

### **Thank You For Being Young  
_So We Can Dump Our Problems On You!_  
** Younger Adult Age Discrimination in the United States

### Andrew Lerner

Copyright © 2011 Andrew Lerner

Smashwords Edition  
This eBook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This eBook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. Please do not participate in or encourage the piracy of copyrighted materials in violation of the author's rights. Purchase only authorized editions.

Written in support of the

Workplace Initiatives Campaign

of the

National Youth Rights Association

YouthRights.org

Facebook.com/YouthRights

@youthrights

### Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1: What Are Your Greatest Challenges? And Why?

Chapter 2: Younger Adults Are Second-Class Adults

Chapter 3: Age Discrimination

Chapter 4: Older Adults

Chapter 5: Reaching Adulthood

Chapter 6: Race, Sex and Age

Chapter 7: Government Policies

Chapter 8: The Workplace

Chapter 9: The Best and the Brightest: Low-rung Employee or Entrepreneurial CEO?

Chapter 10: Your Government

Chapter 11: Assessing Younger Adults

Chapter 12: I Paid My Dues

Chapter 13: Behind Workplace Barriers

Chapter 14: Breaking the Cycle

Chapter 15: Action

About the Author

Children = persons under 18 years old

Adults = persons at least 18 years old

YAs = younger adults, who do not enjoy full legal rights

(Exact age depends on context. For example, when referring to The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, YAs are 18-39 years old.)

OAs = older adults, in their 40s and older (including the elderly), who enjoy full legal rights

Introduction

Every day, brilliant younger adults (YAs) walk into my office. Hundreds of times a year, they give polished and thoughtful presentations to me. These YAs are extraordinarily impressive. Their intelligence, dedication, and ambition are unsurpassed. They are graduates (or occasionally dropouts) of the best U.S. and international universities. Although younger than most accomplished executives, they are often among the leaders in their specialized fields. These YAs are the best of the best, among the most capable individuals in America. I almost always turn them down.

I run a venture capital firm in New York City. My job is to identify and bankroll the best emerging entrepreneurs in America. I consider hundreds of possible companies for investment, but I have the bandwidth to invest in only a few per year. While I am forced to turn down about 99 percent of the companies that approach my firm, I am almost always impressed by the YAs I meet. They amount to a tiny fraction of the population, but they are making a huge impact. It's hard to think of a similar-sized group of individuals that is changing the world as much as YA entrepreneurs are.

Most start-ups fail, but the minority that do succeed really can change the world. And companies that do not succeed financially are often successes in terms of technology and innovation. The stories of venture-backed companies such as Google and Apple are legendary. One flourishing company will hire more people than nine failed start-ups will let go. One company with revolutionary technology will impact lives worldwide, while others that come up short will hardly be missed. And one skyrocketing initial public offering will make my investors forget about a few write-offs.

But why do the majority of start-ups fail? Many of these financially unsuccessful companies are staffed by incredibly bright YAs with fantastic business plans. They all have (or hope to have) a better mousetrap: a new product or service that is faster, easier, or cheaper than the competition's. They are certain their new mousetrap will revolutionize the industry, and often their vision is correct. YA entrepreneurs are ready and willing to change established paradigms. Often, the answer to why they fail is simply because sometimes the world around them does not change quickly enough.

Virtually every new entrant, successful or not, underestimates how hard it is to change the status quo. Governments, companies, and individuals are set in their ways. Powerful people view change as an existential threat. If a start-up develops a product so efficient that it will enable a large company to reduce its headcount by 50 people, how will those 50 people feel about buying the product from the start-up? If the dishwasher did not exist and you invented one today, there would be a rag manufacturer or a dish washers union somewhere trying to kill your new company.

New entrants will always face hurdles in trying to change the status quo. Even the most successful venture-backed companies have war stories about the roadblocks that were thrown up in their path to success. A start-up needs to work twice as hard as an established company to break into an industry. A better mousetrap will only take a new entrant so far. A young company needs relationships with distributors, suppliers, customers, unions, regulators, and bankers, to name a few. Merit alone is insufficient—a new entrant needs connections.

YOU, a younger adult, are the ultimate new entrant. New to the workforce and not well connected, you face enormous challenges in taking on the protectors of the status quo. Older adults have created formidable roadblocks on your path to a well-paid job, attractive benefits, and reasonable taxes. If you believe that older adults are willing to make sacrifices to accommodate you into the workforce, you are sadly mistaken.

About You (If I Had to Guess)

You are an intelligent younger adult. Perhaps you're in college or just starting your career. You aspire to have a great job, but are worried about an economy that has significant numbers of unemployed and underemployed. Down the road you would like to be able to count on your government for healthcare and retirement, but the overhang of trillions of dollars of government debt makes you uneasy. For you, a strong economy over the next few decades is a priority. You believe in public purpose investments in education, infrastructure, and research, but you notice that others are loath to pay for anything that does not offer short-term rewards.

You find discrimination abhorrent. You firmly believe that people should be judged by the choices they have made in life, not the circumstances of their birth. You're bothered that America has a legacy of racial and gender discrimination, but at the same time you realize how much progress the country has made in 200 years. You are also acutely aware that, while no longer permitted by law, racial and gender discrimination exists every day in the United States. You may also be concerned about other types of discrimination, such as that based on religion, sexual orientation, appearance, and possibly age.

What you may not realize is that you too are a victim of discrimination. While inherently different from other types of discrimination, age discrimination against younger adults is pervasive throughout the workplace and across American society. It's a problem that has exacerbated your generation's most intractable challenges.

About My Objectives

It would be easier to write about a problem that everyone already acknowledges exists. The challenge is to write about the ramifications of a problem that many don't even view as a problem. So, my goal is threefold. To convey the indisputable fact that younger adults do not have nearly the same rights and privileges as older adults, especially in the workplace. To persuade you that a disparity in rights and privileges between younger adults and older adults is unfair, unjustified, and unsustainable, and therefore discriminatory. And to connect the dots between a society that discriminates against its younger citizens and a society that dumps its problems on those younger citizens.

By focusing solely on age discrimination against YAs, I do not intend to marginalize other types of discrimination. Discrimination based on older age, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, and countless other factors is all too commonplace. However, long-term trends generally seem to be moving in the right direction in countering these other forms of discrimination, at least legally and officially. And each of these groups that is discriminated against has a voice in the American political process. Some groups are particularly powerful, such as older people. YAs, however, stand out as particularly marginalized. For example, Congress welcomes female, African American, Asian American, Native American, gay, disabled, Jewish, and Muslim members, but prohibits Americans under 25 years old.

Age is the final frontier of legal discrimination. My intent here is not to imply that U.S. laws are free of all other types of discrimination. Gay marriage, for example, is a topical issue that illustrates how the country still grapples with laws that many view as discriminatory. But laws that prohibit gay marriage are being actively contested and have the possibility of being chipped away on a state-by-state basis. Discrimination against you, on the other hand, is unique, because it is enshrined in the Constitution. It has become an unassailable part of the legal system. No one disputes that workplace discrimination against YAs is currently legal. It is truly the last legal form of discrimination.

About Me

I was born in 1965. While I am an advocate for YAs, I am as guilty as anyone else of judging people by their age. In the 1980s as a high school and college student, it became clear to me that individual responsibility and societal rights did not go hand in hand. Too many OAs were making poor choices in life, while my underage friends and I were capable of making responsible decisions but were not given the opportunity to do so. We were far from perfect, but by any objective measure, my close friends and I were more responsible than millions of OAs. We were not old enough to vote, but we were capable of making more thoughtful electoral decisions that many OAs. Our high school discussions about the candidates focused on real substance, while much of the country was talking about the candidates' physical appearance. We were not old enough to enter a bar, but we would not have made the decision to drive after drinking.

My friends and I were more responsible than the average teenager, and that is exactly the point. At any given age, some people are better citizens than others. This is a fundamental reason why age-based laws are unfair: one size does not fit all.

Today, I have the privilege of being affiliated with the National Youth Rights Association (youthrights.org), a nonprofit advocacy organization that fights for the civil rights of high school students and YAs. However, when I was a teenager, my interest in this subject was clearly self-serving. I wanted to enjoy the rights and privileges of an adult, so it was hard for me to separate my genuine concern for YA rights from a preoccupation with my own interests. So other than sending a few letters to government officials (sorry, Governor Kean, for that unfairly personal and strident letter), I was hesitant to speak out on the issue of YA rights, fearing that I would be dismissed as having selfish motivations. I grew older and eventually enjoyed the full privileges of a middle-aged adult. Fortuitously, I entered a profession where I meet the most incredibly smart and talented YAs. My job as a venture capitalist involves empowering YAs and helping them succeed in the workplace against long odds. Hopefully, in some small way, I will be able to empower you and help you succeed as you start your career.

Chapter 1: What Are Your Greatest Challenges? And Why?

Look at your generation's greatest challenges and ask why they exist. Why are there so few good jobs for you? Why are you being saddled with astronomical government debt? Why are college and housing costs sky high? Why is climate change accelerating? Why aren't we doing more to invest in your future? Why, generally, do we live in a way that is unsustainable?

These problems, and so many others, are intergenerational. They have been caused principally by OAs, and are being passed on to you. Perhaps, then, to answer the question of why, we should consider how OAs as a whole view you. Our society, after all, is based on the premise that the older you are, the more rights you have. Children are born with relatively few privileges, while OAs enjoy the most legal rights. You have been told that you will receive rights and privileges not when you are responsible enough, but when you are old enough.

Americans differentiate groups of people by age, but we are reluctant to admit we discriminate by age. We cherish democracy, but we ban you from running for federal office. We believe in protecting employees from discrimination, but we give age-related protections only to older employees. We teach children that age is the supreme differentiator, that their status in school and other structured activities must be determined by age.

If we view children and YAs as citizens with second-class rights, is it really so surprising, then, that we are passing on to them our biggest problems? Perhaps one major reason why these intergenerational problems exist lies with OAs' sense of entitlement based on their age. Perhaps, in order to solve society's most difficult problems, OAs need to reconsider their views and treatment of younger generations.

The Greatest Challenges

Of course, the toughest problems are the long-term ones. In the United States and throughout the developed world, all of the intractable public policy challenges involve issues that span generations, but elected officials choose instead to focus on the short term. So we never sufficiently address intergenerational issues. It seems that the best we ever do is decrease the rate at which a problem is growing. Sometimes we cut the federal deficit, but we virtually never take in as much as we spend. Climate scientists tell us the best we can hope to do is slow the rise of global temperatures over the next 30 years. The lack of real progress on long-term issues like these should be unacceptable to you.

All of these challenges have exactly the same intergenerational imbalance: OAs are benefiting at the expense of younger adults, children, and future generations. Democrats and Republicans are both to blame for passing the country's problems on to your generation. Liberals correctly point out that the young will be more impacted by environmental degradation than the old. Conservatives correctly point out that the burden of the national debt will be borne predominantly by younger generations. Both Democrats and Republicans are focused more on today's senior citizens, and less on future generations of retirees. The lack of a long-term focus on public health will harm you more than today's OAs. You and other working-age Americans fund Social Security and Medicare, while these programs benefit retirees. It's often said that politicians need to care more about long-term issues. Isn't that another way of saying that they care less about you?

Let's ask the hard questions in six areas that are, or will be, of paramount concern to you: jobs, environmental protection, natural resources, government debt, public infrastructure, and public health.

Jobs

The economy is structured in such a way that YAs suffer by far the highest unemployment rates. If you have just started your career, I am certain that you are paid less than your coworkers regardless of your actual job performance. If you work in a union job, in a licensed occupation, or for the government, I guarantee that you will not reach the top of your profession in the next 10 years.

Why are there so many workplace barriers against you?

Environmental Protection

Many scientists believe the environment is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Others are convinced that the damage we are causing to the planet will be manageable as technology progresses. But there is no question that our way of life in the 21st century is harming the environment. The possibility that you will suffer from the damage we are doing to the air, the oceans, drinking water, the atmosphere, wildlife, flora, and temperature levels is real.

Why have we not done more to preserve the environment for future generations?

Natural Resources

The earth's resources are finite. From oil reserves to fisheries to groundwater to endangered species, we consume our resources in unsustainable quantities. The world's natural resources have not been used judiciously, and Americans are the worst culprits. The baby boomers have come to be known as the consumption generation.

Why have OAs not chosen to preserve more natural resources for future generations?

Public Debt

The U.S. federal debt alone is over $14 trillion—or over $120,000 per U.S. family—and rising. In fact, the situation is much worse than as reported by the government. Based on generally accepted accounting methods, the Social Security and Medicare systems are insolvent (the present value of their future obligations exceeds their assets). In addition, state and local governments have trillions of dollars in municipal debt, as well as underfunded pension and healthcare obligations to municipal workers and retirees. Credible estimates of unfunded government liabilities exceed $60 trillion—or over $500,000 per U.S. family.

Why are OAs passing on massive government obligations to you?

Public Infrastructure

America's public infrastructure is in a state of disrepair. Our core highways, power plants, and electrical transmission lines are, on average, over 30 years old. Maintenance has been deferred, sometimes for generations, and new investment is lagging.

Why are OAs leaving you with overwhelming infrastructure needs and trillions of dollars of repair bills?

Public Health

There is no more important role for government than to ensure public health. More Americans die from cancer every 48 hours than died in the September 11 tragedy. An investment in public health can be even more long-term than infrastructure investment; a cure for a disease today may benefit all future generations. However, relative to the immense importance of public health, OAs spend only a miniscule slice of GNP on health research and development. Politicians are focused on the distribution and accessibility of healthcare in the present. They are not judged in terms of their efforts to ensure your future health.

We know with certainty that, if left unaddressed, diseases like cancer will kill millions of people in your generation. Why are we not investing more now in order to possibly save your life?

Population Growth Makes the Toughest Problems Worse

As the world's population continues to grow, resources, both natural and financial, continue to be tapped. In 2011, almost every natural resource that trades on a commodity exchange reached a record high price. Much of the world's resources will necessarily be diverted to billions of people in the developing world as they increase in number and their standard of living rises. And Americans will end up paying much more for the resources that are not diverted.

As the earth's population expands, how are we going to successfully meet our responsibility to the developing world as well as address America's toughest problems?

Why?

I do not have all the answers. But there is a common theme: today versus tomorrow. Whether you believe we are expending resources on essentials or extravagances, it's clear that we are sacrificing the future for the present. Quite simply, today's decision makers, OAs, are not being fair to you.

So, if there is a common theme, is there a common underlying cause?

Greed is the easy answer. But there is more here than simple selfishness. Sure, we spend and consume because we are self-centered. But there are countless smart and responsible citizens in positions of power who do care about others. Americans may consume the most resources, but we are also quite generous by many measures, such as charitable giving. Greed cannot fully explain why OAs are shifting their burdens to your generation. And if you're convinced that a "me first" attitude explains everything, a more interesting question may be, "how do OAs justify to themselves taking this approach?"

Few Americans would outwardly steal from kids, even if they could get away with it. Most parents care more about their children's future than their own. Millions of Americans genuinely desire to leave the world a better place. So, how to explain the disconnect between unsustainable spending/consumption and the desire to improve the world? Perhaps there is a latent prejudice against YAs that pervades public decision-making.

It's difficult to live within your means. The easier path is to borrow and consume, and then figure out a way to explain the consumption. And OAs have chosen, perhaps not consciously, an ingenious way to justify their unsustainable way of life. They discriminate by age. It has been decreed that OAs are entitled to a larger slice of the pie than you are. Their credo is that before you can become an OA and reap the rewards of full adult privileges, you need to pay your dues, first as a child and then as a less-than-full-fledged adult. OAs in America use more, spend more, and waste more of our resources, both natural and economic, than any other demographic group in the world's history. They live their lives like they are entitled to an unsustainable way of life. OAs genuinely believe they are entitled to preferential treatment at your expense. Their collective feeling of entitlement is the answer to "Why?"

Chapter 2: Younger Adults Are Second-Class Adults

You Are Half the Country

Who are YAs? You and tens of millions of other disenfranchised Americans. If the issue is about who can run for Congress, YAs are 18-24 years old. If we are discussing adults who are not protected by age discrimination laws in the workplace, YAs are 18-39 years old. If we are considering who can realistically climb to the top of the corporate ladder, YAs could possibly be in their forties.

YAs comprise a huge demographic group. The median age in the United States is approximately 37 years old. Absent a specific context, younger adults are generally considered to be age 18 up to mid-30s. If we include children and YAs together, we're talking half the country. So, 50 percent of all Americans, an unbelievably large percentage, are disadvantaged. Based on the sheer size of the group, the only appropriate comparison to a "minority" group is women.

Older adults are the adults who enjoy full rights, depending on the specific context. Generally speaking, OAs are the older half of the U.S. population.

Take a closer look at these two halves of the country's population. It's a tale of two demographics:

Government. Virtually 100 percent of the upper levels of the federal government are comprised of OAs. You are banned from even being considered for high office either by constitutional law or by longstanding practice.

Business. Well over 90 percent of the chief executive officers of the country's major corporations are OAs. Most of the few exceptions arise when a YA is a founder of a company, and is therefore able to install himself as CEO.

Wealth. Wealth is typically accumulated over a lifetime, so OAs are generally much richer than you. YAs commonly have a net worth below zero, as a result of student and consumer loans.

Power. Power is difficult to define, but government plus business plus wealth is a good approximation for power in the U.S.

OAs control the government, control most corporations, control the country's wealth, and enjoy more power and rights than you do. Their dominant role is sustained in part by the second-class status they have imposed on you.

You Face Discrimination in Everyday Life

Unfortunately, discrimination is part of life. While many forms of discrimination have improved over the past 200 years, the sad fact is that many Americans still harbor deep-rooted discriminatory attitudes. And even if all discrimination were to disappear tomorrow, it would still take several generations for victimized groups to recover from the long-term effects. As you and your peers are forced to postpone, for economic reasons, traditional milestones of adulthood like home ownership and parenthood, OAs are reacting by increasingly limiting your adult rights and privileges.

You face discrimination in your daily life and may not even be aware of it. Here are some prejudices you are up against.

Leadership Positions

We all expect persons in leadership positions to be OAs. How old do you envision the big boss at work to be? The senior religious figure at your place of worship? The mayor of your town? Most likely, you picture them to be in their 50s, at least, older than even Barack Obama when he was elected president. We have an ingrained stereotype equating leadership with old age. The stereotype is insidious, and reinforced by examples of powerful OAs, from Washington to corporate boardrooms. Rationally, we know that some YAs are capable of tremendous responsibility and outstanding leadership. The U.S. military is chock-full of examples of outstanding YAs who have excelled as leaders under the most difficult conditions. Ask anyone who's been in combat if adults under 35 years old can be capable leaders. The military is just one of many stark exceptions that prove ageism against YA leadership is unjustified. However, age-related prejudices prevent millions of you each day from assuming positions of responsibility. The cumulative impact of such attitudes disenfranchises your entire generation.

Housing

The cost of housing in urban and suburban areas is incredibly high, and you will eventually feel the pain if you have not already. Until the 1980s, generations of Americans were able to secure reasonable housing for a reasonable percentage of income, but that is no longer the case. Over the last 30 years, the cost of real estate has grown significantly faster than wages and, in most urban areas, an entry-level home cannot be supported on an entry-level salary. OAs have an appetite for real estate ownership, in part because they have come to expect their homes to appreciate in value over time. Since OA homeowners benefit when future housing demand exceeds future supply, public policy has been pulled in the direction of this homeowner constituency at the expense of affordable housing for YAs. In particular, the federal tax system was designed in part to support property values—the federal government does not collect property taxes, while capital gains taxes are rarely payable on the sale of a primary home. Moreover, the federal government encourages homeowners to borrow, which drives home prices even higher. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are taxpayer subsidized, and mortgage interest is tax deductible. Meanwhile, most YAs are renters and do not enjoy any tax benefits.

Some elderly Americans prefer to live in communities free of YAs. These communities, under certain circumstances, have the legal right to ban YAs not living with a family member at least age 55. The goal is understandable—older adults have different needs than you, and it makes sense for them to prefer living in a community tailored to their needs. But discriminatory policies like those practiced by "adult" communities add to the general sense of OA entitlement. There is no symmetry in housing restrictions; elderly citizens cannot be banned from YA communities. The more restrictions we impose on you in the housing market, the more difficult it will be for you to find affordable housing.

Landlords have significant leeway in accepting or rejecting prospective tenants, and YAs are frequently subjected to unfair housing practices. You may have been the victim of a demand for an outsized security deposit, since landlords view YAs as high risks for skipping rent payments and damaging property. You also face bias in being approved to live in private communities where existing homeowners are empowered to accept or reject prospective residents. Even a 21-year-old billionaire would not be permitted to buy into certain Fifth Avenue cooperative apartment buildings in New York City. In addition, getting approved for a mortgage is tougher for you, because credit scoring is based in part on financial stability over long periods of time.

You are at a major disadvantage in finding suitable housing, all other factors being equal.

Travel

How difficult is it for you to travel? Renting a car is often out of the question if you are under age 25. Hotels are hit-or-miss as far as letting 20-year-olds check in. At the very least, you may be inconvenienced by having to find a hotel with an acceptable age policy. Do you purchase airline tickets or book other travel over the Internet? A payment card is required, and sometimes it takes years to get a card with an appropriately high spending limit. As with so many other purchases, travel arrangements are easier if you can pay by credit card, but many politicians do not want you to have easy access to credit. And even if you apply for a credit card, you have an excellent chance of being denied because of your age.

Social and Religious Organizations

Chances are your local country club, fraternal organization, or place of worship views 20-year-olds very differently than 50-year-olds. Membership committees frequently discriminate by age, regardless of whether there is a formal age policy. And if you do become a member of a private organization, a position of leadership is usually out of the question. The stated minimum age to become a Roman Catholic priest is 25 years old, and there are few YAs represented in the leadership of any of the major religious organizations in the United States.

Proof of Age

You are asked for proof of age so often it becomes a daily ritual of intrusion. If you are under age 30, you have become accustomed to never leaving your home without a state-issued proof-of-age identification card. Even if you do not drive a car, you probably went down to the DMV just to get the ID card. Almost all YAs tolerate this everyday inconvenience with a positive attitude. OAs, however, would never stand for it. While you routinely queue up in the cold to show identification to get into a club, OAs often react with anger and resentment when asked for ID. Tens of thousands of businesses offer senior citizen discounts, but they infrequently ask to see identification. The fallout from inconvenienced senior citizens would be too great. Many elderly adults view an inquiry about their age as an affront to their dignity, but that does not stop them from demanding the $2 discount at the movie theater.

