To the Editor:
“Older Americans Are Hoarding the Nation’s Potential,” by Samuel Moyn (Opinion guest essay, April 26), relies on a troubling premise: that older Americans constitute a problem population whose political participation and economic choices must be curtailed for the good of the nation. It would no doubt be seen as discriminatory if it were directed at any other demographic group.
Mr. Moyn repeatedly treats older adults as a monolithic bloc hoarding wealth, housing and political power. But inequality in the United States is not the result of people living longer; it is the result of decades of policy decisions that favored capital over wages, corporations over workers and austerity over public investment. Blaming older Americans for structural economic failures is not analysis; it is scapegoating.
Mr. Moyn’s proposed remedies are even more concerning. Rebranding measures like mandatory retirement, age‑based tax rates and limits on political participation as “not ageist” does not change the fact that they explicitly discriminate on the basis of age. A society committed to equal rights cannot selectively suspend those rights when a group becomes politically inconvenient.
Older Americans are not obstacles to progress. They are caregivers, volunteers, workers and voters who have contributed to this country for decades. Many struggle with poverty, health challenges and age discrimination — realities the article acknowledges, only to dismiss them.
Intergenerational fairness is a worthy goal, but it cannot be achieved by pitting generations against one another. We should address inequality by reforming systems, not by targeting people for the simple fact of having lived longer.
Michael Allison Bozeman, Mont.
To the Editor:
I agree with Samuel Moyn that the problem he identifies isn’t ageism — it’s denial. And it’s not confined to older adults; it pervades our culture.
We tell ourselves the wrong story about aging. Most of us will live to old age, yet few prepare for it or consider how it will affect others. Instead, we cling to two myths: that aging is nothing but decline and that it happens to others while we remain unchanged until we suddenly aren’t. Both are false.
Aging is change — real, sometimes difficult change — but it is not a free fall. Many people grow more grounded, more confident and more aligned with what truly matters.
I find that people face aging in one of three ways: as ostriches, who deny it; worrywarts, who fear it; or wise old owls, who face it and adapt. After reading this piece, I will urge them all to go further: to recognize that their decisions and actions will shape not just their own futures, but also the lives of everyone who survives them, not just the people they hold dear.
Rosanne M. Leipzig New York The writer is a professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the author of the book “Honest Aging.”
To the Editor:
Samuel Moyn’s argument includes some important truths. Unfortunately, it also misleads readers about the true circumstances of the vast majority of older Americans.
It is misleading, for example, to cite the large percentage of wealth held by those over 54 without also noting that an astonishingly large portion of that wealth is actually held by a tiny percentage of the older population — comprising the notorious 1 percent.
The wealth of the vast majority of elderly Americans consists largely of the equity in their homes. Their ownership of businesses, stocks and bonds, as well as cash savings are, for the majority, exceedingly modest. Indeed, many of these old people continue to work after age 65 precisely because they lack the means to live without those jobs, even if they are lucky enough to avoid the kind of medical issues that can be financially ruinous.
Professor Moyn deserves credit for addressing a serious set of issues. But he should have acknowledged that the choices and behavior of most older Americans are driven by legitimate fears of sinking into poverty.
Charles Edmondson Greer, S.C.
To the Editor:
There’s wisdom in Samuel Moyn’s essay, but it trips over a few realities.
First, policy models that would fund senior housing and long-term care — as found in many European countries — are underwritten by tax rates most Americans would never accept. You can’t cherry-pick the outcomes without the funding structure.
Second, he urges seniors to give up their homes, but to go where? In many markets, downsizing means spending nearly as much for significantly less. And many older adults are already using home equity to fund the very long-term care he says we need more of. The asset isn’t being hoarded — it’s being spent.
Finally, there is a cultural shift: Many seniors are actively rejecting age-segregated communities in favor of staying integrated in traditional neighborhoods. Intergenerational living — not institutional downsizing — may be the real answer. The conversation about generational equity is important. But it needs to account for the world as it actually is.
Anthony Cirillo Huntersville, N.C.
To the Editor:
I am 83 years old and consider myself progressive in many ways. I agree with much of Samuel Moyn’s essay. But on one point I strongly disagree: his suggestion that there be a progressive tax on old people who wish to live in their own homes.
I designed and built my house 42 years ago. For all that time I have been paying high property taxes, even though I have never had a child in the school district. I am a retired teacher, not a multimillionaire. If anything, I deserve a reduction in my taxes.
Old people are already faced with losing their driving privileges and much of their independence; but they should never lose the right to stay in their homes.
In my view, Professor Moyn’s suggestion borders on cruelty. Perhaps he would like to see Mom and Pop set adrift on an ice floe? But with global warming, there is probably a shortage of those, too.
Richard Weissmann Bellport, N.Y.
To the Editor:
One night after 26 years in a beautiful house in Newton, Mass., after our two children had grown and married, my wife and I looked at each other, and I said, “There is a young family somewhere in the world tonight who needs a bigger house and doesn’t know that they will get to live here.”
We sold our house to a young family with two small children and moved into an apartment in Brookline. We left the house broom-clean with a bottle of wine and a note: “This is your home now. There are no ghosts here, only memories. Now it’s your turn.”
We have no regrets, just wonderful memories.
Neil Leifer Brookline, Mass.
Clash Over a Wind Project
To the Editor:
Re “Unlikely Allies Stopped Wind Farm at Internment Camp” (news article, April 13):
As the daughter of a Japanese American incarcerated in Minidoka internment camp in Idaho during World War II, and as someone who has visited the remains of the camp, I understand the importance of its preservation.
Nothing can compare with standing on that desolate site and imagining the desolate lives of those forced from their homes because of crimes they didn’t commit. I also respect the dedication of the descendants of the Minidoka internees to preserving the camp.
However, I know that my father would want a safe and healthy future for his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I don’t think wind turbines nine miles from Minidoka are a threat to it or the lessons people can learn when visiting it.
And I can only hope that no fossil fuels lie buried in that land, because I have no doubt that the administration would find a way to desecrate the site.
Sharon Morioka Ann Arbor, Mich.
The post Older Americans Are a Reality, Not a Problem appeared first on New York Times.
