News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Washington Officials Traded Stocks with Exquisite Timing by sequoia on Thursday October 20, 2022 @04:44PM (#33280421)
I think there's a few reasonable reasons. I think 65 might be too low, I'd probably go with 70, but one reason is just to make room for new legislators which is good both to get new ideas & perspectives in from time to time, and also to ensure our government isn't excessively skewed towards the perspectives of older people. The average age of a senator is 64.3 years[1]– the average age!

Average age of US citizens is 38.8 years. I don't think this needs to be exactly the same & I think it's good for senators to skew older as wisdom accrues with age, but this doesn't simply mean "older is better."

Mostly I think it would be good to build the next generation of leaders periodically. Senate seats are and congress are zero-sum, the next person can't get into that seat until someone else gets out, and those "years as a legislator" are important to operate effectively.

1: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46705#:~:text....

Re:Washington Officials Traded Stocks with Exquisite Timing by nswest23 on Friday October 21, 2022 @10:41AM (#33288476)
Why not just term limits then so people don't see this as a permanent career path.
Re:Washington Officials Traded Stocks with Exquisite Timing by louky on Sunday October 23, 2022 @01:27PM (#33308591)
One issue I've seen raised is committee assignments meaning power often are by seniority, so that also would have to change. Unlikely.