Summary of Select Minimum Age Requirements

Workplace:

Employers frequently set minimum age requirements for hiring and promotion. Age restrictions vary by state, by employer, and by the position. Basically, federal law says employers may discriminate by age, but only against YAs and children.

Financial:

Student financial aid. If you are under the age of 24, you are presumed to be financially dependent on your parents, even if you aren't. However, parents are not legally required to pay for college.

Consumer credit. Credit scoring is biased against adults new to the workforce. And, as the result of a law that became effective in 2010, an adult under 21 years of age faces significant proof-of-income hurdles to get a credit card, unless mom or dad cosigns.

Kiddie tax. This applies even to big kiddie students under 24 years old. Your investments are taxed at your parents' marginal rate, not at your own tax rate.

Earned income credit. If you're poor and you work, you qualify for this valuable tax credit, unless you're childless and less than 25 years old.

Government:

Member of the House of Representatives. Thousands of candidates run for 435 offices every two years, and not one is permitted to be under age 25.

Senator. Must be at least 30 years old. Considering it takes a few terms in office to maximize senatorial power, the Senate is truly an old person's club.

President and Vice President. Must be at least 35 years old. Nearly one-third of all natural-born adult citizens are currently excluded from even being considered as a candidate for president.

State elected office. Vary by state. Common requirements are 21 years old for state representative, 25 years old for state senator, and 30 years old for governor.

Everyday Life:

Alcohol purchases. 21 years old. No other group of adults is subject to a blanket restriction, not even higher-risk groups such as previously convicted drunk drivers.

Firearms. You must be 21 years old to purchase a handgun. Even the Bill of Rights does not provide YAs with full rights.

Casino gambling. Almost always 21 years old.

Lotteries. Vary, up to 21 years old.

Car rental. Most rental car companies have special policies for adults under age 25.

Hotels and travel websites. Varies, frequently 21 years old.

Driving. Some states such as New Jersey limit full driving privileges if you are under 21.

Identification check. Even if you are of legal age, the burden is on you to prove it. ID checks are a way of life for you.

No Quid Pro Quo

Do YAs get anything in return for being denied full legal rights? I do not know of any significant offsetting legal benefits that you enjoy. Rather, the government is hopeful that you can rely on the generosity of your parents.

If, as the old-fashioned argument goes, a YA is by nature immature and reckless, shouldn't the legal system take that into account if a YA breaks the law? While a few judges may consider a crime committed by a YA to be a youthful indiscretion, the criminal justice system overall has moved in the opposite direction. YAs seem to get the stiffest sentences. OAs, and especially elderly adults, have better odds of receiving lenient sentences, even though immaturity isn't an issue. Children, on the other hand, typically and appropriately have the possibility of receiving more lenient treatment than adults. But shouldn't we give you the benefit of that same lenient treatment if you are being treated like a child under the law? For example, a 15-year-old and a 20-year-old are both considered by law not to be responsible enough to be served alcohol. So why treat them differently if they commit the same alcohol-induced infraction? If we regard a 20-year-old as a child under the law, we should not treat him like an adult if he breaks the law. The quid pro quo of limited rights but greater protections that children enjoy does not apply to you.

Heading in the Wrong Direction

Have the gaps in wealth, power, and civil rights between OAs and YAs been narrowing over time? No, the chasm is wider than ever. Over the past 30 years, the country has been going backwards:

A generation ago, an entry-level salary could support an entry-level home purchase. Not today.

There was once a time when Medicare spending was a tiny fraction of the federal budget. Not anymore. Today, Medicare, which solely benefits OAs and the disabled, is the single largest federal expenditure.

Ten years ago, newly hired municipal employees benefited from the same generous pension plans as their OA colleagues. Today, most municipalities have reduced pension benefits for YA workers, while maintaining generous plans for their veteran OA employees.

Your combined debt burden (student loans, mortgage debt, plus your share of government debt) is over five times the amount your parents had at your age.

Tax and consumer credit legislation that disadvantages you, by presuming that you are not sophisticated or financially independent, was enacted in the 2000s.

Do you remember LeBron James' phenomenal rookie year in 2003, when he joined the NBA at age 18 and started 79 games? If you do, do not forget it, because it will not happen again. Today, 18-year-olds are banned from the NBA.

The trend is abundantly clear—society is increasingly treating you like a child. Politicians are passing laws to protect you from your own supposed irresponsibility. However, the underlying problems that politicians are targeting cut across all age groups. Irresponsible consumer credit, for example, is an issue for both young and old. Rather than tackling the underlying causes of society's problems, government leaders are increasingly using these problems as an excuse to treat you differently than full-fledged adults. YA rights are relatively easy to abridge. By scapegoating YAs, we are shirking our responsibility to tackle serious issues head-on.

Chapter 3: Age Discrimination

What Is Age?

Age is the amount of time that has elapsed since a person's birth, period. It's not a precise indicator of anything else. And time elapsed since birth, by itself, is not a particularly useful measure of anything. Think about it. An American baby was born on February 6, 1980. So what do we know about this person? Is the person a productive member of society, or serving a life sentence in jail? No idea. Is the person qualified for a particular job? No clue. How long will the person live? A statistician could make an estimate, but the answer is fundamentally unknowable.

Under federal and state laws, we know this person well, however. He or she is eligible to vote, qualified to be elected to Congress, and, on precisely February 6, 2015, will be eligible to serve as President, if elected. We know exactly when this person will become eligible to receive federal retirement and health benefits. We know how this person will be treated under U.S. law—from Medicare to the tax code—solely because we know the amount of time that has elapsed since his or her birth.

What if you knew everything about a person except his or her age? You should have enough information to make an informed voting decision. But the Constitution says otherwise. The person I have in mind is Luke Ravenstahl, the mayor of Pittsburgh. He was elected mayor as a YA, and has proven that younger people are capable of handling positions of substantial responsibility. But during his first three years in office he was constitutionally unqualified for the U.S. Senate. Why should a big city mayor be banned from running for the Senate? Unfortunately, the decision is not left to the electorate. We expect, actually we insist, that national officeholders be a certain age.

An Imperfect Indicator

Just like the legal system, each of us uses age on a day-to-day basis as a proxy for information that is essentially unknowable. We use age as an indicator of health and life expectancy, even though on a rational level we know we are dealing with probabilities, not certainties. When assessing a person's health, we know it is entirely possible that an older person can be healthier than a younger person. But, unless we have specific knowledge to the contrary, we assume younger equals healthier. Even though we understand there is a chance that anyone can die at any time, we assume age indicates life expectancy. When boarding an airplane, we may assume a 50-year-old pilot has more job experience than a 25-year-old pilot does, even if we do not have any actual knowledge of how long each has been on the job. We are comfortable making age-based assumptions, and we do it every day. However, we have forgotten that there are exceptions to every assumption we make about age.

Do exceptions matter in a civilized society? Is it fair to pass laws that differentiate among people based on the probable rather than the actual? When it comes to OAs, especially the elderly, we have consistently rejected age-based laws as unfair. We do not ban all 99-year-olds from driving a car, even though we have evidence that a substantial percentage are no longer able to safely operate a vehicle. We reject such laws as unfair to the rare 99-year-old who is perfectly capable of responsible driving. We believe it is proper to assess (OA) driving ability on an individual basis. Similarly, we don't declare all 99-year-olds legally incapable of conducting their affairs, even though the majority have (or would benefit from) some form of assistance. Instead, we rely on an expensive, case-by-case, fact-finding investigation overseen by a court of law before an elderly person can be declared legally incompetent. This is because exceptions matter. As a society, we care about the rights of each individual, not just the majority.

When the rights of YAs and children are in question, there are no exceptions. If you are not at least 18 years old, you cannot vote. Whether or not you are actually capable of casting a responsible vote is irrelevant. If you are not 21, you will be banned from many establishments that serve alcohol. Whether or not you drink alcohol irresponsibly (or at all), or drive irresponsibly (or at all), is irrelevant.

When society denies privileges to a subset of adults, it should require an extraordinarily high standard. Compare how persons alleged to be criminals or insane are treated, with their individual circumstances carefully scrutinized before conclusions are reached, to how you are treated.

Is It Actual Discrimination?

You may not consider yourself a victim of age discrimination, but you are. You are accustomed to being treated differently, and may see nothing wrong with it. And you probably know lots of people your own age who act immaturely and should hardly be considered adults. But you'd have to admit that having the country's problems dumped on you doesn't sound fair.

Is treating you differently because of your age really discrimination? Consider the dictionary definition of discrimination:

Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

Groupthink has led us to believe that treating you differently is not discrimination. Today's OAs believe we must (i) protect society from your immaturity and (ii) protect you from your own immaturity. However, the age-based laws that have been passed are not rooted in science. Rather, OAs have decided that abridging your adult privileges is a painless way to chip away at societal ills such as job insecurity.

The last 30 years demonstrate a pattern of unfair discrimination, and not justifiable differentiation, against YAs. And, just as clear, the last 30 years have shown a pattern of society dumping its biggest problems on YAs. This is no coincidence.

Appropriate Age Differentiation versus Discrimination

What should the criteria be for acceptable age differentiation?

First, since it is always preferable to make judgments based on individual merit rather than by decree, we need to be talking about large numbers. Evaluating the individual maturity of every teenager is not feasible, so we have age of majority laws as imperfect proxies for maturity. Age of candidacy laws, however, are the polar opposite. The whole point of an election is for the electorate to assess the individual merit of each candidate. Age of candidacy laws fail the large numbers test, because, by definition, we make individual judgments in elections.

Second, a substantial percentage of the disenfranchised age group must be incapable of responsibly exercising a particular right. Many age-related laws are no-brainers: no 3-year-old should be allowed to handle a firearm. But who knows how many 17-years-olds would be responsible voters? Probably a lot. There is substantial evidence that a large percentage of 17-year-olds (who actually made the effort to vote) would do so in a manner no less responsible than an average adult. In fact, the most responsible voters put the interests of the collective population ahead of their own self-interest—by this measure, idealistic 17-year-olds seem to be a more mature electorate than cynical OAs.

Third, tradition is no excuse for perpetuating institutional age differentiation. If American history tells us one thing, it is that the nation's founders were as wrong on discrimination as they were right on democracy. We cannot continue to justify any type of prejudice simply because it has been part of our tradition since the eighteenth century. All of us are entitled to be treated in a way that is based on modern sensibilities, not centuries-old customs.

Fourth, acceptable age differentiation needs to be based on hard facts. If we suspect that 40-year-olds are at risk of unfair age discrimination in the workplace, but that 39-year-olds are not, we should prove this assumption with concrete evidence before passing a law containing such a distinction. Instead of crafting legislation based on the self-serving motivations of powerful OA constituencies, we should only accept age differentiation when it is supported by the facts.

Fifth, when we deem an individual underage, we should be consistent in applying that designation. There are 18-years-olds in the military who are fighting for the country, yet back home, a few states still consider them minors. It's a tad unfair to have to ask mom and dad for parental consent when you are in combat in Afghanistan.

Where's the Supporting Evidence?

Where are the empirical data to support YA age discrimination? Surely, as a modern society in the 21st century, we would not deny adult citizens certain rights without factual support. But that is exactly what we have done. The constitutional age requirements for federal elected office have been in place for over 200 years without being revised. The country has changed tremendously since then, and other discriminatory language in the Constitution has long since been removed or reinterpreted. Certainly, for example, we have no evidence proving that not a single 29-year-old is capable of being a member of the Senate. There is no scientific data or other evidentiary support for such age limits. Not today, and not when they were put in place in the late 1700s.

Imagine how shocking it would be if other 18th-century prejudices had not evolved over time. An African American would still be viewed as three-fifths of a citizen, and women would be treated as legal inferiors. It is actually incredible that age discrimination language remains unchanged in our most important legal document, long after other discriminatory references have been rendered obsolete.

And What If There Is Evidence?

What if the data show that YAs are more likely to engage in a specific irresponsible behavior? Adult behavioral tendencies should not be a basis for discriminatory laws. One out of three African American adult men in the United States may be predicted to have a criminal record. So what? We do not craft laws based on such a statistic. We know there is no inherent cause-and-effect relationship between being black and committing a crime. We know the reasons are predominantly socioeconomic, and we reject discriminatory laws based on socioeconomic factors. Well, you are part of a socioeconomic demographic group as well. YA behaviors are also based predominantly on social and economic factors.

Everybody is different. You may or may not exhibit better judgment than an OA. Behavioral differences are most often a function of idiosyncratic factors. Brains develop at different rates, but age-related laws are one-size-fits-all. And changes in brain development are gradual, but laws are discrete. As anyone who has attended high school knows, a typical classroom contains teenagers at various stages of maturity and cognitive reasoning. Conclusions based on typical developmental patterns are unfair to the millions of YAs who are outliers and deviate from the norm.

Chapter 4: Older Adults

Discrimination Against the Empowered

Elderly and middle-aged adults are discriminated against every day in the United States. Illegal scams prey on the elderly. Age discrimination against OAs in the workplace remains widespread and persistent, even though it is against the law. And it's nearly impossible to prove such discrimination in the hiring process, unless a job interviewer is stupid enough to create a paper trail.

Although the problem is substantial, it is clearly a case of discrimination against an empowered group. Many powerful factions are fighting age discrimination against OAs. Here's why I prefer fighting for YAs:

First, there is already a multitude of laws in place protecting the rights of OAs. From the workplace to fair housing, the federal government has granted OAs significant legal protections. As a country, we are at least trying to battle discrimination against OAs.

Second, most lawmakers themselves are OAs. Federal elected officials are typically older than the average American. Because of an entrenched seniority system in Congress, older lawmakers tend to be the most powerful. A federal judgeship is a lifetime appointment. OAs have the political clout to protect themselves.

Third, generally speaking, OAs are wealthier than average, in part because OAs have been able to accumulate wealth over time. But there are also public policy reasons why OAs are richer. The federal government taxes earned income but not wealth accumulation, such as unrealized capital gains, home appreciation, pension/retirement account gains, municipal bond interest, or life insurance build-up. The tax system favors those who have accumulated wealth over long periods at the expense of wage earners. Retirees also benefit financially from the federal system of entitlements, particularly Social Security and Medicare. And there are countless other government-approved senior citizen discounts and tax advantages.

Fourth, OAs are more powerful and influential. Power and influence in the United States means connections, and people tend to be connected to other people of similar age. So if the most powerful government officials and the wealthiest people are OAs, it's logical that most individuals in their spheres of influence are also OAs. You, as a YA, likely lack connections to the powerful and influential.

Fifth, OAs have formed powerful advocacy groups to promote their interests. The best known, AARP, is among the most formidable special interest organizations in Washington. Unfortunately, elected officials are particularly sensitive to well-funded special interest groups. OAs pay for lobbyists and campaign donations. You do not.

Sixth, sometimes physical abilities do matter. OAs frequently cannot perform certain tasks as well as YAs. Many jobs require physical skills that some OAs are no longer capable of doing. There are exceptional OAs who maintain themselves in top physical condition well into their 90s. Nevertheless, some jobs are not appropriate for a 90-year-old, such as being a combat soldier. There can be good reasons to differentiate by physical ability.

Seventh, OAs as a group are promoting a status quo that is dismissive of YA rights. You are not winning additional rights under the law, in the courts, or in the voting booths. OAs are the source of your disenfranchisement.

Eighth, demographics favor OAs. The elderly are the fastest growing segment of the population. And the baby boomers are now all solidly in the OA category. On the other hand, the population growth of YAs is driven largely by immigration, and foreign-born YAs are especially unempowered.

Just a Number

OAs provide all the best arguments for the rights of children and YAs. Their arguments, however, tend to be presented narrowly to support only the interests of OAs who face age discrimination.

The first main argument against OA age discrimination is as follows: Age should not define an individual. An individual should instead be defined by the path she takes and the choices she makes. Age, gender, and race define the characteristics you are born with. Actions, accomplishments, knowledge, and morality define who you are.

Without a doubt, this argument is as true for YAs as it is for OAs.

The other main argument is that age is just a number, and it does not necessarily describe the health, capabilities, and competencies of a particular person. When you judge a person by his age, you are dealing with probabilities, not actualities.

However, you can't believe age is just a number unless you apply the concept equally to the young and the old. Both young and old Americans face insidious age discrimination in everyday life, especially in the workplace. But the legal definition of age discrimination protects only OAs, and not you.

They Say They're Against Ageism, But Do They Mean It?

The overwhelming majority of individuals and organizations that claim to be against age discrimination are in reality only concerned with discrimination against OAs. The United Nations concluded its official report from the World Assembly on Ageing by affirming its "dedication to a shared vision of equality for persons of all ages." This statement sounds enlightened but, alas, it is not. The UN's efforts were almost entirely focused on the treatment of older persons, despite the fact that we live in a world controlled by older persons. The UN need look no further than its own cadre of diplomats to realize that YA disenfranchisement is also a problem worthy of attention.

Language

Language is a window into prejudices, and ageism is no exception. OAs are easily insulted when inaccurate or pejorative language is used to describe their age, but that's how they routinely treat you. Adults who desire to exercise their authority, such as a boss speaking to a subordinate, frequently use the terms "young man" or "young woman," but it's not acceptable to utter the corresponding phrases "old man" or "old woman" in polite conversation. Even in the world of literature, where you would expect language to be precise, "young adult" means pre-adult, which is insulting to actual young adults. Academic sociologists have started referring to YAs as "emerging adults," which is not very flattering either, but they studiously avoid using pejorative categorizations for other age groups. The word "teenager" is frequently used to describe older children exclusively. But since a teenager is a person who is 13 to 19 years old, it is not mutually exclusive with being an adult. Throughout the world, 18-year-olds are considered legal adults, but are nevertheless referred to as "kids" by OAs flaunting their superior standing in society. OAs know better, since they certainly exhibit sensitivity regarding descriptions of their own senior status. By using age-related language in a pejorative way, OAs reinforce their hierarchical standing at your expense.

Counterbalance?

If youth is synonymous with beauty, health, and vitality, and if old age implies power and money, is there a counterbalance between YAs and OAs? Have we reached a state of equilibrium where YAs and OAs each have equivalent advantages and disadvantages? It's impossible to answer these questions. And these are the wrong questions to ask. They wrongly imply that each side has chosen, or consented to, its part in the debate.

Nothing about this supposed counterbalance is your doing. You are generally healthier than OAs because age is generally related to life expectancy. You are generally considered more attractive because you were born into a society that correlates beauty and age. And you don't have the ability to control the levers of power that OAs enjoy.

OAs, on the other hand, are the sole arbiters of this balancing act. They literally write the rules. And they have no right to tell you that your youth compensates for all the problems they are dumping on you. Your values are different.

What happens when an age cohort achieves the height of wealth, power, and influence after being discriminated against, first as children with few rights and then as YAs with second-class rights? What happens when a middle-aged individual thinks, "I am finished paying my dues." What happens when the powerful desire their youth again, but cannot have it?

Do OAs treat YAs fairly? Well, it's hard to believe that Power + Money + Sense of Entitlement + Envy = Fairness. Bad things happen when the powerful envy the disenfranchised.

Bitterness

To live a long life is to have made lots of mistakes. OAs have to deal with the consequences of a lifetime of bad choices. If an OA's health, appearance, job, wealth, reputation, or personal relations is less than satisfactory, bad luck is sometimes to blame but poor decisions may also be the culprit. Either way, a lifetime of missed opportunities is disconcerting. Technological progress is also an important psychological factor. Today's OAs are keenly aware that they have missed a generation of advancements that benefit you.

So, OAs have much to be frustrated about. I see a country where bitter OAs are envious of youth. They are taking out their frustrations (whether caused by chance, change, or mistakes) on you. It's not a counterbalance; it's closer to exploitation. An OA didn't save enough for retirement? Have the government take the money out of your paycheck. An OA doesn't want to be burdened with the hassle of sustainable environmental practices? Leave the consequences of environmental damage to you. An OA wants funding for more local services? Have the municipal government underfund its future obligations. An OA is worried about job security as she ages? Create a seniority system at work.

Beauty may fade with age, but that is hardly an excuse to borrow unsustainable amounts, pollute the planet, and hoard the good jobs.

Chapter 5: Reaching Adulthood

Age Matters

If I had to pick a single fact that is hammered into the brains of every American child, it's that age matters. Older siblings constantly remind toddlers of their limitations. Preschoolers know they are too young for kindergarten, and long to be able to participate in big kid activities. School itself is segregated by age, not ability. A child who is only a few days younger than another child will feel the stigma of age if they are not in the same grade. Even if a younger child is an equal in every academic subject, every sport, and every game, an older child will still not consider a younger child a true peer.

Similarly, children are constantly reminded that they are subordinate to adults. Parents have virtually unlimited power over their children, short of endangering them or abusing them physically. Kids understand that the ultimate source of societal power is a government run by adults and for adults. Schoolchildren catch on quickly that the foundations of American life do not apply to them: one person, one vote; no taxation without representation; a jury of your peers; etc.

A child on the playground just wants to have fun with other kids; the particular ages of every child on the monkey bars should be irrelevant. Children are naturally inclined to interact with other kids who have similar abilities. Closeness in age matters, but an age difference of a year or two should be less important than compatibility. Age differences mattered less in prior generations when American children did not have so many structured activities. But nowadays children are raised to differentiate by age. We teach children that almost every structured activity needs to be segregated into age clusters. It's not only public institutions like schools that have strict age divisions but the same goes for sports leagues, religious schools, and camps. The backyard softball game is age diverse; Little League is not. Distinctions among children by their abilities are more frequent as children grow older, but these are almost always less significant than age distinctions, special needs notwithstanding. The nationwide trend over the past 30 years towards structured youth activities has significantly increased the practice of segregating children by age.

American children learn it is wrong to judge a person based on skin color or ethnicity, but they rarely learn about the dangers of age-related prejudice. In particular, we forget to teach children that adults are not supposed to judge other adults based on age. Children grow up differentiating among people by age, and never learn that age discrimination is unacceptable. By the time children become adults, they are already accustomed to a society where younger means second class. Judging a person by age becomes an involuntary reflex.

When, Exactly, Did You Become an Adult?

The age of majority is a collection of state laws that legally distinguish a child from an adult. It's among the least unfair methods of differentiating by age. The expediency of a one-size-fits-all law to segregate children from adults is useful. A case-by-case assessment of the capabilities of every teenager would be ideal, but is unworkable. Since the age of majority at 18 years old is consistently adopted by countries around the world, there is a global consensus on when a person should be considered as an adult. So, since we are forced to draw a line in the sand because individual assessments are not feasible, 18 seems to be the right number. Nevertheless, there are many caveats, and more exceptions to the rule would certainly be welcome.

