> Personally, I think that should be flipped, but kid’s don’t vote.

The most interesting place I've seen this type of argument made it along these lines:

- US policy is for housing to appreciate in cost over time

- Housing is demanded by young people starting new households, and freed up by old people dying or moving into group housing.

- Housing policy is thus a massive ongoing transfer of wealth from incipient households to long-established ones.

- This is no way for a non-dysfunctional society to operate

That dynamic is actually one of the reasons I think Corey Booker's "baby bonds" idea is so clever. If a child enters adulthood with some amount that has grown in a way that matches up with the economic growth at large, then maybe they won't be locked out of housing ownership.

There is not enough housing. The solution to rising prices isn't giving people more money to further bid up the price, but to increase the supply of housing which would lower (or at the very least, slow the growth of) housing prices.

Rising house prices are not a technical problem. Having house prices fall is a very big political problem.

I'm assuming you mean the US spends 33% as much on those under 18 as it does on those over 65 (otherwise your comment about voting makes no sense)? If so, it seem sensible for the government to spend more on the elderly, simply because they cost most and there is nobody else to pay for it. People under 18 typically have one or two parents to care for them. Older people don't have parents and don't necessarily have family to pay for their housing, food, etc. Then you also have to factor in that healthcare costs for the elderly are necessarily more expensive.

Not saying kids don't deserve to be well-cared for. I was a welfare kid and I'm glad there were welfare programs. Just saying I think we'll all be glad we can also get some help when we're over 65, especially if we can't count on our family (I have no siblings and may not have children).

I feel like the comment about voting makes perfect sense? They’re saying that children don’t vote, but old people do, so of course it’s the latter group that gets the most resources - they vote, so they have power over politicians, so politicians cater to them.

That said, I think you have a good point with the rest of your comment.

Edit: Oh I think I see the confusion now. Did the grandparent change their comment? At any rate, my understanding is that they’re saying that for each dollar the government spends on a child, it’s spending three dollars on a person over 65.

US spending more than average OECD country on education in relative terms (GDP) and even more in absolute terms due to higher GDP

It's just that high absolute amount of medicare spending throws off the comparison.

https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF1_2_Public_expenditure_educat...

If you throw money at a black hole, and put the expenditures under the "education" column, that's where it will be counted. You should see the inane &#@* they buy, and the volumes of it they purchase.

The overwhelming majority of that spending is social security and other retirement programs which are earned (and often paid-for) benefits from a lifetime of work. The next largest (by far) category is Medicare which was largely, but not entirely, paid for by a lifetime of work.

Take just the retirement program figures out and the figures are much closer to what you prefer. Take out the half of Medicare that was paid for by seniors and it’s even closer.

And by "earned" you're evoking a moral argument, not a financial or legal one, because in the 40s and 50s Congress rejected the fully-funded model of social security. Just because you paid in doesn't mean anything will remain to take out.

In addition to a moral one, I’m invoking a mathematical and practical argument, in that you earn credits by contributing to social security and your payments are scaled by those credits.

I LOVE that West Wing episode. A group of kids get shuffled around the white house, not important, ignored. The leader of his school group gets to ask a question to President Bartlet after impressing a staffer.

"Do you think the budget deficit is especially unfair to younger Americans?" -> " a follow up, do you think we'd have such a large deficit if children were allowed to vote?" Such a good use of debate.

I think it's worth debating whether to give teens the right to vote. In my mind at least to 13 and up - but it's capricious / hard to draw the line or come up with 'tests' that aren't flat out repeating our disgusting past treatment of Black Americans.

The West Wing episode [clip below] spells out some of the argument:

I miss the West Wing universe. Would be awesome to see a reboot optimistic show about getting things accomplished, showing a vision for how it's possible to tackle climate change and our other ailments. But move the show past today's progress (it does not treat women well/give them voice, stance on gay marriage etc).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSDxg-bDw1A

An A or B in highschool level Social Studies (how your government works) sounds like a good baseline; but that course would have to be moved down to middle-school.

That was my first thought but there are so many potential pitfalls & problems.

What about learning disabled, disadvantaged, just having no access or poor school/lack of opportunity etc.

And what if you fail!? we can't deny the right to vote because you can't pass a test. That's what we did to black Americans.

though to be honest I'm the type that judge people who don't vote. I get mad when people say 'but it doesn't do anything' but they don't vote!!!

I think it should be mandatory it's the least you can do for our country. You don't have to vote for anyone can always write sponge bob or black it out as an F you to the system. Or better yet, work to elect people & pass measures that change the system!

You could just give them all the right to vote and rely on the fact that young people tend not to vote. It’s about the closest thing to a law of sociology that there is.

I'm totally into this. Picking the age line is hard. 13 year olds can have very different maturity. But I don't think that matters. Many adults have similar maturity haha ;)

I'm not so sure on vote rate. I hope we might be surprised! Even if not 20% would make a difference in policy. If it was part of curriculum and we tried to give students more confidence in their own power it could have generational change. A lot of social change has happened this way.

I work in politics and it very much disturbs me how often you hear that 'my vote doesn't have any power so why bother' it's self enforcing BS.

That includes social security. What a stupid comparison.

The whole point of social security is a government retirement program based on you putting money into it.

And another decent chunk is federal civilian and military pensions which is also a benefit earned by working.

I think you flipped the numbers my dude. The federal government spent "about $615 billion—on transfer payments and services for people age 65 or older" in 2000, and "Federal spending on children in 2000 will total about $148 billion, or $175 billion if payments to the children’s parents are included"

Indeed, I did. Edited to avoid arguing against my own position.

Why so?

The young have little/no independent earning capacity. The investment we put in the young has a much longer time to accrue positive personal, social and economic benefits. Positive interventions in youth poverty and social stability reduce lifelong skill and mental health deficits that promote adult health, wellness and independence.