Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Age discrimination applies only to those over the age of forty.
EEOC and Age Discrimination
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older. The ADEA applies to organizations with 20 or more workers, including governmental entities, labor organizations, and employment agencies.6
Employers are allowed to give preference to older workers over younger ones (even if those younger workers are age 40 or older). Further, the ADEA does not protect workers younger than age 40 from employment discrimination based on age.
Therefore, if you work in an age-obsessed industry, are less than 40 years old, but think you’re being discriminated against based on age, the ADEA’s protections wouldn’t apply to your case
I know the federal law. I knew someone was going to miss the point and bring that up. I said it was discrimination I did not say it violated federal law.
But the real point is setting 35 as the age which was done way before the arbitrary age of 40 set by the feds. It is discrimination based on age if someone under 35 cannot run for president, even though its technically not illegal.
That is a good question. After all why not 30 or 40?
I never read anything that mentioned the reason for 35. I wonder if it has anything to do with the founders opinions of George III?
The drafters of the Constitution thought that at the age of 35 a person had "greater extent of information and stability of character". Which was important for filling the office of the President, after all, they said, we really don't want children running the government.
As far as Senators go, which their age is set at 30, Federalist paper #62 addresses their concern.
Average life expectancy has not changed that much over the past 20-30 years. Social Security was established in 1935. Life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality. So it is not that people are living longer, the difference is infant mortality is lower, which results in a higher average. In 1990, average life expectancy was 75.4. In 2000, average life expectancy was 76.8. The current life expectancy for the U.S. in 2020 is 78.93 years.
I don't think people in their 80s should be serving as President, but I don't think we need to change the Constitution. The election process will put most older people at a disadvantage, but I don't think it makes sense to have a cutoff age that might eliminate an exceptional candidate.
The current life expectancy for the U.S. in 2020 is 78.93 years. Thirty years ago, it was 75.4. In 30 years, it has increased 3.5 years.
People are living slightly longer today than 20-30 years ago. It makes more sense to look at the life expectancy for older people and not at life expectancy at birth. For people who are 65, the life expectancy in 1990 was 17.2 years. In 2017, average life expectancy for someone age 65 was 19.4 years, an increase of 2.2 years. See https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2018/004.pdf for additional stats.
That's the avg of all the healthy and unhealthy people. Healthy Americans are living much longer today than healthy ones back 30 years ago. In the past such as my great grand father, once you hit 72 and although you appear to be healthy. You can die really fast from a flu or cold. It doesn't happen that easily anymore with vaccines and medicine. Diabetes used to limit people to mid 60s before their arteries explodes but medicine is keeping people's insulin under control and not rupturing their arteries. Doesn't mean some people are living healthier, people are surviving longer with medicine. I don't think for a minute that Trump looks medically healthy but I'm sure he's got enough meds to keep his vitals in check.
LOL, when is the last time we had a President die of natural causes while in office? I'll help you out. It was 1945. Of eight Presidents who died in office, four were assassinated and four died of natural causes. I'll take my chances with an older President dying in office over some younger buffoon getting the job because MORE QUALIFIED candidate was deemed too old.
In addition, age discrimination is illegal and this limit may be illegal. That I don't know for sure, but I bet it would end up in court. Anyway, the only way I would support this would be in the case of Hillary, who happens to be seventy two.
I don't think it would illegal age discrimination. For one thing, it would require a constitutional amendment.
There are lots of "jobs" that have age requirements and limits.
We set all sorts of age limits on the young side of things (age of majority, drinking, voting, driving.
[moderator cut]
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 06-23-2020 at 07:40 PM..
That's the avg of all the healthy and unhealthy people. Healthy Americans are living much longer today than healthy ones back 30 years ago. In the past such as my great grand father, once you hit 72 and although you appear to be healthy. You can die really fast from a flu or cold. It doesn't happen that easily anymore with vaccines and medicine. Diabetes used to limit people to mid 60s before their arteries explodes but medicine is keeping people's insulin under control and not rupturing their arteries. Doesn't mean some people are living healthier, people are surviving longer with medicine. I don't think for a minute that Trump looks medically healthy but I'm sure he's got enough meds to keep his vitals in check.
Do you have statistics comparing healthy and unhealthy life expectancy over the past 30 years, or are you basing your opinion on personal observation? I've been around long enough to observe that many people lived into their 80s and 90s thirty, forty, or more years ago. Yes, life expectancy has increased, but not as much as many people think.
Heart disease is one condition where science has made tremendous strides with many people living long lives who would have been dead years ago. I was sitting in a pharmacy yesterday and overhead an elderly woman giving her health history to a pharmacy tech. From the part I heard, she had three open heart surgeries, breast cancer, diabetes, and hypertension. Modern medicine advances have obviously kept her alive.
On the other hand, you mentioned diabetes. In the 1960s and 70s, few people had diabetes compared to today. It was also unusual to see people who were obese.
I think there is a correlation between a healthy lifestyle, and being healthy at an older age, but I doubt you will find statistics that will prove the fact. Take exercise, for example. In the 1960s, hardly anyone exercised past the age of 25. You never saw people out running or walking. The only health clubs were a few dingy weightlifting gyms. The majority of females did not exercise past high school gym class. High school sports for females didn't start until around 1972. So today, we have a large number of people involved in serious exercise. Do the statistics reflect this fact? I wonder. With all the increased understanding of health, the advance in medical technology, and huge increases in people exercising throughout their lives and into old age, the statistics don't show a significant increase in life span. A 65 year old in 1970 had a life expectancy of 15.2 years. In 1917, a 65 year old had a life expectancy of 19.4 years. So apparently the increases in medical science and lifestyle are almost counterbalanced by unhealthy lifestyles.
Trump is a perfect example of poor lifestyle. People question Biden's ability to serve four years but while Trump is 4 years younger, he appears in worse health.
This logic could be extended indefinitely - minimum IQ requirement, minimum score on a special Presidential Qualification Examination, incipient Alzheimer's screening, yada yada.
There are already safeguards for removing an incapacitated President (a unanimous Cabinet can do it, as I recall). There is simply no reason for believing that someone 70, 80 or even 90 is, ipso facto, incapable of serving as President.
Our system is predicated on trusting the voters to determine who is qualified, mentally and physically, and who isn't. A Trump-Biden race will challenge the outer limits of this, but both men somehow survived their parties' nomination process and emerged the winner.
If anything, I'd be inclined to lower the minimum age to 30. With the ever-declining average age of U.S. citizens, I'm kind of amazed that both parties keep nominating fossils. If I were 30 and my choices were people like McCain, Hilary, Biden, Bernie and Trump, I think I'd be asking "How can this be?"
I know the federal law. I knew someone was going to miss the point and bring that up. I said it was discrimination I did not say it violated federal law.
But the real point is setting 35 as the age which was done way before the arbitrary age of 40 set by the feds. It is discrimination based on age if someone under 35 cannot run for president, even though its technically not illegal.
Age restrictions on presidential eligibility are legal requirements. You asked a question, I answered in the context of the question at hand; I misunderstood nothing.
If you want to talk about a vague concept, it has nothing to do with legal requirements.
I have a hard time believing that I will ever vote for a candidate over 70 in a presidential primary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