Unfortunately, when differentiating people by age, we ignore the dangers of going too far. Children are developmentally different from adults, but developmental progression is a gradual continuum that is inconsistent with the bluntness of a minimum age limit. A blanket age limitation can be implemented efficiently, but we cannot forget that age alone says little about the actual competence of a specific individual. And while adults have reached a consensus that 18 is the correct age of majority, history is full of examples of empowered groups overstepping when limiting the rights of other human beings. (The age of majority at 18 years old is not a nationwide standard. Alabama and Nebraska require an unmarried person to be 19 years old. A few other states go as high as age 21 for certain rights of emancipation.)

A drawback of age limitations is that OAs fall into the trap of thinking that the converse of the rule must be true. Every OA is old enough to drink alcohol or purchase firearms. However, not every OA is responsible enough to do so. We now require extensive teaching in schools on the dangers of certain adult activities, such as tobacco use. But the more education and training we give a child or a YA on a specific topic, the less we can justify an age limit. Arguably, today's high school students are more educated and knowledgeable about risky activities such as tobacco use than the average adult. You could make a case that tobacco use should be allowed only after a person has received sufficient instruction on its dangers. However, such a proposal wouldn't be acceptable to voters; OAs don't want to be treated like children.

Age limits are typically one-size-fits-all, while knowledge, ability, and responsibility are what really matter. Because a blanket age of majority is inherently unfair but is nevertheless the best option, we have forgotten that this in no way implies that every age-based law is optimal. We should err on the side of judging individuals as individuals whenever possible.

Traditional Milestones May Not Apply to You

Finishing school...Moving out of your childhood home and assuming responsibility for a household...Embarking on a steady career...Not relying on parents for financial support...Concluding a search for love and intimacy by marrying...Having children...Finding yourself and achieving emotional contentment.

These are the traditional milestones of adulthood. But the world has changed, and these coming-of-age events may not fit into your life.

Education levels among adults vary greatly, and you may decide to return to school later in life. You may be less hesitant to move back with your parents after living on your own. Steady careers are a relic of the past; you are almost guaranteed to change jobs multiple times. Parental financial support for adult children no longer ends on the wedding day. Love and intimacy are no longer tethered to marriage. More adults are choosing not to have children. And achieving these milestones certainly doesn't guarantee contentment.

Most significantly, because of the actions of OAs, you cannot afford the traditional milestones. Housing prices are too high. Student loans need to be repaid. Government safety nets are shrinking. YA unemployment is near a post-Depression record. If you are lucky enough to have a job, you may be working long hours at tedious tasks just to make ends meet. Forget about having a baby anytime soon. It's not that you chose to buy a home and have children later in life, but rather that OAs made those economic choices for you.

Today, we cannot define adulthood based on education level, marital status, parental status, employment status, or any of the historical milestones. In fact, we as a society correctly reject basing a person's legal rights on any of these markers. No fundamental privilege is conditioned upon your level of education, your marital status, your source of financial support, your decision to have or not have children, or your employment status. You should reject being judged as an adult based on such old-fashioned milestones.

Easy to Enforce

Differentiating people by age is simple; differentiating people by characteristics that really matter, like capability, dedication, integrity, and responsibility, is not. When we try to make distinctions based on factors that are actually important, we find it difficult, time consuming, and expensive to do so. So, when we want to weed out those who are undesirable or irresponsible, we use age as an imperfect proxy. A person's age is simple to verify and difficult to misrepresent. The appeal of age-based rights is that they are easy to enforce. Unfortunately, the easiest path is not necessarily the fairest path.

Hard to Relinquish

People do not like to lose their rights and privileges. Once you enjoy a particular comfort, it is hard to give it up. On the other hand, children have limited rights so continuing to deny rights to you, as you became an adult, is definitely more palatable than forcing an adult to forfeit a prior right.

OAs insist that privileges, once acquired, last a lifetime. But sometimes all of society would benefit if privileges had to be periodically re-earned. People with responsibilities that relate to life-and-death matters, in particular, should be reassessed periodically. We would be better off if every motorist on the road were capable of passing a recent driving test, not a test given 50 years ago. Older doctors are susceptible to Alzheimer's, just like anyone else; better to have the state medical board discover such a condition before a patient does. If an exam is a fair requirement to obtain a license, the same exam is a fair requirement to maintain a license. However, OAs do not allow themselves to be subjected to licensing reassessments. It would diminish the only edge they have on YAs: seniority.

Severe Penalties

You also face severe penalties for breaking minimum-age laws. For example, some states impose long-term license suspensions on an underage adult caught with alcohol. Compare this to an OA who is caught drinking and driving. A first-offense DUI in California results in a four-month license suspension, but simple possession of alcohol by an adult under 21 results in a one-year license suspension. A person who drinks and drives is a criminal, and we should consider the offense orders of magnitude worse. Unfortunately, officials prefer to focus on politically-palatable laws targeting YAs.

Lack of Due Process

High schools and colleges often do not hesitate to punish students based on the flimsiest of complaints. Thousands of schools have adopted zero-tolerance policies, in which a single allegation, regardless of circumstance or supporting evidence, leads to discipline against a student. Zero tolerance, however, never applies to teachers, administrators, and other adult employees. Public employees would never permit such an abridgement of their due process rights. Through their unions, education workers insist on hearings, appeals, and a host of other administrative procedures before a disciplinary action against them can become final. Public-sector union contracts are thick documents precisely because they spell out grievance processes in detail. Students, on the other hand, are rarely protected by anything resembling due process.

Ridiculously Rigid Laws

Consider two college juniors, the slightly younger Amy and the slightly older Zoe, who are going out to a club. Amy is a serious student who walked from her dorm a block away. She does not drink alcohol. Zoe attends college mostly for the parties and gets drunk six nights out of the week. She is a convicted drunk driver who drove to the club from her sorority house. Who should be allowed into the club?

Consider Matthew and Eric, two children born in November 1998. Matthew was born in New York on the 7th of the month at 12:30 a.m. EST. Eric is younger. He entered the world two hours later, born in California at 11:30 p.m. PST on the 6th of the month. Who should have the right to vote in the 2016 presidential election, Matthew, the older child, or Eric, the younger child?

When we differentiate people exclusively by age, without considering other compelling or mitigating factors, we invite imperfections into the system. Why not empower judges and administrators to smooth over the wrongs that have been created by rigid age-based standards?

Taxation Without Representation

Every American child learns that taxation without representation was one of the reasons why the country was established. Children and YAs quickly realize the irony: they are taxed without having any say in the matter. From sales taxes on store purchases to payroll taxes on wages, younger Americans pay a variety of taxes without having any influence.

The taxes that you pay this year are only a small part of your total tax liability. With 100 percent certainty, you will face a significant tax burden throughout the rest of your life, a burden bestowed on you by OAs. Today's debts will need to be repaid. Today's pension and healthcare obligations will need to be honored. And you, the taxpayer who will one day bear the burden, have little say in the matter. The country's founders thought a tax on tea was unfair. Imagine if they had inherited a fourteen-digit tax bill.

Millions of You Could Not Vote for Your President

There is no disputing that a highly educated 17-year-old is capable of making a better voting decision than many adults. A college-bound high school senior is usually better informed on political issues than millions of American adults of any age. On the other hand, some immature 17-year-olds may be inclined to make voting decisions based on superficial reasons, or may be influenced by their parents' preferences.

Voting rights is a good place to start anew. The argument that a group of irresponsible high school voters could sway an election does not hold water. Any group of irresponsible voters can sway an election. There are countless adults who make voting decisions based on the most ridiculous or inconsequential factors. The whole point of a democracy is to include all citizens. We do not exclude adults with low IQs from voting, and we should not exclude children who have the capacity to make an informed decision.

Besides being the fair way to conduct a democracy, giving high school students the right to vote would have many other positive implications. YAs, having already participated in the voting process, would feel more involved, more a part of the political process, more responsible for our collective well-being. The mere process of thinking through a voting decision has positive implications. Presumably, the issues put forth by candidates for office are the important issues we want younger Americans to start thinking about.

The Twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that all 18-year-olds have the right to vote. So how many 18-year-olds have the opportunity to vote for their president? Mathematically, it comes to less than 20 percent. If you turned 18 in early 2005, for example, you were not able to cast a vote for president until you reached age 21. The math gets even less favorable, of course, when a senator's six-year term is considered. Millions of you cannot vote in a particular senatorial election until you are 22 or 23 years old. Members of Congress themselves, on the other hand, vote for their own leadership within days of being sworn into office. When added to 18 years of childhood, four or six additional years is a long time for an adult with supposedly full voting rights not to have any opportunity to vote for a president or a senator. A fairer system would allow teenagers to vote in the election that occurs immediately prior to their 18th birthday.

What is the worst thing that could happen if 16- and 17-year-olds were permitted to vote? Perhaps some of them would not take an election seriously. Compare that possible worst-case scenario to the actual events in the 2000 presidential election, when confused elderly voters directly caused George W. Bush to prevail over Al Gore.

In 2000, after an incredibly close popular vote in Florida, followed by recounts, litigation, and a Supreme Court ruling, Bush, of course, won the election. The margin of victory was only a few hundred votes. Meanwhile, statistical experts concluded that over 1,000 elderly voters in a single Florida county, Palm Beach, mistakenly voted for third-party candidate Pat Buchanan instead of Gore. For these elderly voters, many of them Jewish, this was no average election. It was the first time in U.S. history that a Jewish major party candidate was on the ballot. Joe Lieberman was Gore's running mate, and thousands of elderly Jewish voters flocked to the polls to participate in an election with such personal significance. But, instead of selecting the Democratic ticket of Gore/Lieberman, the elderly Floridians frequently and erroneously voted for the conservative Buchanan. Bush won because of this mistake, and history was changed. If we can tolerate such a spectacular mistake by elderly voters (and we do, since nobody wants to strip senior citizens of the right to vote), why can't we tolerate the possibility of some less-than-serious voting by 16- and 17-year-olds?

Responsibility to Educate You

Our constitutional and legal systems favor adults over children, but our educational system does not. A bedrock principle in the U.S. is that every child has the right to a free education. We devote a substantial portion of public spending to education. However, a free public education ends right around the time when a child reaches the age of majority. In terms of government spending on education, an 18-year-old high school senior has been treated pretty well.

And then?

College is extraordinarily expensive. A year of tuition and other costs at a top university exceeds the median annual household income. College costs have been rising faster than income levels for years. Unless you were born into a wealthy family, you cannot afford a private college without some sort of outside assistance. You are being mistreated, simply because the cost of college in the United States is so high. And college is more of a necessity today than ever before. If you enter an intellectual profession without a college degree, you face long odds of success.

College financial aid offices expect parents to pay the bulk of their children's tuition, if they are able. So does the Department of Education. But the law is clear: absent a special situation like a court ruling related to a divorce, parents have no legal obligation to pay for their children's college education. Legally, the burden falls entirely on you, not on your parents or the government.

Responsibility to Ensure Human Rights

In the United States, children have no inviolable rights. It so happens that every right that children enjoy is subject to change, reinterpretation, or amendment by adults. Adults have the absolute right to govern Americans of all ages. Children are subject to the many protections of state and federal laws, but those laws are open to interpretation by judges and juries, both of which are composed of adults and not peers. Constitutional protections can be reinterpreted at the discretion of a select group of powerful OAs. There are international human rights declarations covering children, but generally, they do not have the force of law in the United States.

The country would benefit from a serious discussion of children's rights, which in turn would cast the spotlight on your second-rate status. Should the power of parents and the state be absolute? Are children different from other minority groups because children are permitted no role in the democratic process? Since protection from physical abuse is an internationally accepted human right, should such an unassailable protection apply to American children even if a state legislature believes otherwise? Do children have a right to inherit a healthy planet? Should children have any voice in policies that affect them? In other words, we need to rethink some of these issues. Any additional protections granted to children will in turn raise the floor for YA rights.

The international community recognizes that children need unassailable rights. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which came into force in 1989, is arguably the most widely recognized international human rights treaty. Every organized government in the world has ratified it, with the sole exception of the United States. Government leaders have not approved the Convention specifically because it challenges the bedrock principle that there is no higher authority than our own adult citizens. As a result, American children have limited rights that are subject to the whims of lawmakers and the courts, not absolute rights that are universally recognized. Furthermore, through recent legislation, lawmakers are increasingly extending the legal powers of parents to cover their YA dependents.

The Child Rights Information Network (CRIN) is an important NGO that advocates for children. Their policy statement pointedly applies to both developed and developing nations. "Discrimination against children occurs in every corner of the globe. Because it is so ingrained in so many aspects of life—school, work, and home alike—we must call on our governments to take proactive measures to eliminate age discrimination." CRIN has highlighted a law passed in Australia in 2004 as a good example of how to guarantee children and adults of all ages as much equality as possible. Australia's Age Discrimination Act "generally prohibits direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of age in employment, education, access to public spaces, provision of goods and services, and accommodation, among other areas." The ban on indirect discrimination is perhaps most significant. There is no getting around the law by instituting non-age specific requirements that unreasonably discriminate against YAs. From the workplace to educational institutions to public access, Australians need not worry about age-related prejudicial policies. Australia protects workers of all ages from age discrimination, as opposed to the U.S. federal protections. Australia does permit lower salaries to be paid to workers under 21 years old, which, of course, is also a widespread practice in the United States. CRIN calls this provision controversial, which shows how far behind the United States is in protecting YA workers. Guaranteeing equal pay for the equal work of YAs is not even on the radar screen of the U.S. Congress.

Responsibility to Act in Your Best Interest

To be an adult is to be a fiduciary. Children are entirely dependent on adults to govern. Similarly, YAs have had only a brief opportunity to shape government and other societal institutions. OAs have a responsibility to act in the best interest of children and YAs. All adults, not just parents, are fiduciaries, and we must approach our decision making with the best interests in mind of those who do not have power.

The political views of America's YAs do not coincide with those of the OA population. On environmental policy, for example, you are likely to lean to the left of the typical OA. And you are a greater stakeholder in the health of the environment, because you will inhabit the planet long after today's OAs have passed away. OAs have a responsibility to represent your interests even if they hold differing, self-serving views.

Since we do not do enough to treat children and YAs fairly in the normal course, the problems are compounded when individuals are at risk, either intentionally or by circumstance. We have an especially profound duty to children and YAs who are mistreated or disadvantaged. We should do more for those of you living in poverty, for those of you in the foster system, and for those of you with substandard healthcare. We should redouble our efforts to combat child abuse, child abductions, child prostitution, child pornography, forced labor, and the sale of children. Whether or not you have recently reached adulthood, you can still be a victim of poverty, substandard healthcare, and criminal activity.

Chapter 6: Race, Sex, and Age

Today, almost all powerful individuals share a common trait [of older age]. Millions of adults are barred from entering places of public accommodation [because of their age]. Wage levels are based on [age-related] precedent more than merit. Thirty million [younger] adult citizens are forbidden from running for Congress.

Remove the bracketed language, and this sounds just like the United States in the 1800s. The parallels to racial and gender discrimination are undeniable.

The Evolution of Racism, Sexism, and YA Ageism

The country's history is inextricably interwoven with the specter of discrimination. Settled by Europeans looking to escape the oppression of monarchies and religious prejudice in their home countries, Colonial America was, of course, rife with all kinds of discrimination. Native Americans were treated like animals, African Americans were considered to be property, women were viewed as inferior. It cannot be forgotten that, before our views on human rights evolved, discrimination was widespread, accepted by the country's founders, and incorporated into our laws and government.

The evidence that the founders were sexist, racist, and ageist is written down in black and white. The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and most other documents of the era are discriminatory on the face. The Founding Fathers entrusted the running of the country to themselves—older white men. They were careful not to give too much power to the masses. They certainly did not want African Americans, women, or YAs controlling the government. The powers of the people were put in place by a privileged group of racist and sexist older men who were reluctant to vest power with anyone other than their own ilk.

Fast forward over 200 years, and it's incredibly clear how views on institutional racism and sexism have evolved. In all areas of discrimination (other than ageism), there has been enormous progress. Older white men no longer have a monopoly on governmental power. Today, it's just older people who run the country.

Not only has ageism against YAs been present for centuries, but also recent trends point to more discrimination, not less. Most of the discriminatory obstacles cited herein are recent. Eighteen-year-olds have fewer rights today than they did 30 years ago. For the foreseeable future, the clout of OAs, and retirees in particular, will grow as life expectancy increases and the baby boomers age.

Segregation

In the early 20th century, African Americans faced institutional discrimination in four broad categories: employment, housing, education, and public accommodation. Racial discrimination has been illegal in each category for decades. But what about YA age discrimination in the 21st century? It's still completely legal and commonplace to discriminate against you under federal employment law. Completely legal and commonplace to ban you from both private and public housing developments (the phrase "adult-only communities" is a slap in the face). Completely legal and commonplace to segregate public institutions (and not just schools) based on age, regardless of the actual abilities of the individuals. Completely legal and commonplace for a place of public accommodation to ban you (many clubs ban anyone under age 25). It's hard to make a better comparison to the institutional segregation that you face today than the country's early 20th-century practice of racial segregation.

Profiling

Profiling is defined as "the use of specific characteristics, such as race or age, to make generalizations about a person, as to whether he or she may be engaged in illegal activity." Everything that is wrong with racial profiling is also wrong with age profiling. If you're an adult, your race and age should be meaningless to law enforcement. The color of your skin and date of your birth provide no information as to the individual facts and circumstances of criminal activity.

Profiling based on probabilities has inherent flaws. Probabilities generated from historical data may or may not be a good predictor of future activity. And probabilities can be skewed or misrepresented to fit a wide variety of prejudicial views. If one 70-year-old (named Bernard Madoff) steals more money than every 20-year-old thief in the country combined, does that mean law enforcement anti-theft units should focus on 70-year-olds and not 20-year-olds? No, drawing an age-based conclusion would be inappropriate. Law enforcement should focus on where there is criminal activity, and not where there is lawful YA activity.

Power

For the sake of simplicity, let's define power as the combination of wealth and political influence. When we compare OAs to YAs, we find an incredible disparity in power. There is no other large demographic division today that reflects such a wide power gap. African Americans as a group are poorer than whites, and are underrepresented in many areas of government. But even that difference in wealth and political representation is smaller than the OA/YA power gap. You can count on one finger the number of big-city mayors who are YAs. Similarly, a disparity in power exists for women, but not nearly to the extent of the OA/YA gap. However, in the early 1900s, when wealth and politics were still the exclusive realm of older white males, many demographic groups exhibited a disparity in power at least equivalent to today's OA/YA power gap. Their fortunes have improved over time, while the power of YAs has stagnated.

Science Trumps Discrimination

You were born with a certain skin color, gender, and birth date. You were not given a choice in this. In a civilized society, we must strive to judge people by the choices they make, not by factors beyond their control. Laws should treat all adults equally, unless there is a sound biological reason not to, a reason rooted in science and supported by empirical data. When laws are passed that differentiate a subset of adults from other adults but that are not supported by science, it becomes a slippery slope to persecution of the disenfranchised. If someone doubts your capacities or capabilities simply because you are a person of color, a woman, or a YA, ask them for the scientific evidence that supports their doubts.

Age versus Race and Gender

Age is different in one fundamental respect from race and gender in that it is not static. Most Americans will live well into their 70s or 80s. So, is the fact that age is dynamic a reason to justify age discrimination? Is it fair to discriminate against you because the odds are that you will live to have your opportunity to enjoy full adult rights?

One way to view the real-life impact of age limits is to imagine OAs losing rights. If every person over 65 years old automatically lost their adult rights, millions of capable senior citizens would be denied the chance to maximize their potential, particularly in the workplace. It would be a national tragedy even though the law would apply to everyone equally. When supposedly "fair" age limits are put under a microscope, it becomes clear that they are not an equitable way to treat adults.

Age is different from race and gender because it is not static, but that difference does not make age-based discrimination any less wrong. Age limits affect individuals in unique ways. The everyone-gets-a-chance-someday argument is proven fallacious by real-life events. You may never get another chance; nobody is guaranteeing you anything about your future.

One day in the future, people may be able to change their skin color or gender easily. Racism and sexism will be just as abhorrent then as they are now.

Full Civil Rights Will Come

Like the country's founders who were raised in a society where racial and gender discrimination was the norm, OAs don't see anything wrong with laws, policies, customs, and social structures that favor them at your expense. However, if history is a guide, YA age discrimination will one day also be rejected. Sometime in the 21st century, it will be understood that YAs deserve full civil rights. The magnitude of the intergenerational issues is just too extreme; the problems are snowballing and a collision course is inevitable. Eventually, OAs will come to realize that granting YAs full rights is necessary for the country's long-term health and prosperity. And all adults will one day be treated equally. Or so I hope.

Chapter 7: Government Policies

OAs Are Borrowing, and You Are Being Stuck With the Bill

OAs have embraced a culture of deficit spending. The federal government has amassed an enormous debt, and few states or municipalities manage their affairs without relying on substantial borrowings. Even when a government entity claims it has balanced its books, chances are it is relying on unsustainable practices such as creative accounting, asset sales, nonrecurring transfers, deferred maintenance, and underfunded liabilities. Sometimes we as a country spend more than we earn, and the entire savings rate in the United States becomes a negative number. Without a doubt, OAs are spending more than they can afford.

Most OAs are fully aware they have inadequate retirement savings, but they simply refuse to spend less and save more. As today's OAs support their lifestyle on credit, much of the nation's financing comes from China and other nations with trade surpluses. Someone is going to have to repay China a thirteen-digit debt, plus interest, when it comes due. Someone is going to have to support the baby boomers when they run out of savings in their retirement and cannot afford healthcare. With certainty, the financial burden will fall on you.

Social Security and Medicare

Social Security and Medicare need to differentiate by age. They also highlight how much of the economy has become a way to transfer resources from young to old.

The two plans are hybrid programs, hence the confusion and gamesmanship. They are part pension plan (you get out what you put in) and part entitlement (a government benefit paid to you). Adjusting for inflation, retirees get back what they put in plus something extra. It's the "something extra" that is a multi-trillion dollar ticking time bomb. Who's getting stuck with the bill for that "something extra?" You, of course.

It's hard to live off of a Social Security check. Retirees need additional income to maintain a decent standard of living. But people have known this fact since Social Security was founded, and still Americans have an anemic savings rate. Many retirees have suffered tragedies or unexpected hardships, and the government should treat them generously. Others simply chose to spend everything they earned during their working years, and have ended up with no savings. They expect you to foot the bill for their retirement. Government officials need to do more to weed out the greedy from the needy.

