25 '17 at 16:20
  • @PoloHoleSet That's true. To be clear, I'm not saying that American democratic process is unfair. I'm saying that the tone of your last paragraph is unnecessarily accusatory and doesn't mesh with the rest of your mostly fact-based answer. IMO, it's a missed opportunity to remind people that democracy is merely the least terrible form of government and isn't perfect. – aebabis May 25 '17 at 16:28
  • 1
    @acbabis - That's fine with me. I enjoyed the discussion, thoroughly. – PoloHoleSet May 25 '17 at 16:30
  • 1
    @PeterM.-standsforMonica, On third party votes being "wasted": See What do third party candidates for the US presidency expect to functionally accomplish in terms of voting?, and Is there any reason to vote against the predominant majority?. – agc May 20 '20 at 08:26
  • Participation aside, if there are just more older voters than younger ones, then even if the younger ones turn out in equal amounts, it's still the older ones who will get the most say on policy. – Bobson Aug 09 '20 at 18:57
  • 1
    @Bobson - That was definitely the dynamic with Gen X when that demographic was the younger one, but Millennials match the Boomers in terms of raw numbers, and the Boomers are starting to die off. Younger voters have the opportunity to impact the dynamic in favor of what they want, moreso than any generation in the past half century. – PoloHoleSet Aug 11 '20 at 13:21
5

I'm going to pass on the pandering question because you answer that affirmatively in your own question and the empirical evidence agrees with the supposition so overwhelmingly that a cursory review indicates it's true. Social Security in America is called the Third Rail of Politics precisely because if a politician dares touch it he dies.

As for the moral case, I will just offer a few tid bits of information. In most developed countries the richest co-horts are the elderly, by a long shot. The poorest are the young. That is not to say that there aren't elderly that are financially unstable. That's obviously the case. But what is also obvious is why are we subsidizing the most affluent at the expense of those that are the poorest. That doesn't make sense.

The growing divide between the rich and poor in America is more generation gap than class conflict, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal government data. The rich are getting richer, but what's received little attention is who these rich people are. Overwhelmingly, they're older folks.

Nearly all additional wealth created in the USA since 1989 has gone to people 55 and older, according to Federal Reserve data. Wealth has doubled since 1989 in households headed by older Americans. Not so for younger Americans. Households headed by people in their 20s, 30s and 40s have barely kept up with inflation or have fallen behind since 1989. People 35 to 50 actually have lost wealth since 1989 after adjusting for inflation, Fed data show.

Nor does the delaying of those payments make much sense. Consider if you were able to purchase a home or plan for your own retirement through investing earlier in life. The time value of money would make us all richer, if these assets were put to productive use sooner, rather than channels of consumption in retirement.

Community
  • 1
  • 2
    This answer needs to be backed-up. Please edit to either affirm your expertise on the subject or include references to sources to back-up these claims and arguments. – indigochild May 24 '17 at 18:57
  • @indigochild hard to tell what's common knowledge around here and what isn't, but in any event, referenced. –  May 24 '17 at 19:26
2

Is it a concession made by a government in an attempt to 'pander' to older voters, who generally have a higher propensity to vote?

Pretty much. See here.

is it considered an issue (perhaps unfair to younger generations...)

It's definitely considered an issue by the Labour Party as our elder brethren tend to vote Conservative (see the link above).

Whether it's unfair is, of course a matter of opinion. Unless there is evidence that the 18-24 cohort are being prevented from voting, there's a strong argument to say that it's their bed they're making (and presumably staying in /s).

Alex
  • 5,650
  • 20
  • 31
  • 1
    The question asks about democracies in general, but this answer appears to be specific to the UK. Do you have anything on the rest of the world? – indigochild May 24 '17 at 14:49
  • "staying in" is questionable. Take a glance at emigration trends from the national office of statistics some time. – Vality May 24 '17 at 19:23
  • @Vality Not sure I follow. Emigration of British citizens is trending down. Net emigration of British citizens is ~60k/year. I can't find any breakdown by age. Currently there are about 6mm 18-24 year old. So, unless you have reason to believe that everyone leaving is young and everyone coming back is old, I don't think emigration is a significant factor. – Alex May 25 '17 at 09:06