Some Social Security recipients are so aggressive about their benefits that, when the government made an error and paid some recipients extra by mistake, these individuals insisted they were also entitled to an erroneous extra payment. The so-called "notch babies" born between 1917 and 1926 argued vociferously to receive the higher benefits that were mistakenly paid to an older group of retirees. They wanted to gain—and wanted you to lose—because of an error! Of course, the government already treats the notch babies and all other recipients generously relative to their contributions. Actually, it's surprising that the notch babies did not get their way. They have a voice in the political process. If the notch had been larger and more retirees had been affected, Congress would have undoubtedly been pressured into expanding the windfall.

Retirement plans should be intergenerationally equitable and not penalize YAs. Each generation should get back in retirement benefits what it pays in over time, plus interest. Private defined-benefit retirement plans were also supposed to work that way. So were private retiree healthcare plans. They were designed to be fair to all workers, young and old. But it didn't work out that way.

Today, private defined-benefit plans are dinosaurs. American corporations have largely discontinued these plans, which have been in decline since the 1970s, in part because the future costs are larger than the perceived benefits to the employee. For example, if a company can afford to spend $80,000 a year on employee compensation, almost every employee would choose to receive the $80,000 in cash rather than $30,000 in cash plus $50,000 towards a retirement plan that he or she may never live to use. These defined-benefit plans are expensive (a $50,000 annual cost for pension and retiree health benefits is not atypical), and most workers would prefer a full paycheck today rather than a well-funded retirement. The reason for this mindset is the belief that the government will, somehow, provide during a person's retirement. OAs have developed a culture of insufficient savings and over-reliance on the government safety net.

Meanwhile, defined-benefit retirement plans for government workers continue to flourish. Government employees like these plans because they promise fat benefits. Politicians like them because, as opposed to wages, pension contributions can be underfunded. A dollar less in the pension plan means the current municipal budget is a dollar closer to being balanced. An underfunded pension plan becomes the headache of future politicians and future generations. Government workers throughout the world have been promised generous health and retirement benefits, which remain chronically underfunded. In 2010, Greece's economy buckled under the demands on its budget, and more attention than ever is now being paid to the fiscal strain caused by pension plans. Nevertheless, federal, state, and municipal governments have yet to feel the worst pain from pension cutbacks. It will come. If you work for the government, you will never get a pension plan as rich as the ones your older colleagues enjoy.

Government workers are not the only ones with government-run retirement plans. Social Security and Medicare are retirement plans that have evolved to become intergenerational wealth transfer vehicles. Perhaps that is too harsh, because these plans continue to have substantial savings elements. Nevertheless, since the plans are catastrophically underfunded, trillions of dollars of wealth are being transferred from YAs to retirees. This is not an abstraction—the money goes from your payroll deduction to the Social Security Administration and then right into a retiree's bank account. What do you receive in return? You have been promised a future benefit.

Unfortunately, for you, in this case the definition of the word "promise" is fuzzy. The rules can change. An individual does not have an enforceable contract with Social Security or Medicare. The plans have changed in the past, and they will change again in the future. Historically, changes have resulted in beneficiaries receiving more goodies, such as the generous Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage that went into effect in 2006. The burden of paying for these added benefits falls on current workers like you. In the near term, changes are likely to continue to inure to the benefit of empowered constituents like retirees.

Social Security and Medicare would be intergenerationally equitable programs if the pattern of providing increasingly generous benefits could continue ad infinitum. But, alas, this is impossible, both socially and mathematically. Unless the programs are radically altered, they will both run out of money at around the time you reach retirement age, if not sooner.

It has been asked many times before and was raised once again in 2011 by Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry: Why is Social Security different from a Ponzi scheme? In a classic Ponzi scheme such as the Madoff fraud, older investors are paid not from investment appreciation on their money but from the proceeds of newer investors. Substitute the word "workers" for "investors" in the preceding sentence, and it fits the description of Social Security. New workers are continuously needed in order to meet the obligations to old workers. Each class of new workers is promised increasingly more benefits, which drives the need to perpetuate the scheme. Ponzi schemes are not bad for everyone—early participants do well because their gains are funded by the contributions of later participants. According to a Bloomberg poll in September 2011, 55 percent of Americans under age 35 agree with characterizing Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.

There are characteristics that differentiate Social Security from a Ponzi scheme; unfortunately, some of the distinctions are not flattering to Social Security. One difference is that participation in a Ponzi scheme is optional; investors choose to take part because they do not know it is a fraud. Conversely, we know with certainty that the Social Security program, as presently configured, will run out of money for YAs, but we compel you to participate nevertheless. In fact, the Social Security Trust Fund has no reserves because the federal government spent all the cash. (The government has promised to repay the money which adds trillions of dollars to the national debt.) Another difference is a retiree has no way of distinguishing the savings/investment portion of his or her check from the welfare/entitlement portion, while a Ponzi investor knows how much better the scheme is as compared to legitimate investments. Naturally, beneficiaries of Social Security, Medicare, and Ponzi schemes always believe they deserve 100 percent of their outsized payments.

Viewed in hindsight, Ponzi schemes are usually characterized by too-good-to-be-true investment returns. Medicare has that same fairytale-like aura. In return for relatively modest payroll deductions during a career, a retiree has heavily subsidized (and often free) access to the world's most expensive healthcare system. Most of the developed world provides its citizens with free or low-cost government healthcare, but these countries tax their citizens accordingly and tightly control medical spending. So how can the United States provide, at a low cost, government-sponsored healthcare in a system that has higher medical costs than the rest of the world? It cannot. It is too good to be true. The only possible solution to avoid a future bankruptcy of Medicare is for the government to renege on its "promise" to you. Your benefits will be cut, your taxes will be increased, or the age when you start to receive benefits will be raised. Since the country's fiscal problems are so severe, probably all three will happen.

So, how have politicians managed the looming fiscal disaster in Medicare in recent years? By creating an enormously costly new benefit that retirees never paid for. Signed into law by George W. Bush, Medicare Part D pays tens of billions of dollars for prescription drugs. The problem is not with the benefit itself, but rather how it is funded. Prescription drug prices range from high to astronomical, and millions of retirees would not otherwise be able to afford them without government assistance. The current generation of retirees should have saved more during their working years, in part to pay for rainy-day events like unexpected medical inflation. Wealthy retirees should cover the medical costs of poor retirees so the burden is borne within the age cohort. Instead, the decades-long problem of low savings rates is being passed on to you. Sure, you want grandpa to have access to his prescription drugs, but why should you have to pay for both his healthcare and your own? Grandpa may not be able to afford it, but neither can you.

From its beginning, the Obama Administration recognized the shortfall in the Social Security and Medicare programs, but it viewed the fairness issue in terms of relative wealth rather than generational cohort. The healthcare reform law passed in 2010 significantly increased Medicare taxes on the highest earning Americans, which helped make Medicare a bit less insolvent and, in President Obama's opinion, helped make tax burdens a bit fairer across the wealth spectrum. But how fair was the tax increase across the generational spectrum? Today's wealthy retirees receive full Medicare benefits without ever being subject to this increased tax during their careers. In fact, not only were Medicare tax rates lower, the total amount of tax was capped at upper-middle-class income levels (just like Social Security) until the early 1990s. So, a billionaire who retired before 1994 paid exactly the same amount of Medicare taxes as an upper-middle-class individual. But today's YA doctors and lawyers may pay ten times (or higher, since there's now no cap) more in Medicare taxes than a billionaire did 20 years ago. If fairness, and not politics, were the primary consideration, formerly high-earning retirees would be asked to pay more. Instead, you, with your highest-earning years yet to come, will bear the largest burden of the Medicare tax increase.

As bad as the pension situation is in the United States, much of the world is in worse shape. Governments throughout Europe have promised retirees money that the governments don't have. Throughout the developed world, the pattern is clear. If the government collects it, the odds are YAs are paying more than OAs. If the government disburses it, YAs are probably getting less.

Taxes

Income tax is an area where there is absolutely no reason to discriminate by age. When one family member is reliant on another for basic financial support, he or she is classified as a dependent under the tax code. Dependents are usually children, but they can be any age. Adults of all ages can lack a steady income and be reliant on their parents or adult children for basic living expenses. We should treat all dependents the same for tax purposes, but we do not. Dependent adults under 24 years old are treated like children under provisions such as the so-called kiddie tax, and are consequently subject to higher tax rates than other adult dependents. They are also expected to share tax information and coordinate their filing of returns with their parents. However, there is no need for the government's one-size-fits-all age policy since income taxes are based entirely on a person's individual circumstances. Unlike, say, age of majority rules, each taxpayer is considered unique, and there is no expediency argument for having a tax policy based on age. If your parents support you, it should not matter to the IRS whether you are 23 years old, 24 years old, or 54 years old.

The earned income credit is an important tax credit for working individuals struggling to make ends meet. It's a cornerstone program of the federal government's war on poverty. On April 15 of each year, the credit frequently means the difference between owing taxes and getting a refund. So, the EIC is a huge benefit for the working poor. That is, of course, if you are at least 25 years old. If you have no dependents, the EIC is only available to you if you are 25 to 64 years old. And if you're 65 or older, you qualify for a plethora of tax credits, offsets, and preferences—the list of possible tax benefits for elderly adults is exhaustive. So, once again, YAs are singularly disadvantaged. Either the government should mandate that parents support their children who are 18 to 24 years old, or you should be treated equitably under the tax code. If you are 18 to 24 and on your own, you are out of luck. Congress wants you to pay more taxes than older adults, at the point in your life when you can least afford it.

Property taxes are the purview of state and local governments. Several states have followed the lead of California, which has sharply limited property tax increases since 1978 under Proposition 13. The limited increase (of no more than two percent per year) is a virtual absolute, except for one big condition: if you move, you lose all your benefits under Proposition 13. Therefore, in a typical year, California municipalities raise property taxes across-the-board by two percent, except on the few properties that have changed owners. These properties may experience tax increases of 500 percent or more because of long-term appreciation in value. You, as a YA, suffer the brunt of this discriminatory policy. You have far greater needs to move than OAs—the need to leave your parents' home, get married, have children, and establish a career. It's common in California for YA homeowners to pay property taxes that are five times higher than those of their OA neighbors. It would have been much fairer (and simpler) to have the taxes associated with every property increase by a fixed amount instead of letting new homeowners get walloped with giant tax bills. But OAs do not want to pay equitable tax rates when YA homebuyers are conveniently available to pay much more.

Politicians attempt to assist economically depressed communities through stimulus spending and tax subsidies. Since you are more mobile than OAs, who typically have longstanding community ties, it's easier for you not to return to your hometown after college, military service, or a distant first job without experiencing an economic penalty. Meanwhile, OAs in depressed communities are desperate for customers for their businesses and for a robust tax base to support their retirement needs. States spend billions of tax dollars promoting their struggling towns as wonderful places to live and work, but the best job opportunities for you typically lie elsewhere. A formerly vibrant community that is now facing economic difficulty is an older community. So, politicians prop up these areas by pumping in tax dollars instead of investing in YA communities. Studies show that states like New York redistribute money from their younger communities in, say, New York City, in order to support their older communities in, say, Buffalo. In essence, OAs use tax-and-spend policies to compensate for their own lack of mobility.

Even nonprofit organizations that desire to help future generations are subject to special taxes. The tax code requires charitable organizations to pay out a certain percentage of their assets each year, or otherwise they are subject to extraordinary excise taxes on the unpaid amounts. A charity cannot save its resources for the future and remain fully tax-exempt, because lawmakers consider such long-term savings to be bad public policy. As a result, each year, in order to escape tax penalties, thousands of tax-exempt organizations are forced to pay out more than they collect in donations and investment income. In an economic climate where investment gains are volatile and uncertain, more charitable disbursements in the present leave fewer resources for the future needs of your generation. Of course, there is no tax penalty if a charity decides not to preserve assets for the future.

Health Research

Investment in health research and development is often overlooked as an intergenerational issue. After all, new medical breakthroughs can benefit everyone, young and old. But investing in public health is necessarily a long-term commitment. The genesis of innovative drugs, devices, procedures, treatments, and care options is often the result of years of basic research. And once the research ends, the clinical trials start. The longer the investigation, the more conclusive it is. In medicine, there is no such thing as a state of perfection; every breakthrough is subject to improvement over time. Investment in healthcare innovation is expensive and uncertain; two words policymakers don't want to hear. Also, a dollar spent today on basic health research will probably not be timely enough to benefit an elderly person during her lifetime.

The deadliest threat to you is cancer. You have a higher probability of getting cancer than your great-grandparents had. Cancer research is a critical intergenerational issue for you, but it may be hard for you to be concerned about a disease you are not likely to get for decades, if at all. However, unless we make significant progress in your lifetime, there is about a 50/50 chance that one day you will get cancer. If you want to prevent or beat cancer 30 years from now (and you do), the time to start is now. You want resources thrown at the war on cancer.

Policymakers argue about who should get access to cutting-edge cancer drugs, and who should pay the costs. These are important concerns, but they are secondary. The critical question is: How can we ensure that the best possible treatments actually exist in the first place? A politician, when faced with public policy issues surrounding an extremely expensive but revolutionary drug, is put in the nearly impossible position of providing access to the drug at a reasonable cost. In fact, the politician's life would be easier if the new drug never existed in the first place. And that's what ends up happening. Over time, developers of new drugs, devices, and treatments become less incentivized if public policy does not appropriately value a new discovery. Future innovation becomes diminished. It's not that the politicians do not want blockbuster drugs to be developed, but rather, they have immediate incentives to keep healthcare costs low. No one blames a politician for the healthcare industry's lack of innovation. And the politician knows he will not be held accountable for the lives that could be saved in the future.

How can pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, biotech start-ups, and other healthcare-related companies get incentivized to invest hundreds of billions of dollars to find breakthroughs that will help you live a longer and healthier life? There is only one way. The reward for success must be sufficiently high. Innovative products and services must be priced expensively, or they will not be developed in the first place.

Ironically, since you are likely a future, as opposed to a current, user of medical care, you benefit the most when innovative drugs, devices, and procedures are expensive. You want a system that lavishly rewards healthcare breakthroughs, so that thousands of companies will be clamoring to develop cures. The majority of YAs are healthy and do not need to worry too much about today's healthcare prices. You need to worry about progress. It's inevitable that a revolutionary drug, once discovered and brought to market, will become more accessible over time. Today's expensive new drugs are tomorrow's cheap generics. Scientific progress feeds on itself, and future improvements are inevitable. The hard part is incentivizing talented people to focus on healthcare research in time for you to benefit.

If the government were to mandate cheap airlines tickets, we would have very few private airlines. The cheap tickets would prevent more than a handful of airlines from making a profit. But what if the life expectancy of tens of millions of YAs depended on how much money the airlines invested in research and development? In that case, you would want there to be thousands of airlines, as many as the economy could possibly sustain. The last thing you would want is for the government to force the price of an airline ticket to be below market value.

Airline travel, which is not typically a matter of life and death, enjoys price deregulation, but developers of healthcare breakthroughs, such as biotech drug companies, are forced to cut prices for government payers. Governments are desperate to spend less on healthcare, while you desperately need them to invest more.

Chapter 8: The Workplace

Adulthood is traditionally defined as leaving home, ending one's financial dependence on one's parents, marrying, and having children. The milestones have one important commonality: each requires a source of income. So YAs need jobs desperately. Some would say it is definitional—without a job, there is no adulthood.

Yet we are failing to create enough high-quality jobs that you are able to fill. Unemployment and underemployment are rampant among your generation, and this has become a long-term structural problem. Corporate managers are rewarded for profits, not for creating more jobs. Unions are designed to protect existing members first and foremost; potential future members are a secondary concern. The federal government pumped trillions of dollars into the economy in 2008-10, only to see the unemployment rate remain stubbornly high. Job creation became the defining issue of the Obama presidency.

The declining supply of desirable entry-level jobs is having a profound impact on your life. You are postponing all the traditional milestones. You are leaving home later, relying more on parental financial support, and delaying marriage and parenthood. The character of YA life has changed dramatically during the past 30 years, primarily because of a lack of good jobs.

Why are we not creating more high-paying jobs for you? Enormous workplace barriers are standing in your way.

Of course, age discrimination in the workplace cuts both ways. Clearly, OAs are also victims of age-related prejudices throughout the U.S. economy. The mere appearance of a job applicant as being middle-aged or older can be sufficient to disqualify him or her from being hired. By focusing here on YA age discrimination, the intent is not to understate the challenges of age discrimination that OAs face. But the law is on their side. The power bases of America are fighting for them. The media is focused on their problems. Meanwhile, your plight in the workplace must be addressed, precisely because the law does not protect you, you are not powerful, your adult rights are being marginalized, and OAs do not understand why it is a problem.

The ADEA

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 provides broad protections to workers at least 40 years old in medium and large companies. Under the ADEA, OA workers are protected from discriminatory hiring, firing, promotions, and pay levels. Ironically, the large majority of executive decision makers in corporations are over age 40. Take a look at the composition of any corporate board of directors, and you will rarely see a YA. These policy-setting OAs are not prejudiced against their peers, as few people are biased against their own kind. The ADEA typically protects OAs not against classic intolerance-driven discrimination, but rather against the capitalist-driven pressures of a workforce laden with eager, ambitious, and capable YAs like you.

The proof that the ADEA is more about the protection of OAs and less about fighting discrimination lies with the fact that it does not grant protections to workers under 40 years old. In fact, judicial rulings have interpreted the ADEA to permit age discrimination against workers over age 40, but only if they are considered too young rather than too old. Instead, why not ban all age discrimination in the workplace? Every day, thousands of YAs are unfairly branded as too young for certain jobs, promotions, pay raises, and leadership positions. Some state laws and even a few federal laws protect against assorted types of YA age discrimination, but the broadest applicable law, the ADEA, is solely concerned with protecting OAs.

Everyday Age Limits and the Workplace

A company needs to hire a salesperson. Which candidate is going to be hired? Not you, if you are too young to rent a car. Not you, if you are going to be asked for proof of age at every business outing. Not you, if you are too young to be welcomed at the local civic organization. Age limits outside the workplace directly affect the value of a YA employee inside the workplace. When an adult is denied equal rights, it often has cascading and unintended effects. The candidate pool for most job openings is large, so why should a company hire you if you lack full-fledged adult rights?

Layoffs

Millions of OAs in the workforce are irreplaceable because they have unique job experience. All other factors being equal, an employer will always choose to retain the worker with the most experience. The difficult decisions arise when an employer weighs experience versus other factors, such as physical ability or cost.

On the other hand, if an OA can no longer perform a job as well as a younger person, he or she needs to step aside gracefully. Job security is not a birthright. All employers require a healthy stream of younger worker who will progress into being valuable, experienced workers. Industries that are downsizing need to find ways to retain both YAs and OAs. Laying off only the newer employees is not optimal; neither is laying off only the higher-cost employees.

Job Performance

Historically, OAs were overtly discriminated against in the workplace, so laws like the ADEA were passed to protect their rights. But age discrimination against OAs persists, albeit in a more subtle manner, because personnel decisions, especially hiring decisions, are subjective and open to interpretation. So now what do we do? Enforce age discrimination laws? Yes. Try to educate Americans and change discriminatory attitudes? Yes. But we've gone a big step further. We have limited your rights and created an affirmative action plan for OAs. We could have and should have protected all Americans against workplace age discrimination, but we did not. We chose to create two classes of workers. We had good intentions by wanting to protect OAs against age discrimination. However, we overreached, and as result we deemphasized job performance.

Job performance should matter. It has to matter. It should be the most important factor in any personnel decision. If a worker of any age cannot adequately perform a job for any reason other than a temporary reason, that job should be given to someone who can do it.

What if two workers are capable of similar performance, but one worker is willing to accept less pay than the other? The distinction often depends on the magnitude of the pay differential. It's expensive for an employer to replace one worker for another. All jobs have learning curves. Most employers place a high value on length of service and loyalty. No company is going to replace a valued employee just to save a few cents an hour. But when the potential savings are high enough, companies will replace some workers with others who are willing to work for less. Replacing a higher-paid employee with a lower-paid employee of equal ability may disproportionately disadvantage OAs, but it's not age discrimination if age is not the motivating factor. It's the flip side of experience. If a worker is more valuable to a company because of her experience, she commands more pay. This is not age discrimination either, but it disproportionately disadvantages YAs. A company maintains equilibrium only if a worker's value to the employer increases in proportion to pay levels. The problems arise when a worker is overpaid relative to her productivity.

It can be scary to be an OA employee in today's economy. There is always someone younger, healthier, and more energetic in the next cubicle who is willing to work for a smaller paycheck. But this is simply part of life. By definition, as a person ages, there are increasing numbers of younger workers waiting on the sidelines. OAs with insufficient skills, education, or savings are threatened by the prospect of growing old without steady employment or generous retirement plans. So they turn to the government and demand workplace laws that are dismissive of job performance.

Labor Unions

Contrary to popular belief, labor unions are still a powerful force in the U.S. Although private sector union membership has been declining for nearly a century, unions still dominate a portion of the manufacturing sector as well as a smaller but meaningful percentage of the service economy. And public-sector unions are robust and enjoy significant influence, particularly on the state and municipal levels.

As a general rule, a member's status within a labor union is all about seniority. Seniority is time on the job, time in the occupation, or, most importantly, time in the union. Seniority is not based on age, but it is closely correlated to age. It certainly looks a lot like age. It certainly excludes YAs from the highest ranks. Seniority is not about merit; it's not about putting the best-qualified workers in the best jobs; and it's not about pay for performance. Unions deserve credit for assimilating workers of diverse backgrounds, but they are steadfast in distinguishing among workers by seniority.

Jobs with automatic raises and promotions can attract the worst of the labor force, not the best. If your job performance is inadequate, you will not last at a company that is able to freely hire and fire. But for a worker who performs at a below-average level, a seniority system works quite well.

The loser in union-dominated industries is you. The highest-paid jobs go to the workers with the most time in the union, period. In union jobs, you cannot compete on the basis of merit. It even works this way in professional sports. A 40-year-old veteran baseball player with below-average stats will command higher pay than a 20-year-old MVP. Like all other unions, even the baseball players' union insists to some degree on a seniority-oriented pay scale.

Unions representing state and municipal workers have been able to command the best benefits, pensions, and workplace rules of the nation's entire labor force. Salaries for professionals such as teachers, on the other hand, are typically lower than for workers with equivalent education levels in the private sector. Without a doubt, teachers are low paid compared to their importance to society. However, if you add to their salaries the free-market cost of their employee benefits, pensions, and workplace rules, the compensation gap narrows considerably. And that's before considering the most valuable feature: tenure.

Tenure

Tenure is a collection of seniority privileges, often spelled out in a collective bargaining agreement. The granting of tenure is determined in part by merit, since poorly performing non-tenured teachers and professors can be denied tenure and fired. But, in most public schools, the number one impediment to receiving tenure is lack of seniority. Tenure creates a two-tiered system—a hierarchy that is closely correlated to age. Some teachers, after serving with dynamism for many years, go through the motions in the latter part of their careers, waiting for their pensions to vest. The tenure process is designed to protect those OA teachers, at the expense of you and other YAs beginning your careers.

The university that I graduated from, Princeton, has an unfortunate legacy of discrimination against women and minorities. Although founded in 1746, women were not admitted until 1969. Similarly, minorities such as African Americans were systematically denied admission or underrepresented until the latter half of the 20th century. Modern-day Princeton is focused on female and minority admissions, with the university's administration highly sensitive to Princeton's discriminatory past. Ironically, Princeton's most famous living graduate is now an African American woman, Michelle Obama.

Princeton's student body changed overnight in September 1969 in a way its faculty never could. Just like the overwhelming majority of educational institutions in the country, Princeton's faculty embraces tenure. Any significant change to the overall composition of the faculty would necessarily be a gradual process spanning decades. It's fortunate that Princeton's faculty is highly regarded, because the university could not make drastic personnel changes even if it desired. Princeton's tenured faculty is a bit like the Supreme Court—extremely capable individuals at the top of their profession who view their jobs as endowed rights. While Princeton's student body has become more diverse over time, its tenured faculty is at risk of becoming homogeneously old. However, tenure at Princeton is tenure at its best. Tenure has a place at prestigious universities, where academic freedom is a paramount concern. On the other hand, for the millions of public school teachers, the concept of tenure has morphed into a job security phenomenon.

Can inexperienced YAs be highly effective teachers? Wendy Kopp thought so. She conceived the idea for Teach For America while still a Princeton undergraduate. Teach For America was created to match recent college graduates with school districts, particularly disadvantaged ones, that are seeking to hire teachers. A beneficiary of Princeton's initiatives to encourage diversity herself, Kopp encouraged school districts to welcome 22-year-olds as classroom teachers. Teach For America's wannabe teachers have no teaching experience, no seniority or tenure, and are not members of a union. You can imagine the reaction of teachers' unions when Teach For America was first starting out. Union leaders insisted that these young and inexperienced teachers would be a disaster in the classroom. Teach For America was viewed as flawed plan conceived by a naive YA.

So what happened? Teach For America became an unqualified success. Huge numbers of graduates of top-tier universities apply each year to participate. Marginalized school districts rely on the organization to fill teaching positions that would otherwise go unfilled. And how do these inexperienced YAs perform as teachers? By all accounts, they do phenomenally well. Principals across the country praise the skill, hard work, and dedication of these young teachers. Does their pay reflect their accomplishments in the classroom? No. Do they get the best teaching assignments? No. Are they protected from job cuts? Of course not. In our tenure-oriented educational system, a teacher with seniority is always favored over a new teacher. Actual accomplishment is rarely part of the equation.

You are disproportionately disadvantaged by tenure policies. OAs would never stand for it if they were the ones being disadvantaged. Imagine a profession where all the data show that job performance is inversely related to time on the job. Reverse tenure would be warranted, so that after a few years on the job, workers would lose significant rights and job protections. A reverse tenure system would disproportionately disadvantage OAs. Not only would reverse tenure be considered blatant age discrimination, it would be against the law.

Military Service

Wars are started by OAs and fought by YAs. The president serves as commander in chief, and Congress is empowered to declare war. But why can't we do something to include you in the process? Don't YAs, who are the ones at risk of being drafted, have a right to be heard? Formal procedures should be instituted to ensure Congress seriously considers your views before it sends you off to war. Even high schools have student councils to help give students a voice in decisions made by teachers and administrators. YAs shipped off to Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s had no say in the matter. It was plain wrong to ignore their views.

While YAs are serving the country, the rest of the nation needs to bear its share of the burden as well. Wars are expensive, but service members are underpaid. Drafts would not be necessary if the government paid a market-clearing wage to entice prospective recruits. However, instituting a draft is less expensive than agreeing to compensate you at market value for your service. Military members at war are not adequately compensated for the risk to life, limb, and mental health, as well as the time away from home. And during peacetime new recruits are paid poverty-level wages; OAs would never stand for such low pay. The bottom line is that we taxpayers are not meeting our financial responsibility to those who serve in the military. The low pay is tolerated simply because the military is overwhelmingly comprised of YAs.

Preventing Progress

Contrary to popular belief, you can teach an old dog new tricks, but why should the old dog bother to learn them? We live in an era of specialization. Occupations have become hyper-specialized, from assembly-line work to surgery. The most specialized professionals may have 20 to 30 years or more experience. They command higher compensation levels than their peers. They enjoy the most respect. They are OAs, and they have zero desire to change professions. But we live in a world of constant change. Highly trained OAs have the most to lose if a disruptive technology renders their skills obsolete.

Regarding progress in the workplace, you have divergent interests than entrenched OAs. You embrace technological advancements. The 20th century seems like the Stone Age to you.

To be clear, not all innovations are improvements, and not all workplace improvements end up being beneficial to society. Handcrafted goods have inherent value. Revolutionary chemical compounds like DDT have had unexpected negative consequences. But sometimes we get it right. Sometimes an innovation really is an improvement, and society benefits. Nevertheless, you can be sure that threatened constituencies will not hesitate to stand in the way.

A popular method of avoiding workplace change is the rallying cry of "Jobs!" That veteran worker operating a near-obsolete machine tool is a seasoned pro. He is the best-paid and most respected tradesman at his workplace. The last thing he wants to do is start over as a novice at another skill. He could have prepared for this day by learning another trade, but there was no way he was going to replace his 30 years of experience. Even if he changed jobs, learned a new skill and, if by some miracle, immediately became the best in the world at it, so what? He would still be considered a rookie. He works in a system where time on the job, as opposed to proficiency, is synonymous with high levels of compensation, job security, and respect. So he will fight to maintain his old job. He and his advocates will endeavor to obstruct technological improvements or workplace innovations so he does not have to adapt to change.

You are ready, willing, and able to adapt to evolving workplace conditions. OAs, who control the government but not fate, luck, or the future, find it's often easier to redefine the rules rather than adapt to change. These protectors of the status quo represent an insidious threat to your prospects in the workplace.

The more OAs game the system, the more your professional future is being compromised. Success in the workplace should be a function of genuine achievement. You should reject jobs that embrace connections, seniority, or the preservation of antiquated traditions.

Chapter 9: The Best and the Brightest: Low-rung Employee or Entrepreneurial CEO?

If you are smart, hardworking, and ambitious, I regret to tell you that your near-term career options upon graduating from college are not particularly attractive.

Consider medicine. Rigorous pre-med classes where superior performance is obligatory. Four grueling years in medical school. Licensing and board requirements. Residencies that can last up to seven years. Round-the-clock hours and no control over your schedule. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans. A million dollars, perhaps, in foregone income versus possible earnings from other career paths. All just to get to the point of being an entry-level practicing physician. If you are considering becoming a doctor, you have to be asking yourself if all the sacrifices are worth it. Unlike in previous generations, the decision by today's best and brightest YAs to pursue a career in medicine cannot be justified by economic reasons alone. Future income levels are too uncertain. The overwhelming majority of medical spending is controlled by powerful government and corporate bureaucracies that, as a core mission, endeavor to minimize payments to doctors. The exceptions, ironically, involve voluntary treatments that are not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery. And since doctors are already well compensated as compared to the average Joe, nobody really cares that you could have earned more and sacrificed less in other professions.

Consider law. Regardless of your actual knowledge and capabilities, you cannot just pass the bar exam and be admitted to practice law. If you desire a law career, three years of law school is a prerequisite. Once you obtain a license to practice, you will have the privilege of becoming a second-class attorney. At every established law firm, a young lawyer is required to spend several years as a subordinate, also known as an associate, before even being considered as a partner. This is the industry-wide custom, and being made partner is, without exception, a privilege extended to dedicated associates with many years of experience. Sycophantic behavior helps as well. Low-rung associates get stuck with the longest hours and the most tedious work. The large majority of young lawyers will never make it to partner because, in order to maximize profits per partner, the ratio of partners to associates must be permanently kept low. You might think that the truly exceptional lawyer, the one-in-a-hundred gifted individual, could circumvent the associate track and move directly to partner, but that is not the case. In order to protect the status quo that OA lawyers enjoy, everyone in big law has to pay years of dues as an associate. The best basketball player on the New York Knicks will be a starter regardless of age, but the best lawyer at a New York law firm will not be a starter until she is older than the NBA's retirement age.

Consider academia. If you want to be considered for a professorship at a top university, you are required to have a PhD. So, after you spend four years in college plus several more in graduate school, you will finally receive your doctorate and become a candidate for a tenure-track position. Add on several more years as a lower-paid, non-tenured professor, and it is highly unlikely for you to become a tenured professor in your 20s. On the other hand, academic scholars and researchers under 30 years old are frequently among the best in the world. Non-tenured professors or PhD candidates accomplished many of the greatest scholarly achievements in history, in every academic subject. They also represent many of the best instructors at universities. But even if you're the world's best scholar, you will need to pay your dues if you're below a certain age. Even Albert Einstein, who published the theory of relativity at 26 years old, had to wait before he was welcomed as a professor. With minimal exceptions, if you are under 30 years old, you are not a full-fledged member of academia.

And what happens when you finally become a tenured professor? A law firm partner? A staff physician at a hospital? Seniority is still the dominant determinant of institutional recognition. Newly tenured professors are categorized as associate professors, not full professors. Newly promoted law firm partners and staff physicians are the lowest paid, regardless of merit. In fact, hospitals, law firms, and universities frequently base compensation on length of service, and not job performance, for even the most senior professionals.

Consider corporations. While the corporate world has less rigid rules as compared to medicine, big law, and academia, it is quite rare for an entry-level hire to move up rapidly to the ranks of corporate management. Typically, an employee is only considered for senior management after a minimum of 15 to 20 years of experience. As a newbie junior officer, you are still worlds away from the CEO's office. Promotions do not come quickly when there are layers of older mid-level executives clamoring for the executive suite. There may be some exceptions where a college graduate starts at the lowest professional rung and ends up running a large company after a few years, but I'm not aware of any.

Boards of directors typically require decades of industry experience as a prerequisite before they even consider a candidate for the CEO position. This approach sounds logical, and experience does matter. However, time on the job is frequently overrated as a corner-office criterion, while actual performance, motivation, and leadership skills are often underappreciated. A blind reliance on length of experience, without giving due consideration to a host of other appropriate factors, is de facto age discrimination against YAs.

I'd take my chances any day on a 30-year-old middle manager whose division is a top performer, over a 55-year-old senior executive with a mediocre performance record. So would many other venture capitalists. And we put our money where our mouths are. We have seen the proof that YAs are capable of successfully managing corporations.

Two Start-ups: Netspend and Higher One

Want to have at least the possibility of reaching the top of your field while you are still a YA? Want job performance to matter more than seniority? Become an entrepreneur and start your own company. In a perverse way, workplace discrimination against YAs has contributed to one of the great success stories in American history: the YA entrepreneur.

My job involves finding the best entrepreneurs and ensuring they have the resources to succeed. Like every other venture capitalist, I have backed some start-up companies that did not work out. However, I have personally experienced an inverse correlation between successful companies and the age of the founders. Of the 19 companies I backed from 2001 to 2009, two had extraordinarily young founders. Netspend and Higher One, two zero-to-IPO companies, were founded by a total of five YAs in their early twenties, most of whom were still in college. In addition, both companies targeted YAs as customers.

Netspend Corporation was started by two Mexican American brothers, Roy and Bertrand Sosa, who didn't like the word no. They sought to empower Americans who are marginalized because of age or economic status. The company slogan was "The End of No." Their vision was to provide access to MasterCard and Visa cards to two disenfranchised segments of the population: teenagers and immigrant workers. Netspend customers could, for the first time, get access to a prepaid debit card and use it for everyday purchases that most Americans take for granted. As Netspend customers became empowered, the company grew rapidly. Netspend was formed from scratch in 1999; my firm invested in 2001 and became the largest shareholder, and soon thereafter, the company was a runaway success. By 2004, Roy and Bertrand owned shares worth many millions of dollars and had empowered thousands of disadvantaged individuals—only five years after founding their company from nothing.

Three Yale students had the vision for Higher One while they were still undergraduates. Mark Volchek, Miles Lasater, and Sean Glass could have chosen any number of traditional career paths, but they had the urge to be entrepreneurs. A Yale administrator mentioned how expensive and time-consuming it was for the university to disburse financial aid checks to students. The three YAs formed a company to tackle this problem, and a few years later Higher One was disbursing more financial aid rewards on behalf of colleges than any other company. I became a member of Higher One's board of directors after my firm invested in 2004, joining a few other seasoned board members. In addition, the company recruited a top-notch CEO from the banking industry. However, the three founders deserve the bulk of the credit for the company's success. While many of their fellow undergraduates pursued careers in law, investment banking, or corporate America, and are still climbing the corporate ladder, the three founders of Higher One rose to the top of their profession while they were still YAs.

In retrospect Roy, Bertrand, Mark, Miles, and Sean were a bit crazy to start their companies. None had any detailed knowledge of the payments industry. They did not have the personal wealth to bankroll a start-up. They had no management experience. And they started companies that directly competed with the country's largest banks. Based on every traditional metric, their ventures should have failed. Instead, they were wildly successful.

A lack of experience provides a fresh perspective. You have the potential to be a successful innovator if you dare to question conventional wisdom. And you understand the YA customer better than any OA executive. The Higher One founders recognized that college students did not need a bank branch on campus; 99 percent of students just need Internet banking capabilities, a debit card, and a convenient ATM. The Sosa brothers realized how big an impact prepaid cards could make in the lives of unbanked individuals. The world was changing, with more commerce being conducted without cash, and unbanked individuals were not able to participate. Netspend found a way to let every person have a payment card in his or her wallet.

Experience matters, but other factors turn out to be equally important. Managers benefit from experience; visionaries not necessarily. Netspend and Higher One both recruited experienced executives to serve as chief executive, Steve Galasso and Dean Hatton, respectively, and their performances were outstanding. But the idealistic YA founders, with zero experience and no assets other than a business plan, deserve the most credit for positively impacting the lives of company stakeholders—employees, customers, shareholders, suppliers, and members of the community. These two companies created over one thousand new jobs. Millions of underserved individuals had, for the first time, the ability to use payment cards. Shareholders, such as the pension fund participants in my venture capital firm, shared over $2 billion of wealth creation as of 2011. Dozens of suppliers to the two companies created hundreds of additional jobs. The Austin, Texas and New Haven, Connecticut communities were positively impacted. (And, when both companies completed successful initial public offerings in 2010, a few Goldman, Sachs investment bankers became even richer.)

Your First Advantage: Taking Risks

The Netspend and Higher One stories are not unique; indeed, these companies are hardly the best-known success stories. The business media is full of stories about YAs who have proven themselves as both entrepreneurs and corporate executives. Most people have heard how the founders of Microsoft and Facebook have similar backgrounds. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg both had fledgling companies and grand visions while they were undergraduates at Harvard. Both believed enough in their visions (and themselves) to drop out of Harvard and forsake their degrees. Both stayed true to their aspirations, refused to turn over the reins to experienced managers, and guided their companies to worldwide successes.

Gates and Zuckerberg are household names today only because they owned and controlled their own companies. Most world-class technologists are unknown because they are anonymous worker bees and not company owners. They do not share in fame or fortune in proportion to their contributions. The imbalance is greatest in the case of YAs. If you do not work for a progressive company, you may be the lowest paid and least recognized employee, even if you are the key contributor. In countless offices throughout the corporate world, junior YA employees are discovering revolutionary breakthroughs. These YA innovators are getting a pat on the back and an employee-of-the-month award, while the OA bosses are getting rich and famous.

You do not have to be a founder or CEO to get rich at a successful start-up. (It doesn't hurt, of course.) In fact, most of you who work at venture-backed companies are assured that, if your company appreciates in value, you will share in the financial success. That is the appeal of stock-based compensation. The chance of striking it rich through stock options may be low, but even a low probability of making millions is worth something.

You cannot eat stock options, as the saying goes. The last thing an OA worker wants to hear is that cash pay is being cut and replaced with stock options. Stock options work only when cash compensation is already sufficient to pay the bills. Because YAs generally have lower living costs and fewer dependents than OAs, you should be more receptive to stock options. You should be willing to take more career risks, financially and otherwise. You should want to work at a company where you believe in its mission. You should care if the company becomes successful. If the right incentives are in place, you should be willing to take a major risk in order to reach your potential.

Your Second Advantage: Embracing Change

You may be inexperienced, but you can more readily adjust to new circumstances. Use your ability and willingness to embrace change to your advantage. If your employer requires new job skills, unconventional working hours, or relocation, odds are that you can handle such change with more flexibility than an OA. Smart company managers understand the importance of an employee's ability to adapt to change.

Jobs that constantly require new skills tend to favor you, while jobs that benefit from decades of repetitive experience should remain the realm of OAs. For better or worse, government moves slowly, which implies that the most dynamic YAs should avoid civil service jobs. Overall, however, the world is moving at an accelerating pace, so the value of an experienced worker is diminishing as compared to one who is able to embrace change. Do not start your career in a sleepy industry unless you plan to be an entrepreneurial disruptive force one day.

I do not know what type of change tomorrow will bring, but I am sure you will embrace it before anyone else.

Your Third Advantage: Thinking Big

Entrepreneurs should have an almost naive ability to think big. Sure, business school students learn how critical it is to focus on a large, addressable market. That's important—nobody ever changed the world by marketing to seven-foot-tall limbo champions. More significantly, you have to believe that you will be the one to disrupt the marketplace. You need an unflappable belief in yourself and your product or service. You need to envision a detailed plan to turn all those potential customers into actual customers. But your roadmap doesn't have to end up being perfect. Successful entrepreneurs typically say that they would have never started their businesses if they had known all the potential obstacles in advance. Operational hurdles can be addressed through intelligence, persistence, and a willingness to change paths. Experience is important, but it has to be the right kind of experience. Experience is all about taking risks, learning from your mistakes, and then taking better risks. If you have learned from experience to avoid risks, then you are not suited to be an entrepreneur.

Thinking big means planning for scalability. If a start-up does well in a local market or narrow demographic segment, it does not necessarily imply that the company will be able to continue growing successfully. The overwhelming number of businesses are local operations with limited resources to scale up. The experienced town butcher might run a thriving store, but it is his own skills that are probably responsible for the store's success. Unless there are major advancements in cloning technology, the butcher will not be able to replicate his accomplishments if he opens additional stores.

Technology, particularly the Internet, has made scalability, and therefore outsized success, more possible than ever. The OA butcher may have established a great reputation around town for customer service. You, a new entrant without a base of personal connections, will not be able to compete successfully in that town because customer loyalties lie elsewhere. Alternatively, you can compete on the Internet, where businesses are less entrenched and don't require interpersonal relationships with customers. Most likely, your computer skills exceed those of the OA butcher's. You are better equipped to sell over the Internet. Your business model is scalable because of the Internet's (and your shipping carrier's) worldwide reach. You will become a competitor to all of the world's butchers. Yes, the competition is entrenched. But technology has given you the unprecedented opportunity to compete against the inherent advantages of experience.

Your Fourth Advantage: Innovating

Youth is all about having a fresh perspective and questioning the status quo. It's no coincidence that second-class citizens make first-class innovators. You have less to lose.

It's hard to overstate the importance of innovation to society. Scientific and technological advancements are the main drivers of our quality of life. Unfortunately, for you, OAs have spent so much money on themselves that there is little left in the government to support the building blocks of innovation: basic scientific research.

The best and the brightest college graduates need more high-quality job opportunities, more government-provided resources, and more meritocratic workplaces. You lack good jobs, while the country needs more scientific innovation. One example of a field needing more innovation is healthcare, where everyone would benefit if YAs were able to unleash their inherent potential to innovate. Instead of discriminating by age, all workplaces should give you every possible opportunity to succeed. And the government should provide you with job incentives, subsidies, and tax benefits.

My Story as a YA Entrepreneur

In 1997, I had the idea to form a reinsurance company in Bermuda that would have life insurers as customers, not property/casualty insurers, as was the prevailing custom. The idea was not mine alone, but it was as much mine as it was any of my colleagues. Wall Street loved the idea, but that was the easy part. The hard part, as every entrepreneur knows, is turning an idea into reality.

I incorporated Annuity & Life Re ("ALRE") and became its first employee. Like any entrepreneur, I worked tirelessly on all aspects of the company. A year later, the nascent company was fast tracked by Wall Street to complete an IPO. In 1998, ALRE went public on the NASDAQ stock exchange and raised nearly $400 million. The stock price shot up over 50 percent the first day. That day my start-up company, a company my colleagues and I had founded from nothing one year prior, appreciated in value by nearly $200 million. Not long thereafter the company reached a market value of a billion dollars. ALRE was a spectacular success. However, there was one problem: I was a YA.

At 32 years old, ALRE's Wall Street backers told me that I was too young to have a position of responsibility in my own company. Investors wanted to see a leadership team with substantial experience. Even though I had no desire to work full-time in the reinsurance industry, some sort of continuing role with the company would have been nice. Like any founder of a start-up, I had developed an attachment to the company; I had even made sure that the company's initials were the same as the initials of my first and last name. Most unfortunately, I was told I was too young even to be on ALRE's board of directors. Three of my OA colleagues, all of whom had spent less time and effort on the start-up than I had, joined ALRE's board. Meanwhile, I resigned my interim position as the company's first employee.

The day of the IPO was the last day I was ever personally associated with ALRE. From that point forward, OAs exclusively managed the company. During the next few years, I watched from the sidelines as ALRE's OA management made one bad decision after another. Eventually, the problems snowballed, and as the company's fortunes waned, every executive was replaced. ALRE, with its blue-chip team of experienced OA executives, ended up being an extraordinarily poorly run company.

The ALRE fiasco taught me a life lesson that experience could be overrated. I believe the company would have performed better if YAs had been part of the leadership team. It couldn't have performed worse.

In the end, ALRE's stock price per share collapsed from a high of $35 to below $1. There are no guarantees if you choose to become an entrepreneur. You may try something that doesn't succeed, but I am sure you will bounce back. An entrepreneurial-based economy can create hardships for employees of failed companies. But if you're hard working, there are unlimited opportunities to start anew. The benefits of entrepreneurship are enormous. Innovation that leads to responsible economic growth has such a positive impact on our lives that it dominates other indicators of societal well-being. If you are one of the best and the brightest, your best career opportunities may be in entrepreneurial companies.

Chapter 10: Your Government

The 2008 Election

The 2008 presidential election was a watershed event in U.S. history. The two major Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, were, of course, members of groups that had historically faced significant discrimination. No woman or African American had ever before been a viable candidate for president. But how surprising was this momentous event after all? Women and racial minorities have been making progress in civil rights since the Civil War. They have enjoyed equal protection under the Constitution and federal and state law for decades. Prior to 2008, women and African Americans had served at the highest levels of the federal government, except for the presidency and vice-presidency. Clinton and Obama were both respected senators from populous states that often produce presidential candidates. The trajectory of our civil rights progress over the last 150 years was leading to the day when an African American could become president. It was certainly historic, but perhaps not surprising, given all the progress the country has made in fighting racial and gender discrimination. You, not yet born during the civil rights movement, have an "of course" attitude when asked if you would vote for a female or minority candidate.

The 2008 presidential election was also a notable non-event in the country's history of age discrimination. We congratulated ourselves on how millions of women and racial minorities are empowered to run for president while ignoring the fact that you are not equally empowered. Barack Obama, perhaps the greatest symbol of anti-discrimination ever, did not care that nearly half the country is banned by age from running for president.

Age-related bias did factor into the 2008 election in a different way. John McCain, at age 72, was older than the typical presidential candidate, and 25 years older than Obama. While McCain faced absolutely no legal impediments regarding his age, voters considered his age an important factor, and more often than not, a negative factor. OAs preferred McCain (according to polls he beat Obama in the 45-and-over age group), but YAs overwhelmingly preferred Obama (by more than a 2-to-1 margin), which proved decisive. Obama was considered a "young" candidate, although at age 47 he was a decade older than the average American. YA voters felt distanced from the OA political establishment and embraced their best alternative, Barack Obama, and his campaign's theme of "Change We Can Believe In."

One conclusion from the Obama vs. McCain matchup seems to be that voters prefer a president who is close in age to themselves. And a corollary case can be made that presidential candidates are more responsive to the needs of citizens of similar age. If a voter was closer in age to Obama, odds are she voted for Obama. If a voter was closer in age to McCain, odds are she voted for McCain. Based on the 2008 election, age now matters more than race.

Was Barack Obama Young or Old?

Ten years older than the median-aged American and solidly in the second half of his predicted lifespan, the 47-year-old presidential candidate Barack Obama was universally described as young. In part because of historical legacy, and in part because of an absence of YA candidates, Americans have grown accustomed to retirement-age individuals running for president. Without any justification rooted in science, or supporting evidence from non-governmental leadership positions, we have been conditioned to believe that only OAs should run the government. There is a word in the English language that describes a preference for a certain group over another without a valid reason. The word is prejudice.

The belief that a minimum age limit of 35 years old is fair because it applies to everyone must be rejected. How do we know that a great presidential candidate under age 35 will not emerge in the future? We do not, of course. The 2008 election proves that the group we discriminated against yesterday can indeed bring us tomorrow's president.

You Do Not Have Full Constitutional Rights

Take a closer look at the Constitution. By the third sentence of Article I, there is already a reference to age. "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years . . ." The wording is clear that, rather than preserving the rights of citizens at least 25 years old to serve as a Representative, the point of the clause is to bar anyone younger than 25. Similar language applies to the office of President: "neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years . . ." Over time, judges have concluded that further age limits are unconstitutional, but that view comes from a constitutional interpretation rather than a literal reading.

Age limitations are implied even before the third sentence of Article I. The minimum voting age, one of "the Qualifications requisite for Electors," was left for the states to decide. Until 1971, when the Twenty-Sixth Amendment was ratified, YAs under the age of 21 were routinely denied the right to vote in many states.

The constitutional language is critical, for it distinguishes age discrimination from all other types of discrimination. The age limitations in the Constitution are so clear-cut (25 for the House, 30 for the Senate, and 35 for the presidency) that an alternative interpretation is inconceivable. No matter what judicial philosophy a Supreme Court justice holds, "attained to the Age of thirty-five Years" appears to have only one meaning. Because the language is so specific, the common practice of reinterpreting the Constitution to reflect a changing world is not a realistic possibility in this case. The Constitution may be considered a living document, but it is dead as far as these age limits are concerned. So, in order to erase YA age discrimination from our laws, a constitutional amendment is almost definitely required, which is an extraordinarily high mountain to climb. Advocates of gay rights and the rights of the disabled, for example, do not require a rewrite of the Constitution to achieve their goals, because there is no comparable language specifically limiting such rights. Favorable legislative action and court rulings are sufficient for these advocates to achieve their goals. YA age discrimination is unique because every other type of government-directed discrimination can be addressed without changing the Constitution.

What if the minimum age to become a candidate for president were 50 years old? If you think that a minimum age of 50 years old is preposterous, then you haven't read the Italian Constitution. If the United States had such a requirement, Barack Obama would have been ineligible to become president in January 2009. He would not even have been a candidate. Most Americans would not know his name. The course of history would have been radically changed. Would it have been fair to ban Obama from even being considered as a candidate? Of course not.

But Italy's and the United States' age of candidacy requirements both have the same stink of discrimination. Why is 35 years old any fairer than 50 years old? No one can make a legitimate argument for one age over the other, because there are no supporting facts to justify 35 as opposed to 50. Both requirements hinder the rights of citizens of democratic nations to choose their own leaders. (Obama was wildly popular in Italy in 2008. If Italians could have voted in the U.S. election, there is no doubt they would have chosen the ineligible (according to their constitution) Obama over the eligible McCain.)

If the United States had adopted an attitude similar to Italy's, that "47-year-olds will get a chance someday, so it's not really discrimination," the country would have been unfairly denied its choice of Obama. Who knows how many younger Obamas are out there, prohibited from running for president because of age discrimination? Time Magazine's Person of the Year in 2010, Mark Zuckerberg, is not permitted to run for president until 2020.

If the top of the legal pyramid discriminates against you, what about the building blocks of our legal system? Age of candidacy limits in the Constitution give credence to other federal laws that discriminate by age. Federal precedent supports local-level age of candidacy laws. Private employers need look no further than Congress to justify their own minimum age requirements. Discriminatory laws and age-related prejudicial attitudes feed on each other and perpetuate the problem.

Since YA age-discrimination laws are wide reaching, and aren't going to completely disappear any time soon, private institutions are comfortable instituting similar restrictions. Organizations tend to adopt discriminatory policies only when there is little risk of backlash. Private clubs, for example, can be comfortable with membership policies that bar you, knowing that the constitutional precedent will be enduring. In contrast, during the mid-20th century, as Jim Crow laws were being eradicated through legislative action and court rulings (no constitutional amendments required), many private institutions scrambled to change their policies even though Jim Crow laws did not apply to their private organizations. Most private institutions were only comfortable with their discriminatory policies as long as public entities engaged in the same practices. The patina of legitimacy provided by public-sector laws was crucial in justifying private-sector discrimination. For better or worse, government precedent is a powerful influence on private institutions.

Actually, YAs once did change the Constitution by asserting their rights, but it took about 50,000 YA deaths. In 1971, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment was ratified guaranteeing 18-year-olds the right to vote in all elections. Before then, the states did not have a uniform voting age, and 21 was a common age requirement. However, 18-year-olds were being drafted to serve in the Vietnam War. YAs fiercely protested the inherent unfairness. They chanted "old enough to fight, old enough to vote," and the Nixon administration eventually agreed. It was hard for politicians to treat YAs as second-class citizens when they were coming home in body bags every day. The Constitution was swiftly amended with little dissent: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." This unambiguous language in the 1971 amendment guaranteeing a "right" for citizens at least 18 years old is a marked contrast to the circa 1787 age of candidacy prohibitions that are still in effect. Unfortunately, once the Vietnam War ended so did the country's interest in YA rights.

No Seat on the Stage

YA candidates are banned from thousands of elections across America, and the cumulative impact is substantial. In addition to the presidency, vice presidency, and 535 Congressional seats, thousands of state legislature positions, as well as many governorships, have age of candidacy requirements. There is no legitimate reason for the current hodge-podge of laws, where one state has age of candidacy requirements while a neighboring state does not. Often, even small towns ban YAs from office. Consider what happened to Brett McClafferty of Streetsboro, Ohio. In 2007, at age 19, he ran for mayor and almost won. Guess what the OA city leaders did to stop McClafferty from running again two years later? They raised the age limit to become mayor of Streetsboro to 23 years old.

Only one person wins an election, but losing candidates benefit from the exposure and the experience. American history is full of accomplished politicians, including Obama and both Bush 41 and 43, who lost their first election for Congress. Successful future candidacies are frequently borne from the seeds of defeat. The ability to gain exposure, experience, and a platform is invaluable for aspiring political figures, win or lose. Televised debates among candidates bring considerable attention to front-runners and long shots alike. Candidates on the losing end of elections, for example Sarah Palin, have become well-known public figures by leveraging the spotlight.

You, on the other hand, literally do not have a seat on the stage. If you are ineligible because of an age requirement, you will not be on the ballot. The media will not take you seriously. You will not have a seat on the stage at debates. The electorate will ignore you, or worse.

Once you reach the minimum age requirement, and if circumstances still permit you to be a viable candidate, you will be required to start from scratch. You will not have the benefit of election experience or name recognition from prior ballots. You will be at a distinct disadvantage, in contrast to a candidate who ran in a prior election.

The worst ramification of banning you from elected office is that you are denied a direct voice. Sure, an OA can support issues that are near and dear to you, but it is not the same, of course. Before women and African Americans were taken seriously as candidates for office, white men sometimes spoke up as advocates of their concerns. Obviously, white male politicians were no substitutes for the women and African Americans who wanted to pursue elected office themselves. We are a richer country for permitting diverse citizens to run for office. Win or lose, a candidate has an opportunity to voice opinions on important issues at a time when people are paying attention. You, however, do not have a pulpit in America.

OA officeholders tend to fear YA voting patterns. An elected official grows older each election, while voting demographics change gradually. Meanwhile, based on recent elections, YAs may be emerging as a powerful voting bloc. All the more reason for OAs to continue to ban you from seeking elected office.

The Old Person's Club

The word senate is derived from the Latin senex, meaning old man. The U.S. Senate is no longer an old man's club, but it certainly still is an old person's club. Not only do you have to be at least 30 years old to apply for membership, but because of strict seniority rules, the most powerful senators are typically over age 60.

An examination of the Senate's inner workings is a case study of a seniority system at work. The general principle is, the longer a senator has served, the more influence he or she has earned. In practice, almost every senatorial procedure is governed by seniority. Generally, the senior senators of the majority party chair the committees. Since most senators desire to serve multiple six-year terms, and reelection rates are quite high, a large percentage of senators have served for 20 years or more. The average tenure in Congress of a chairman of a major committee is over 25 years. If the Senate is an old person's club, the Senate's leadership is an elderly person's club.

So what happens when a relatively young political superstar like Barack Obama joins the Senate? Not much, actually. He did not have outsized legislative influence. A first-term senator is not going to be chosen to chair a major committee. No way. It's not about merit; it's about seniority first. Not even Obama could break the seniority system. Of the over 50 Democratic senators during Obama's time in the Senate, 15 were chosen to chair committees. Junior Senator Obama was not one of the 15. Not when he became the Democratic front-runner; not when he became the Democratic nominee; not when he became the President-elect. The person whom Democrats considered most qualified to be president was not one of the 15 persons they considered most qualified to chair a Senate committee. Who do you want to wield power in the Senate, the best individuals or the oldest individuals?

YA Ted / OA Ted

Edward Kennedy, better known as Ted, was one of the most influential senators of all time. He represented Massachusetts in the Senate for the maximum time he could possibly serve, from 1962 when he turned 30 years old to his death at age 77 in 2009. In 1960, his brother John was elected president, and therefore had to relinquish his own Massachusetts Senate seat. Ted desired to succeed his brother in the Senate that year. He would have been the favorite in the election. But he couldn't be a candidate because he was only 28 years old. Well, we now have the benefit of hindsight—and Ted Kennedy's distinguished 47-year record as a senator. We know now that Massachusetts was, for two years, denied the service of one of history's most prominent legislators. President Obama called him the greatest senator ever. Until the 1962 election, however, Massachusetts had to settle for a less influential senator. With one brother serving as President and another as Attorney General, there is no doubt Ted Kennedy would have been a powerful voice in the Senate, even at age 28. There is no question the citizens of Massachusetts were denied the right to choose a viable candidate.

For decades, Ted Kennedy commanded respect in the Senate. In early 2009, after serving for 47 years, he should have been more powerful than ever, as he was a close ally of President Obama and part of a 60-Senator Democratic majority. However, tragically, Ted Kennedy suffered from incurable brain cancer. He was continuously in and out of the hospital for operations and treatments. During 2009, until his death in August, he was present for only three percent of Senate votes. With all due respect to his important legacy, a three percent attendance record is untenable. While courageously battling his illness, he should have stepped down and allowed Senate business to continue without delay. Yet he was a prominent elected official with enormous clout as a senior Senator, as well as a sympathetic figure suffering from cancer, so nobody called for his resignation, not even from his committee appointments. Everyone looked the other way, including the media, while legislation in the committee he chaired was seriously delayed. Imagine a situation like this in another context. You go to the airport, and you are told that air traffic is substantially delayed this month because a key 77-year-old air traffic controller is unable to show up at work due to health issues. Wouldn't you think it proper for the government to arrange for a replacement?

The irony of Ted Kennedy's refusal to step down in 2009 is that his decision ended up being temporarily counterproductive to his lifelong legislative goal of universal healthcare. If he had resigned his seat as soon as he received his diagnosis, his Massachusetts successor likely would have been a Democrat. However, by the time he passed away and a special election was organized, the winds of public opinion had shifted, and the Senate seat was won by Scott Brown, a Republican who campaigned against healthcare reform. As a result, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof Senate majority, and were unable to put an amended healthcare bill up for a standard Senate vote. Ted Kennedy's Democratic colleagues had to resort to a controversial parliamentary procedure in order to pass the final bill. Republicans never forgave the Democrats for forcing the healthcare bill through the Senate, and as a result, the political process became more partisan.

Compare Ted Kennedy in 1960 to Ted Kennedy in 2009. At age 28, he was a ready, willing, and able YA, albeit inexperienced in elected office. However, he was banned from serving, even though it is likely that the voters preferred him. At age 77, he was unable to conduct Senate business. His absence caused legislative delays on a number of bills. Unfortunately, this was no isolated incident; it's not particularly unusual for a member of Congress to be in poor health and unable to perform his full duties. We have become accustomed to looking the other way when an elderly member of Congress fails to vigorously perform the duties of the office. It's outrageous that an incapacitated 77-year-old has the right to conduct the country's business, while a healthy 28-year-old does not, even if voters believe otherwise.

Who Do Representatives Represent?

The House of Representatives is supposed to represent all U.S. residents. Every 700,000 or so Americans, children included, have their own representative. But the reality is that representatives care the most about OAs. Children cannot vote, and YAs don't have the wealth to make campaign donations. Guess how the House tends to vote on intergenerational issues. Pro-senior citizen or pro-you?

Younger generations tend to be less conservative than the overall adult population. After all, a classic conservative works to preserve traditions. Recent elections show that the elderly are the most conservative voting segment. A representative who reflects the views of his district's OAs will tend to be to the right of his district's YAs. The same is true for state and local elected officials.

This intergenerational divergence in political views makes your lack of empowerment a political problem. This goes right to the heart of why you are treated as a second-class citizen under the law. Politicians more conservative than you are reluctant to grant you more rights. What is the number one concern for conservative lawmakers during the gerrymandering process? Get that college campus out of my district!

The failure to treat all 700,000 constituents as equally important reflects a systematic age-related bias in the House. Meanwhile, Congress sets the tone for the rest of the nation. State and municipal legislators are no more responsive to YAs than are members of Congress. Lawmakers care more about year-to-year needs rather than long-term issues. You need to insist that elected government officials consider your interests second to none.

It's impossible to prove that the country would benefit if YAs were allowed to serve in elected government. There is no supporting historical evidence, since age limits have always been part of the Constitution. However, running a large company is also a major responsibility. It's easy to imagine how different the country would be if there were never any YA corporate chiefs. Take away Apple, Google, Facebook, Dell, Amazon, and Microsoft for starters. Each was founded and headed by a YA. Each company would not exist in its current form, if at all, if YAs had been barred from running corporations. Could Bill Gates have waited until he turned 30 years old to run Microsoft? No, the world does not work that way. The once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change technology forever would have passed him by.

Paradoxically, while we judge public officials primarily based on short-term actions, we evaluate corporate leaders based on long-term factors. The performance of a publicly-traded corporation is judged largely by its stock price, which reflects future prospects. Congress needs to care more about the future prospects of its long-term stakeholders.

OA Appointees Anointed for Life

Federal judges are appointed for life, subject to confirmation by the old person's club. Nominees selected by the President tend to be considerably older than the average American. Senators who are members of the opposition party tend to prefer older judges, because their tenure on the bench is expected to be correspondingly shorter. And federal judges tend to take advantage of their lifetime appointments by remaining on the bench well past the typical retirement age. The bottom line is that the U.S. judiciary is quite old. And the more senior the judge, the older he or she tends to be. The average age of the Supreme Court justices is older than the average retirement age for a government employee.

If you omit age from the definition of the word diverse, the federal judiciary is arguably somewhat diverse. The Supreme Court alone includes women and members of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. However, there are virtually no YAs on the federal bench, let alone the Supreme Court. Not because of any constitutional prohibition, but rather because that's the way things work in American politics.

Lifetime appointments are inherently biased against you. The age of the federal judiciary is shockingly old when compared to any merit-based group of professionals. In a free-market economy, older professionals retire, voluntarily or not, when they lose effectiveness. But federal judges themselves are the sole arbiters of their retirement.

The most prominent judge of the last 40 years was William Rehnquist. He joined the Supreme Court in 1971 and became Chief Justice in 1986. He reigned as a respected legal giant for more than a generation. Sadly, by 2004, he was gravely ill with an aggressive and fatal form of thyroid cancer. His daily routine became radiation treatments instead of oral arguments. He was too ill to conference with the other justices, communicating instead by memos drafted by his clerks. A tracheotomy tube impaired his speaking. He went months without appearing at the Court or in public. He was dying, and he knew it. Chief Justice Rehnquist passed away in 2005 while still a member of the Court, a little less than a year after his cancer diagnosis. He was absent for 44 Supreme Court oral arguments during his final term.

One of the decisions handed down during Rehnquist's absence was Roper v. Simmons, which questioned whether the death penalty is appropriate for children. Was an incapacitated and out-of-touch 80-year-old the best person to decide whether the government can execute children? Rehnquist voted to permit child executions.

Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School, advocates naming a YA to the Supreme Court. As he argued in The New York Times, "With youth comes openness, new ideas and energy. Joseph Story was appointed to the court at age 32 by James Madison. His generation of Northerners had a fresher perspective on slavery..."

Today, it would shock the establishment if a brilliant 32-year-old jurist joined the Supreme Court. On the other hand, Washington seemed to have no problem with an absent 80-year-old who was near death, refusing to retire as the head of one of the three branches of government. We have become accustomed to public officials in general, and judges in particular, maintaining their positions indefinitely, almost as a birthright. Of course, average citizens would never make such a choice in their daily lives. No mother who is choosing, say, a pediatrician for her child, would pick an individual who is near death and who does not show up for work, over a healthier and fully competent YA physician.

Consider the psyche of judges. They are proud to hold their positions. Typically, an appointment to the bench is a capstone to a successful legal career. After years of working in less consequential legal jobs, they are now empowered to make decisions instead of simply advocating for clients. They view their appointments as anointments justified based on their many years of legal experience.

Your intrinsic values clash with the intrinsic values that have made the judge a judge. You do not have the wisdom of old age or decades of work experience. You do not have a long history of professional accomplishments. Judges are hesitant to marginalize the importance of age or experience in their decision-making, because doing so would marginalize their own accomplishments. If age, experience, and status do not trump energy, hard work, and equality of opportunity, then the judge probably does not deserve to be a judge. Efforts to fight for YA rights in the courts are often stymied by OA jurists who are your intergenerational and psychological adversaries.

Unfortunately, just about everyone with political power in America has a psyche similar to that of a judge. Government leaders don't respect your attributes, because their attributes are different.

Real-life Political Consequences: Bush v. Gore

Does discrimination against YAs have real-life political consequences? Well, to cite a single example of tremendous significance, it influenced the 2000 presidential election three times.

First, an empowered YA population would have made a difference in the 2000 election. It's not hard to imagine more YAs going to the polls if you were respected as true equals in the political system. Voters under 30 years old favored Al Gore (even more so than voters overall), who of course only lost by a razor-thin margin. Furthermore, a voting age below 18 years old would have definitely tipped the scales.

Second, younger justices on the Supreme Court probably would have made a difference. In Bush v. Gore, the justices voted 5-4 along party lines. A court in which debility means retirement, or a court with finite terms for its judges, would have meant that Bill Clinton, a Democrat, would have made more court appointments during the preceding eight years.

Third, a get-tough attitude toward all drunk drivers, not just those 18-20 years old, would have made a difference. It's doubtful that Bush would have been elected president if driving while intoxicated offenses were considered felonies. Also noteworthy is the fact that voters tended to overlook Bush's "youthful" indiscretion (he was age 30 at the time of his DUI), which is consistent with public attitudes that treat you as an overgrown child.

Age of Candidacy Laws Are Symbolic

How do you personally feel about age of candidacy laws? Most likely, it's a nonissue for you. You probably do not plan to run for elected office, so there's logic to your indifference. Age of candidacy laws are an abstraction. You may not personally know anyone your age who you consider fully capable of holding elected office. It's just not a concern that affects your day-to-day life. But remember age of candidacy laws are symbolic. Either you are a full-fledged adult, or you are not. Do not expect full rights in your workplace, or anywhere else, if you do not have them in the eyes of the government.

Chapter 11: Assessing Younger Adults

Experience matters. OAs have it; you don't. Lack of experience is the reason your paycheck is smaller. But how much does experience matter? How can experience be quantified? How can it be proven that you can compete with seasoned OAs?

A Game of Skill

In November 2009, a 21-year-old named Joe Cada won the World Series of Poker main event, prevailing over 6,000 other entrants. Luck plays a role in poker, but skill level and experience are crucial nonetheless. The remarkable part of the story is that 21 is the minimum legal gambling age. Other factors must have more than compensated for Cada's lack of experience. It's no fluke that a YA won the tournament: the 2008 winner was 22 years old, and the 2010 winner was 23 years old. One implication is that many of you under the age of 21 could be world-class poker players, except for the inconvenient fact that you are banned from entering casinos.

Entering a poker tournament with a 1 in 6,000 chance of winning does not sound like the best career choice. But how many other cerebral careers have a playing field level enough for a 21-year-old to be number one? If you are smart and ambitious, it's logical for you to enter fields where you have some chance, albeit slim, of quickly rising to the top. Seniority systems implicit in the workplace are pushing you away from areas like government and big business, and into meritocratic careers like professional poker. The best player plus the best cards equals the winner. Seniority, connections, favoritism, prejudices, and ass kissing do not matter in a poker tournament.

Ah, but luck does matter in poker.

A poker tournament is an imperfect meritocracy, a flawed method of assessing achievement. What we need is an objective way to measure pure merit, with no luck involved. A system where we could objectively assess a large pool of bright people of all ages based solely on achievement. We would require no outside influence, no sycophantism, and no subjectivity in the assessment process. No unpredictable or random events. It sounds impossible. What assessment process is devoid of subjectivity or outside influence? Not educational or workplace evaluations, where human emotions play a role. The "test" would need to consist of hundreds, or even thousands, of hours per person over several years, to which each participant would devote his total concentration, rather than a single exam like the SAT, where anyone can have a bad day. The testing process would also need to be high stakes, so that everyone would take it seriously. Careers would need to be at stake. And luck could not play a role.

Believe it or not, such an assessment process does exist, and it's similar to poker. It's the obscure world of professional chess. Thousands of dedicated chess players face off globally each month in professional competitions. The international governing body, the World Chess Federation (FIDE), sanctions all of the high-level tournaments and matches. FIDE has a sophisticated chess rating system that ranks players based on their results in these competitions.

The chess rating system has all the necessary ingredients of objective assessment: it is a measure of intellectual skill with no luck involved; ratings are based solely on competitive achievements, without subjective factors; every competitor is assessed (rated) using identical factors; professional competitors try their best and are highly motivated; and ratings reflect the cumulative result of hundreds of hours of competitions and thousands of hours of preparation.

And one more factor is critical. In chess, experience matters. If a high-level professional has seen a particular series of opening moves before, he enjoys a tremendous advantage. At any point in the game, prior experience with particular piece patterns is a big plus. Simply put, the more games a player has experienced, the better he should be.

So how do YAs fare when merit is the only factor and it is objectively assessed? The answer is extraordinarily well.

In November 2009, when 21-year-old Joe Cada was becoming a world champion in poker, Magnus Carlsen of Norway became the world's highest-rated chess player, at 18 years old. Based on the FIDE rating list that was published soon thereafter, eight of the world's top 10 chess players, including Carlsen, were under 35 years old, and the oldest was only 41. The average age was 30 years old.

The indisputable conclusion is that many factors must matter more than experience. An 18-year-old chess professional has incomparably less experience than, say, a 45-year-old professional, but can more than compensate through natural talent and training. Experience does matter, but the returns are diminishing. Also, the upside of inexperience is that you are not set in your ways; your ability to adapt to change is less subject to preconceived ideas.

The essence of chess is good decision making in dynamic situations. This sounds similar to what we need in a government or corporate leader. Of course, chess is nothing like the real world. In politics or business, who you know is more important than what you know.

Can you name another intellectually-oriented profession in which an 18-year-old even has an opportunity to compete to be the world's best? Not medicine, law, or education, where an 18-year-old would not even be able to acquire a professional license. Not government, big business, or the not-for-profit sector, where an 18-year-old would be lucky to enter the profession at the lowest rung.

Compare the ages of the world's best (objectively measured) chess players to the average ages of individuals who are considered the "best" through subjective assessments—perhaps the CEOs of the 10 largest U.S. corporations, the 10 most powerful members of Congress, or the justices of the Supreme Court. The average age in each of these groups exceeds 55—over 25 years older than the world's best as measured by the impartial standards of professional chess.

When objective assessments are made, YAs usually come out on top. That is why OAs maintain workplace cultures dismissive of ongoing professional testing. How many OA doctors, lawyers, or stockbrokers would even be able to retake and pass their licensing examinations? The answer is we will never know.

Major World Events

Life is infinitely more complicated than any game. YAs perform well on the chessboard, but how good are the decisions YAs make on issues that matter? Consider the most important events of the past 50 years. Of course, there is almost always no definitive right or wrong answer, and unlike with objective assessments, it's necessary to speak in generalities and consider the overall preferences of groups rather than individuals. Caveats aside, YAs have been on the "right" side of history more often than OAs.

The civil rights movement is enshrined in social studies textbooks as a momentous event in American history. Looking back from our vantage point today, we know the civil rights movement was just. In fact, it was long overdue. It's a historical fact that YAs supported the civil rights movement in larger percentages than OAs. Much has been written about a civil rights rift between the North and the South, but also important, and usually underemphasized, was the rift between young and old. The typical civil rights marcher in the 1950s was a YA. In the 1960s an overwhelming majority of college students supported full civil rights, but large segments of OAs and Congress were still opposed. By the 1990s, the only prominent national figures who still opposed civil rights were elderly Americans such as Senator Strom Thurmond.

On average, an 18-year-old made a better decision on civil rights than a 65-year-old.

The Vietnam War was, of course, the country's most deadly military engagement since World War II. The debate over the war raged at the same time as the civil rights movement; however, this time, the intergenerational rift was the main headline. YAs were sent to Vietnam against their will to fight a war that they did not consider just. YAs died by the thousands, as did an occasional OA. OAs were divided on the war, while an overwhelming number of YAs opposed it. But OAs made the decision to wage war.

A national consensus has since emerged that the Vietnam War was not worth it. Not worth the deaths of thousands of Americans and over one million Vietnamese. Not worth the countless injuries, both physical and psychological. Not worth the economic cost. Not worth the strife in the United States and the distraction from other pressing issues. YAs in the 1960s and 1970s were on the right side of history.

On average, an 18-year-old made a better decision on the Vietnam War than a 65-year-old.

The fall of Communism in the Soviet Union and other parts of Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s was indeed revolutionary. Change came from within, driven overwhelmingly by YA citizens in those countries. Older Eastern European citizens were equally dissatisfied, perhaps, but they were mostly unwilling to take action. The activists on the street who embraced western values and made the Iron Curtain fall were YAs. The YAs fighting Communism envied their western counterparts for everything from democracy to denim jeans to rock music. Eastern European YAs bonded with the western YA way of life through media exposure and occasional personal experiences, and made their voices heard. The ensuing reaction was spontaneous and swift, and the world changed. American YAs, by living their lives in freedom, galvanized their YA counterparts across the Iron Curtain and helped bring the fall of Communism.

On average, an 18-year-old was more responsible for the fall of Communism than a 65-year-old.

While some people believe environmental regulations have gone too far, the large majority of Americans of all ages care to some degree about protecting the environment. It wasn't always this way. In the post-World War II era the environmental movement was nascent. By the 1970s the majority of YAs were concerned about the environment, but a national consensus was lacking. The Environmental Protection Agency was founded in 1970, but many powerful OAs continued to resist implementing basic environmental protections well into the 2000s. The rift was deep between YAs, who had learned about environmental dangers as part of their school curricula since the 1970s, and OAs, who were never taught the topic in school. George W. Bush may be remembered as being one of the last of the world's major leaders to deny climate change, which even he eventually accepted during his final years in office.

On average, an 18-year-old made a better decision on protecting the environment than a 65-year-old.

And then there's the technology revolution. Almost every major innovation in the history of software, hardware, and the Internet was spawned by teams of visionary YAs. The legends, like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, were once YA innovators who never stopped innovating. YAs are the soul of the Internet, and your only real competition is children, not OAs. There were no legal barriers preventing OAs from being computer programmers or chip designers, and many OAs did eventually enter the field. However, OAs were late in appreciating the potential of computers and the Internet. YAs were, and still are, the driving force of the technology revolution.

On average, an 18-year-old was more responsible for the revolution in computer technology than a 65-year-old.

You Measure Up

The assessments are in. From tests of skill to momentous world-changing events, you measure up to, and often exceed, the decision-making capabilities of OAs. But OAs still make all the decisions that matter.

Chapter 12: I Paid My Dues

Some of the nicest people I know are over the age of 65. Then the subjects of Social Security and Medicare come up. When I point out that they are receiving almost twice as much in benefits as they ever put into the system, even adjusting for inflation, they are uniformly unrepentant. When I point out that their checks are being funded in part each month by the payroll deductions of poorer YAs, they still do not care. When I point out that a portion of their payments is a government entitlement akin to welfare, they strongly disagree. They insist that they earned every dollar. The refrain is always the same: "I paid my dues!"

I have met countless numbers of selfless retirees, but I have never met one who believes Social Security and Medicare payments are unfairly generous. When a person who would never accept a needs-based government payment insists on profiting from an age-based government program, the underlying motivation is more than simple greed.

The dearth of personal savings is directly related to people's views on age and power. As life expectancy keeps increasing, OAs know that they'll likely be retired for a long time. So why aren't they saving more for retirement? OAs have become accustomed to a way of life and feel entitled to spend. As a result, they need to justify their spending, and their senior status provides the perfect excuse.

There is a pervasive mindset among OAs that you owe them something. Their attitude is related to being older in a society that worships youth. Why do retirees feel you owe them? Because they paid their dues.

Reject the Idea That It Is Your Turn to Pay Your Dues

More than any other single factor, the perpetual cycle of "paying your dues" distinguishes society's tolerance of YA ageism from racism and sexism. Even at a very young age, children understand that their inferiority is temporary. Knowing that your subservient status will end changes everything. It makes being a second-class citizen tolerable. Because race and gender do not change over time, racism and sexism are viewed as intolerable, while YA ageism is widely accepted simply because of an expectation that dues need to be paid.

This perceived element of fairness has kept YA age discrimination in the mainstream. It sounds fair to say that everybody gets the same rights and privileges at the same age. After all, society has made the following three promises to you: (i) you will be old enough one day; (ii) you will get your chance one day; and (iii) your generation will have it easier. Unfortunately, each promise is flawed. Do not be lulled into complacency by believing these three so-called promises.

Reject the Idea That You Will Be Old Enough One Day

Born in 1960 after his father had been elected president, John F. Kennedy, Jr. was the most famous newborn in American political history. He was the only son of a glamorous White House couple, and a member of an extended family with outsized political ambitions. No child ever had a brighter future in American politics. When his father was tragically assassinated while he was still a toddler, the hearts of everyone ached for him. Throughout his life, he enjoyed incredible fame. He was widely expected to pursue a life in politics, just like his father and his uncles Bobby and Ted. Back in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s, if you had to bet on one child or YA to be elected president, you would have put your money on John F. Kennedy, Jr. You may have bet on the 2016 election, when he would have been turning 56 years old, a typical age for a presidential office seeker.

Of course, John F. Kennedy, Jr. will not be elected president in 2016. There are no guarantees that you will live a long life. Carpe diem.

Reject the Idea That You Will Get Your Chance One Day

Untimely deaths are uncommon. It's more likely that you'll let that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity pass you by. A right or privilege today is valuable. Tomorrow. . .who knows? Fortuitous events are unpredictable. An adult blessed with a life-changing opportunity, whether it is championing a cause, taking a great job, or doing something that has not been done before, shouldn't be forced to wait because of age-related biases. Timing can indeed be everything. You are being told to wait your turn, but often there are no second chances.

A great job promotion opportunity? What if someone with more seniority wants it? You have been told to defer to OAs. But who is guaranteeing to you that the great job will still be there in the future? No one. The cost to society of your being held back is astronomical in terms of lost progress and innovation.

Fred Smith was not taken seriously by his professor when he proposed forming an overnight package delivery company in a college economics class. Potential investors scoffed at Pierre Omidyar's online exchange to buy and sell Beanie Babies and other collectibles. Bessemer Venture Partners, a respected venture capital firm, turned them both down, including Fred Smith seven times. "Stamps? Coins? Comic books? You've GOT to be kidding," was the thought of the Bessemer partner when Pierre Omidyar presented his vision. I probably would have had the same reaction. Had these two YA entrepreneurs heeded the advice of the OA experts and not pushed forward, they never would have had another chance to change the world as they did with FedEx and eBay.

For every YA success story like these two, there are thousands of other YAs who could not grab their big opportunity, because society labeled them as too young. You should dare to be great today. We all lose if you wait.

Reject the Idea That Your Generation Will Have It Easier

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results." That is the standard disclaimer that I, and just about every other investment manager, include when disclosing historical investment results. It is, of course, an obvious statement. The only thing certain about the future is its inherent uncertainty.

Generations of Americans have consistently built on the progress of their ancestors. Life expectancy has increased steadily. So has per capita GNP. So have most other metrics of human well-being. So, are you guaranteed an easier future? No. The world is different now. For the past 30 years, American OAs have been spending and consuming more than their fair share of resources, even as the global population has swelled. You will suffer the consequences.

Sometimes societies do go backwards. Even technologically-driven change can experience setbacks. At the age I am now, my father could leave for the airport at the last minute and ride a commercial aircraft to London at double the speed of sound. Today, that same door-to-door transatlantic trip takes more than twice as long, because of traffic congestion, airport delays, and slower aircraft. The underlying reasons include population growth, security concerns, and energy costs, respectively, which are not going to be solved any time soon.

Maybe you will have it easier than your parents' generation, or maybe you won't. Don't plan your life around the assumption everything will be easier.

Reject the Idea That You Are Indebted to Today's OAs

Today's OAs will be passing on to you assets, knowledge, and a way of life. Are you indebted to them?

We could not function today as a modern society without the assets developed by prior generations. But what about the next 100 years? Today's OAs are bequeathing to you more debt than physical and financial assets. The growth of future obligations has been exceeding the growth of investment in infrastructure. In addition to borrowing for asset investment, governments are borrowing to fund current budget deficits, to meet unreserved pension obligations, and to pay interest on older debts. The physical assets accumulated over hundreds of years are being passed on to you, but so are debt obligations totaling tens of trillions of dollars, almost all of it the result of overspending by a single generation of OAs.

The greatest asset we have to pass on to future generations is not bricks and mortar but knowledge. Our accumulated knowledge is priceless; it is the reason why we enjoy modern life. The problem is, in the last 30 years, the intergenerational knowledge cycle has been reversed. We now live in an era where the tools of knowledge, such as information, are democratized and accessible to all age groups. In today's technology-oriented world, YAs, and not OAs, are mostly responsible for growing the knowledge base. More than ever before, OAs are benefiting from the wisdom of YAs.

You have inherited the American way of life, with its relative peace and prosperity, but who exactly should you thank? Perhaps the colonists who fought for democracy. And the heroes of the nation's wars who sacrificed themselves. Definitely the veterans of World War II, now in their 80s or older, who helped save the world from fascism when they were YAs. But not the majority of today's OAs, who never served their country in war or peace. The OAs who enjoy positions of power today have no great historical claim to the country's legacy. YAs are the ones on the ground fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today's YAs are sacrificing more for their country than their parents ever did.

My generation and the slightly older baby boomers, now at the height of our middle-aged power, have no claims to greatness. Contrast the boomers with their parents, who suffered through the Great Depression and World War II. Known as the Greatest Generation, these native-born and naturalized Americans made incredible sacrifices that the baby boomers can only imagine. For the most part, they lived within their means and did not support themselves through massive deficits. They created government programs like Medicare, but envisioned them to be self-funding and equitable to future generations. They made incredible economic sacrifices for their children, and simultaneously were the last generation to routinely house and care for their elderly parents. When they did receive extraordinary public funding, such as the GI Bill to pay for college, it was in return for extraordinary public service. I cannot speak for your particular grandparents, but the Greatest Generation as a whole deserves your respect. They cared about intergenerational equity. Unfortunately, so much has changed over the last 30 years.

Reject the Idea of Wasteful Consumption

The growth in global population has been astounding: more people are alive today than have died since the Pyramids were built. The world struggles to feed, clothe, and shelter over a billion people living in abject poverty. Hopefully, as the population continues to grow, all countries will live up to the Millennium Development Goal of raising the world's impoverished peoples to a middle-class existence. And when that goal is reached, what will billions of new middle-class consumers do? They will consume. They will require energy, natural resources, and government services. In unprecedented ways, the planet's ecosystem will become increasingly strained to satisfy the additional demand. Tensions will rise among peoples clamoring for resources. History provides little precedent for an earth bulging with people who are fighting over finite resources. Over your lifetime, your standard of living may regress toward the mean, and the wasteful consumption by today's OAs will be forever remembered as unjustifiable.

Reject the Idea That It's Fair to Progress from Oppressed to Oppressor

After paying your dues as a second-class citizen, it's natural to want to enjoy the fruits that come with being a first-class OA. The more you endure, the more you expect. It's a strong natural tendency. The longer I wait in my doctor's office for my appointment, the more I feel I am also entitled to a long checkup, even though rationally I know that my doctor is running late for a good reason that is unrelated to me.

As you grow older, you need to fight the natural reflex to perpetuate what OAs are doing to you. There is no fairness in moving from slave to slave master. And there is no fairness in dumping the world's most intractable problems on the next generation. Do not perpetuate age discrimination.

" **I Paid My Dues" Has Become an Excuse . . .**

For greed . . . for the powerful to stay powerful . . . for seniority to prevail over merit . . . and for the obstruction of progress.

Today's OAs have lost their moral compass. They are angry about growing old. They fear outliving their savings. They are envious that you enjoy technology they had to do without. So they selfishly justify spending more than they earn. They are getting away with it because they enjoy the accoutrements of power.

They may have paid their dues, but OAs must permit you to live an intergenerationally equitable life, so you will be no worse off than they were. However, we must not be satisfied with maintaining parity. The overarching goal of human life is to make our existence better for all, both now and in the future. If we can maximize people's future welfare with minimal harm today, it is our moral imperative to do so. When we shortchange the future, we lose part of our humanity.

Chapter 13: Behind Workplace Barriers

How do OAs maintain their power? We live in a representative democracy, but half of the population—children and YAs—has minimal clout. Why?

Power is assembled through personal connections, and you are less well connected than OAs. Think of a powerful person, say, a politician or business executive. How old is he (or she, but usually he)? How old are his friends and colleagues? Often, we judge success not by merit but by the size of the power base. A politician is typically considered successful based on the importance of his position, and not by how well he has done for his constituents. A CEO becomes notable based more on the size of his company, and less on the performance of the company and its stakeholders. With few exceptions, OAs run the country through a network of powerful connections. We are all guilty of judging a person by his or her power as opposed to performance.

Once people become powerful, they like to stay that way. Public policies get distorted when entrenched interests disrupt natural evolutionary trends. Technological and economic changes are occurring at a rapid pace, with many benefitting you more than OAs. You should expect some OAs to continue to resist full-speed-ahead progress. And don't even think of getting a high-level job at a large institution until you're old enough to be a power player.

Connections Trump Merit

Unfortunately, to get ahead in the workplace, I would choose having the best connections over being the best. In almost every profession, the most talented, the hardest working, and the most knowledgeable people are not guaranteed to end up on top. Connections matter. And although there are exceptions, OAs are better connected than you are.

Years ago I ran a small securities firm that was largely unknown in the New York financial community. Then, after we forged a relationship with a company that had access to the famous Guggenheim family, we changed our firm's name to Guggenheim Securities. Suddenly, we sounded well connected. Business improved. Everyone viewed us differently, even though nothing had changed except the appearance of being well connected.

Most successful people can point to a single event that made a significant difference in their career trajectories. Sometimes the big break happens by chance. More often than not, however, the big break is a result of some sort of personal connection. Even when the highest achieving individuals do end up in the corner office, they may have benefitted from a family relationship. Jamie Dimon, an exceptionally regarded executive and the CEO of JP Morgan, the country's most profitable bank, worked hard, attended the best schools, and made superior career decisions. However, he is not the only smart, hardworking executive in banking. A differentiating factor is that the Dimon family happened to be friendly with Sandy Weill, then one of the country's top financial services executives. Dimon went to work for Weill after graduating (they were once my bosses), and his career skyrocketed. Even the most deserving executives like Dimon can benefit from connections.

Government has a special responsibility to ensure that public-sector decision making is free of cronyism and special favors. That is more or less the case in big-ticket procurements. Large government purchases require competitive bids; otherwise, graft could dominate the process. However, federal, state, and local governments make millions of less consequential decisions every day, often without any meaningful oversight. Civil service hiring, for example, is often based on connections, especially for the most desirable jobs. The person off the street, who may happen to have an excellent resume, has little chance of filling that once-a-year job vacancy at a highly coveted government agency. Someone already connected to the agency will fill the position. Since OAs, like people of all ages, tend to be most connected to others of a similar age, there is a bias against you. If you believe that age discrimination in the government workplace works against OAs, take one look at your local municipal workforce and you will see evidence to the contrary. It is an older-than-average workforce. The highest paid jobs are almost entirely comprised of OAs. In addition, unlike in the private sector, a veteran worker who performs at a substandard level will rarely be replaced by a more competent new hire.

Wealthy individuals gave Bernard Madoff over $20 billion to invest. How did he find so much money to manage? He relied on so-called "feeders," well-connected individuals who raised money through their personal relationships and then handed the large sums over to Madoff to oversee. These feeders provided no actual investment management services; they simply received money from wealthy investors and gave it to Madoff. That fact did not stop them from taking credit, as if the spectacular (but fictional) Madoff results were generated as a result of their own investment prowess. At the very least these feeders could have thoroughly checked out Madoff, but the record shows that they did little or no due diligence. Meanwhile, they collected tens of millions of dollars in fees. The Madoff feeders are emblematic of a system that values connections over merit. Prior to the discovery of the Madoff fraud, these individuals were respected leaders in their communities, but what did they actually accomplish? They provided no actual services other than "access." Their success depended solely on their connections and not on any type of investment skill, but they readily took credit for the accomplishments of others. Too bad for them that Madoff's accomplishments turned out to be a giant lie. For a group of individuals with limited skills or ethics, they were incredibly well compensated.

Something is broken when a country club full of personal contacts is valued more than actual achievement. You are likely to be a loser if you're trying to compete solely on merit. You desperately need a level playing field in the workplace. Meanwhile, what should you do to prepare for a career in corporate America? It disgusts me to say it, but a logical conclusion would be to emphasize socializing over studying.

Entrenched Power Bases

The corollary to connections equal power is power tends to stay in power.

Change is necessary in all aspects of life, but a power base tends to resist change. How to stay in power? Protect the status quo. But new ideas are the key to progress, and you are full of them. You are a threat to the powerful, to the establishment.

Entrenched power bases span all of society, not just the business world. This is true for nonprofits, government agencies, political parties. . .you name the organization. Individuals in positions of authority desire to preserve (or expand) their scope of influence. They have little interest in making room for a new generation of leaders.

Powerful individuals and institutions stay entrenched unless there is an agent of change. The laws of inertia apply: an institution in power tends to stay in power. This reluctance to change is embedded in the governance of our most influential institutions. Congress has archaic traditions that preserve its traditional ways. Industries work hard to preserve outdated but beneficial laws. Do not try pumping your own gas in New Jersey.

Memo to Dying Industry: Hire a Lobbyist

As a venture capitalist, I try to find companies that can do things better and help them grow. Venture-backed companies typically have a high percentage of YA employees. You may be attracted to the concept of a young company trying to improve the status quo, as opposed to a mature company working to maintain its market position. Start-ups also usually take a progressive approach to the workplace. Sometimes your decision to work at a start-up is not by choice. You may be shut out of an equivalent position at a mature company.

The deck is stacked against both younger adults and younger companies. Established companies may not have better products, but they have better connections. Business relationships, which are just personal connections made in a business setting, work against young companies. Government lobbying usually benefits entrenched companies at the expense of new competitors.

Let's say, for example, I have an established business that manufactures flashlights. A start-up competitor comes along with a flashlight that is superior in every way possible. It's higher quality, lasts longer, shines brighter, is more environmentally friendly, and is less expensive. My competitor's flashlight is an innovation that would benefit the world. But don't count me out, because I am the entrenched company. I am well connected and have deep pockets. I contact my distributors, guys I've been golfing with for years, and convince them not to disturb our relationship. So the distributors choose to forsake a few dollars of profits in order to maintain the social status quo with me, and they don't immediately sign up to distribute the new flashlight. Then I contact my local politicians, to whose campaigns I have been a loyal contributor. I tell them about the jobs in their district that will be lost if the new competitor becomes successful. The politicians try to find some problem with the new competitor, but they cannot, so they attempt to change the law to create a problem. They propose a bill that would subject "excessively" bright flashlights to increased regulation. Consequently, the new competitor, in the face of resistant distributors and possible government regulations, has difficulty lining up funding sources to launch production of the new flashlight. The new competitor goes out of business before it can get off the ground. Hundreds of YA jobs are lost.

Unfortunately, stories like this happen every day. Here is one of them.

In 2001, an insurance company called Radian shook up the title insurance business by developing an innovative product called Radian Lien Protection. Since issuing costs are high on title insurance policies because of agent commissions, Radian tried to circumvent the agents by offering insurance directly to mortgage lenders. Mortgage lenders liked the simplicity of comprehensive, as opposed to loan-by-loan, insurance protection. Mortgage borrowers liked the fact that they were charged only about 50 percent of the cost of a traditional title insurance policy. Other mortgage industry professionals liked the idea of reducing the amount of paperwork required for a refinancing. However, the entrenched insurance agents hated the Radian Lien Protection product, as did Radian's competitors. It was a threat to their very existence.

You know the rest of the story. The agents and insurance company competitors pressured the regulators to shut down Radian Lien Protection. The regulators decided that the innovative product did not conform to the title insurance regulations that were on the books. (Of course, it didn't; it was a radical improvement over existing title insurance products.) In the end Radian Lien Protection was discontinued, nothing changed in the industry, and mortgage borrowers today still pay high fees for title insurance policies, most of which ends up in the agent's pocket.

PayPal versus Traditional Banks

Government regulations play an important role in society. Unfortunately, however, OA policymakers are frequently the enemy of YA innovation. Bank regulators at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (where I worked briefly during business school) are one such example. The FDIC approves dozens of licenses for new banks each year, but the overwhelming majority are cookie-cutter community banks that are about as innovative as a puddle of water. Attempts to get licenses for new innovative banks, often founded by YAs, lead to years of delay at the FDIC. Many years of delay. Is this to protect the government from banks that may make irresponsible loans? Actually, no. Bank applications languish for years even when an applicant promises to place all of its money in the safest possible investments. By design, regulators have endorsed a system in which every new bank looks alike. Innovative bank-like companies, such as the YA-founded PayPal, are not granted banking licenses. In fact, PayPal very nearly never got off the ground because of the maze of federal and state banking regulations. PayPal ended up benefitting from being outside the purview of banking regulators, but it took a lot of effort and many millions of venture capital dollars.

So what happened when the credit crisis came along in 2008? The cookie-cutter banks all had similar lending profiles, and that profile turned out to contain quite a bit of risk. The entire system became stressed. Every bank in the United States had a material risk of failure because every bank was required by regulators to make risky loans. Depositors with savings of over $100,000 (then the FDIC insurance limit) started to abandon community banks, so the government had to raise the insurance limit. Eventually, the government bailed out the entire banking industry. And when some securities firms and insurers (all longstanding members of the business establishment and managed by OAs) needed to be propped up through access to the banking industry safety net, the FDIC suddenly decided to review and approve these nontraditional bank applicants in weeks instead of years. By late 2009, the FDIC insurance fund was insolvent, while innovative bank-like companies such as PayPal and Higher One were prospering. They differed from traditional banks in two important ways: they did not take risks with depositor money, and they had corporate cultures driven by YAs. Both attributes were considered negatives by bank regulators.

It's no coincidence that PayPal, with its YA-dominated culture, has been more successful than every single one of the over 6,000 licensed U.S. banks. Ironically, unlike traditional banks, it didn't have to put taxpayer money at risk in order to flourish.

Some YA-driven companies such as PayPal overcome even the toughest obstacles, but barriers to innovation are typically disadvantageous to you.

Chapter 14: Breaking the Cycle

Simply put, in order to break the cycle of intergenerational discrimination, we need to lead sustainable lives. Our problems are solvable if we can focus on the future and not on immediate gratification. You can lead the way. Step up to the plate and help address your greatest challenges.

Jobs

As a wealthy country with an aging population, Japan has many of the same intergenerational challenges as the United States. However, Japanese YAs face even greater workplace barriers than you do. An incredible 45 percent of workers age 24 and under held temporary, as opposed to regular, jobs, even prior to the 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crises. Why is the YA job situation even worse in Japan? One reason is that Japanese OAs have even more political clout than do American OAs. Another reason is cultural: Japanese YAs are less likely to speak up and assert their rights in the face of brazen inequity. Perhaps the most important reason is because the United States more readily embraces entrepreneurship.

Many Japanese YAs, shut out of large corporate jobs, would love to become entrepreneurs or join entrepreneurial companies. Typically, however, the business and political establishments in Japan do not welcome start-ups. The new entrants are seen as a threat to the established ways of doing business, which of course they are. Hence, little job creation comes from start-up businesses in Japan, which disproportionately affects YAs. As a result, YAs in Japan are extraordinarily disenfranchised in the private-sector economy.

When I graduated college in 1987 Japan was considered the world leader in technology. Since then, a generation of American YA entrepreneurs has powered the U.S. economy while Japan's economy has stagnated. Japan should serve as a stark warning that, as the baby boomers retire and the U.S. demographic profile comes closer to resembling Japan's, pressures on YAs in the workplace will increase.

U.S. economic policy should focus on job creation for YAs, especially in start-up and small businesses. We literally cannot afford to become like Japan, where job growth has stagnated for decades and YA unemployment is chronic, because we do not save part of our paychecks like the Japanese do.

Most importantly, the jobs must be high quality. Minimum-wage fast food jobs are not the way forward. You are ready, willing, and able to perform at the highest levels. And you'll work for less pay than an OA, even though you may not deserve less pay. You are exactly what our economy needs. The workplace barriers holding you back need to end.

Environmental Protection

The prescription for improving the environment is simple: we should listen to you.

The Department of Interior would be a great place to start. With agencies such as the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management holding responsibility for much of the public land, the department has a mission "to protect America's treasures for future generations." So, it makes sense to put some members of these future generations in policy-making roles. The department has a track record of straying from its mission and focusing on extraction, development, and other profit-making endeavors, as was highlighted by the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. YAs, as long-term stakeholders, are less willing to compromise environmental protection for short-term gain. With all of the federal government controlled by OAs, it seems only fair that YAs have an outsized role in the tiny part of the bureaucracy focused on the long term.

Public Resources

Public assets, including natural resources, airwaves, toll roads, and just about everything else owned by the people, are routinely sold to cover government deficits. These transactions do not often make headlines, but the aggregate value of the disposed assets is in the trillions of dollars. It is simple common sense that we cannot sell assets indefinitely. Will future generations benefit from the money generated from these asset sales? No. Unlike the investments of sovereign wealth funds of oil-rich nations, the proceeds do not go into trusts for future generations, nor are they reinvested in long-term capital assets. These sales are simply ways to transform intergenerational assets owned by everyone into cash for use today. Since the most accessible natural assets are already gone, your generation will pay more to access an equivalent resource.

Resources intended to be preserved for generations are being sold by today's OAs, and you'll never see the money. You should demand that OAs stop selling all assets that cannot be replenished. Further, in the event such assets are sold, the proceeds should be set aside for intergenerational purposes. OAs, YAs, children, and future generations each have equal claims to the resources owned by the people.

Public Debt

In theory, governments should be able to borrow responsibly, but in practice, we are past the point of fiscal responsibility. And the U.S. is in better shape than much of the rest of the world. At The Wharton School, I was taught that government debt is a valuable tool to manage the economy. However, economists don't run the country, politicians do. The political challenges of cutting government spending are extraordinary. Historically, deficits were more politically palatable than fighting special interest groups, but that started to change after the 2010 elections. Republicans, as well as some Democrats, realized that government spending was unsustainable. By 2011, there was a consensus that deficits needed to be cut. Nevertheless, because the debt problem is so severe and bipartisan cooperation on the issue is shaky at best, in August 2011 Standard & Poor's took the unprecedented and embarrassing step of dropping the country's AAA credit rating. Unlike you, your parents' generation had the luxury of inheriting an AAA economy.

Who exactly is going to bear the brunt of the budget cuts? There is also a consensus on this issue. You are. Social Security and Medicare are destined for collapse unless structural changes are made. However, there is no way politicians are going to attack the benefits of current retirees. That would be political suicide. Your future benefits will be reduced, not theirs. Your taxes will increase, not theirs. Protecting senior citizens at your expense is one of the few spending issues on which Democrats and Republicans are in complete agreement.

Government spending on OAs, including the elderly, exceeds spending on children and YAs, even when public education is taken into account. That, in and of itself, is not the worst problem. The breakdown in intergenerational equity occurs when a particular generation receives more from the government (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than it paid in over a lifetime. Unfortunately, today's OAs are breaking new ground in intergenerational inequity. They are receiving trillions more back in benefits than they ever paid into the system. They are funding their windfall through government borrowing and your tax dollars. The practice is unsustainable, and years of your working life will be dedicated to paying off their debt.

Insist on not being handed the bill. Generational theft needs to end.

Public Infrastructure

One bridge and two tunnels connect the highways of my childhood home in New Jersey with the streets of my current home in Manhattan. The Holland Tunnel, the George Washington Bridge, and the Lincoln Tunnel were first opened in 1927, 1931, and 1937, respectively. It would be a serious understatement to say that these three crossings have seen an increase in traffic since the 1930s. Traffic jams during rush hour are legendary. The George Washington Bridge alone is one of the most heavily traveled bridges in the world. The two tunnels and the bridge would benefit from comprehensive repairs, but a long-term shutdown of one of the crossings would be an extraordinary inconvenience. Maintenance is patchy, and repair costs are high. A new bridge or tunnel is not even on the drawing board. Future drivers deserve better.

Previous generations of OAs were serious about building the country's infrastructure. From the New Deal in the 1930s to the Eisenhower interstate highway system in the 1950s to energy-related investments in the 1970s, the country has always invested in public infrastructure. Unfortunately, today's generation of OAs is living off of past investments, and when they do put money into infrastructure, they borrow from you. The borrowings are called long-term municipal bonds, and you will be responsible for their repayment.

And when there's no borrowing, there's no project. OA voters are loath to pay higher taxes to finance projects on a pay-as-you-go basis. They will happily drive over the George Washington Bridge that their grandparents paid for, but they will not invest a dime in infrastructure for their grandchildren. The tradition of build it, pay for it, and leave it for future generations is dead. Today's OAs are reaping the benefits of past projects. They should also meet the infrastructure responsibilities of the future.

Public Health

Autism is a poorly understood disorder that is typically diagnosed when a child is around two years old. The effects are devastating, the incidence rates are high (by some measures more than 1 in 100 boys are considered to be on the autistic spectrum), and the costs of lifetime care are astronomical. There is no identified cure or effective treatment, and the causes are uncertain.

Autism is an example of a public health crisis that deserves substantial research funding. Autismspeaks.org notes that of the total 2009 National Institutes of Health budget of $35.9 billion, only $196 million (one-half of one percent) went directly to autism research. So why did autism research receive so little funding? OAs are less impacted by the disorder. Autism diagnoses have increased dramatically since the 1980s, so individuals born prior to 1980 are unlikely to be considered autistic. Your future children, however, are the most at risk. Public funding for health research is tiny compared to the overall economy, and emerging diseases like autism receive a miniscule slice of the small pie. OA decision-makers tend to spend money on diseases that could affect them or their peers. Spending on public health needs to grow in order to combat diseases important to you and your families.

Demand investment in your public health issues today, because tomorrow may be too late.

What happens when powerful OAs desire public health outcomes that benefit themselves? A good example, reportedly, is the effort of the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare to rush through the approval of Viagra in one month in 1999. The process normally takes several years.

Chapter 15: Action

1. Call It Discrimination

When we judge a person not on individual merit but on the circumstances of birth, whether it be skin color, gender, place of birth, or date of birth, it's discrimination. We readily acknowledge that prejudice against the elderly is a form of discrimination, but we hesitate to use the D-word to describe bias against you. Instead, we tend to think of YAs as full-grown children. And since we know that children (at least young children) should not enjoy the same rights as adults, because they don't merit it, we extend this mindset to how we treat you.

It's possible you may think of yourself as a big child. You may have grown accustomed to being treated as a dependent, and you may not be ready to accept full adult responsibilities. However, many other YAs are able to act as responsible adults. To deny full rights to all YAs because some are not responsible is to discriminate.

Discrimination is all about attitudes. OAs view themselves as superior to you, and they see nothing wrong with that. Their discriminatory attitudes beget unfair behaviors. OAs are taking advantage of their role as protectors of your natural and financial resources. Differentiation by age is frequently discrimination by age.

Disregard for intergenerational equity is another form of age discrimination. Instead of making the hard choices today, OAs are dumping the world's toughest problems on you. When it is unsustainable, the inequitable utilization of resources among age cohorts is discrimination. You will never enjoy many of the same resources when you grow old that today's elderly now enjoy. Inequitable race and gender policies are no longer tolerated; instead, we disadvantage you, and will continue to do so until age-related biases are also recognized as discrimination.

2. Give All Adults Equal Rights

All laws should treat individuals 18 and older the same. You deserve exactly the same civil rights as OAs. We already have a legal process in place for adults who may be considered incompetent.

3. Consider International Precedent

Every sovereign country besides the United States has recognized the inviolable human rights of children through an international treaty. Public spending on YAs is abysmally low as compared to countries that provide free or almost-free higher education. No democracy punishes child criminals as severely as we do. Enlightened countries do not differentiate among adults by age in their constitutions. Most nations that have adopted age-discrimination protections in the workplace have protected the rights of all adults.

The United States is also the world leader in passing its problems on to your generation. We lag behind other developed nations in working to prevent climate change. No other country has more untapped potential to tackle YA unemployment. No other major economy consumes natural resources at such a high per capita rate. No other country encourages university students to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars to finance their education. No other country has such a highly developed culture of public finance—on the federal, state, and municipal levels—enabling the expense of every major project to be postponed into the future. A few other countries do have larger per capita deficits, but they may end up defaulting on their debts.

We are an outlier in how we treat you, so it is no surprise that we are more likely to dump our problems on you.

4. Embrace Age Diversity

In public and private institutions, we strive for diversity based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, and many other characteristics. For all the same reasons, we must add diversity of age to the list.

5. Protect Everyone from Age Discrimination in the Workplace

It's a travesty that the main anti-age discrimination law discriminates by age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act should be extended to cover workers both young and old. We will all benefit in the long run if age-related preferences in the workplace are illegal, and if age is never an overt factor in the hiring, promoting, or firing process.

6. Differentiate by Merit, Not Seniority, in the Workplace

If you are not the best candidate, you shouldn't get the job. The best workers, not the oldest workers, deserve the best pay. Time on the job should matter, but it should not mean everything. The cost to the economy of protecting underachieving OA workers is incalculably high. Whether it is a union construction site or a municipal library, employers need to be able to hire, retain, and promote the highest quality workers, not just the most senior workers. You must be given an equal opportunity to succeed.

7. Don't Hold Back the Best and the Brightest

Kindergartens do a good job of segregating children by reading ability—the more advanced readers select from baskets of progressively more challenging books. The system goes downhill from there. Schools need to do a better job of teaching the brightest kids based on their abilities, rather than be locked into rigid age hierarchies. Responsible teenagers need to be able to earn adult rights instead of waiting to reach the age of majority. Employers need to let you compete for leadership positions. Corporate boards need to select top managers based on merit rather than length of service. Government agencies need to fast track their best YA employees. And the nation's most capable YAs, the best of the best, should be actively encouraged to become government leaders instead of being banned by age.

8. Protect, as Well as Respect, Children

Adults reign supreme over children, and with this power comes a tremendous responsibility. Everyone under age 18 deserves equal doses of protection and respect. A legal system that treats an innocent 17-year-old like a child, and a guilty 17-year-old like an adult, is inherently unfair.

Respect means remembering that age limits are about practicality, not merit. When we forget that a child's age is not an absolute indicator of ability or knowledge (or anything else), we rob the child of self-worth. Age of majority laws should respectfully deny rights. We should try harder to take merit, and not just age, into account.

9. Base Age Limits Solely on Science

Rights and privileges should be limited by age only if justified by scientific consensus. Brain function develops early in life and decreases late in life. A fair legal framework of age limits would consider the relative cognitive abilities of persons both young and old. When we deny rights across the board to you but not to the elderly, we are basing our laws on constituent power and not on science.

If scientific consensus clearly demonstrated that the proper age of majority should be, say, 22 years old, I would find it hard to object. Of course, then everyone under age 22 would deserve the full protections of childhood. Accused 21-year-old criminals would need to be tried as juveniles. Schooling up to age 22 would need to be free. Parents would need to be obligated to support 21-year-olds. Military service would need to start at age 22. This would never happen, of course, because OAs would never allow it. They only want to treat you as a child if it is to their advantage.

10. Devote More Government Resources to Younger Adults

You receive a tiny slice of the government pie. Retirees, on the other hand, are the dominant recipients of government largess through Social Security and Medicare. Retirees also pay the lowest taxes relative to net worth, because the income tax system is based not on wealth but largely on wage income.

Families who need assistance with the expense of college tuition deserve more government help. Parents with certain wealth or income levels should be required by law to pay for their children's higher education. Few other expenses come with 18 years notice.

Most importantly, you need more public spending on job opportunities and training. More initiatives to promote start-ups, small businesses and other organizations with YA-friendly hiring policies. And more government promotion of private-sector health research, alternative energy, environmental initiatives, and scientific development will benefit you both now and in the future.

11. Make Government Spending Intergenerationally Equitable

All age-based government programs should be self-funding by age cohort. Social Security, Medicare, and similar programs should maintain sufficient reserves and never have to rely on taxpayer bailouts. Each generation should simply get back what it pays in, plus interest. Retirees who enjoyed steady paychecks for decades and had the ability, but not the desire, to save for retirement should have their benefits reduced. Subsidizing older generations at the expense of younger generations is functionally equivalent to a Ponzi scheme.

Additional methods of retirement savings need to be a priority. Our current practice of near-zero lifetime savings rates coupled with taxpayer-subsidized retirements is broken. OAs should think twice about unnecessary consumption and need to redirect more of their lifetime earnings into investments.

The larger the national debt, the more unfair we are to you. Finally, in 2011, debt reduction started to be discussed as a national priority. Instead of deficits, pay-as-you-go needs to be the path that we take. Every age cohort needs to be revenue-neutral over its lifespan so we do not shortchange future generations.

12. Foster a Culture of Sustainability

Sustainability must be a bedrock principle for guardians of intergenerational assets, both fiscal and natural. More international cooperation is needed to protect the world's resources, like fisheries, from exploitation by a single generation. The tragedy of the commons is real, and you have the most to lose. Corporations need to adopt sustainability principles. Cultural, civic, and educational institutions need to make long-term investments in their organizations while not borrowing imprudently against the future.

Age discrimination is the answer to why we are where we are. Sustainability is the way to move forward. Every generation—and every individual—has a moral obligation to improve conditions as much as possible for future generations. Our culture of consumption has become so extreme that we are far from even reaching a break-even state of do-no-harm. Without a doubt, in terms of sustainability, today's American OAs are the least responsible generation in history.

13. Empower Yourself

OAs are acting as judge and jury for your generation's well-being without being impartial or disinterested. You probably have different values than OAs, but you are not being heard. OAs are giving you the future that they deem to be sufficient, not the future that you want.

What will happen if you and your generation become empowered? Hopefully, we will accelerate our efforts towards sustainability. Our stewardship of the environment will improve. Age-related workplace barriers will fall. Governments will invest in the future. Our decision-making will benefit from the diversity of age. More OAs will be forced to live within their means. Merit will matter more throughout society. And the enormous fiscal, environmental, and social costs of YA age discrimination will start to be repaid.

About the Author

Andrew Lerner is the Managing Partner of Inter-Atlantic Group, a venture capital firm focused on underserved markets. He lives with his wife and two children in New York City.

For more information on the rights of younger Americans:

YouthRights.org

Facebook.com/YouthRights

@youthrights
