Airs – Ian Lance Taylor

Old Fogeys

It’s proverbial in our society that you get more conservative as you get older. I mean more conservative in the traditional sense of wanting things to stay the same: this should not be confused with some platforms of the Republican party, which seeks radical changes in various areas (government reduction, government support for religious institutions, military adventurism).

Is this a characteristic of human nature, or is it specific to our society? I don’t know. It’s been around for a long time in European society—one can read texts about the folly of youth from hundreds of years ago. I don’t know whether the same idea is present in other societies—for example, is it present in societies with a tradition of venerated ancestors?

From my personal experience, people get more conservative because they get more responsibilities. When you have children to look after, it is no longer possible to drop everything to pursue your ideals. You have to act within a set of constraints—hopefully willingly adopted, but constraints nonetheless. You worry about what will happen in the future to your responsibilities. You have an idea what will happen if the future is like the past. And so you become more conservative—you seek to keep the future looking like the past.

Today, other than children, the most common responsibility is debt. Wide-spread personal debt is a relatively recent invention (remember The Death of a Salesman). When you are in debt, you must maintain a steady income, and you become less willing to risk that income. That makes you more conservative.

Of course there are many exceptions to this general rule. It is also proverbial that some men walk out on their families and their debts and never return. But they are a minority, and they are generally felt to have behaved badly.

I think this tendency of debt to cause conservatism partially explains the oddity that many people on both the left and right follow policies that are not to their economic advantage. I’m thinking of Thomas Frank, who, in his book What’s The Matter With Kansas?, argues that poor people should not support the Republicans because their policies will leave them worse off; however, he fails to note that many rich people support the Democrats (e.g., the cliche of limousine liberals) although their policies will similarly leave them worse off.. Poor people, in debt, prefer a more conservative approach, even though it leaves them in debt. Wealthy people, with no debt, are more willing to experiment with societal changes. Naturally this is not a hard and fast rule: many poor people are left-wing and many rich people are right-wing. This is just a minor influence, if it exists at all.

Posted

in

by

Ian Lance Taylor

Tags:

Comments

2 responses to “Old Fogeys”

  1. etbe Avatar
    etbe

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

    Maslow’s hierarchy explains this. Someone who is poor and feels unsafe can be easily manipulated by threats to their safety. Someone who is wealthy enough that their basic needs are met is concentrating on higher needs such as the well-being of people who they are unlikely to ever meet.

    For the example of Kansas, the people in question need evidence that the Republicans are out to get them.

    In Australia the “Liberal” party (which is not liberal at all) won an election based on the fact that “Labour” might make the economy worse (seriously). Then they lost an election badly after they introduced legislation to significantly cut salaries to the lowest paid workers. This is of course a gross simplification of Australian politics.

    As for the issue of becoming “conservative” as you get older. I have read a paper about an analysis of brain development showing that at the age of about 25 most people become significantly less enthusiastic about taking risks (but I couldn’t find the reference). One thing that is noteworthy is that insurance companies don’t want to offer life insurance to people under the age of 25, car insurance policies often specify that you must not lend the car to someone less than 25yo, and car rental companies usually refuse to do business with anyone less than 25yo. It seems that there is a significant amount of statistical evidence compiled by insurance companies to show that before the age of 25 people are likely to do dangerous things that may result in their death or significant property damage.

    If insurance companies believed that having children made people more responsible then I’m sure that they would put that in their calculations for premiums somehow.

    It seems to me that the type of conservatism that leads people to not want to try a different style of clothing is linked to the same mental processes that makes them not want to try a new exciting sport or other activity that may risk their life.

  2. Ian Lance Taylor Avatar
    Ian Lance Taylor

    Thanks for the note.

    Your idea about age 25 does seem possible though it doesn’t match my personal history. I spent a year going into debt with no income while starting a company when I was 35, something I would not expect to do now that I have become a father at 38.

    I don’t think your example of insurance companies treating people with children differently holds up. It seems natural to tell an insurance company how old you are. It seems more intrusive to tell them about your marital status or children. Certainly I think that is the case for car insurance or car rental, admittedly less so for life insurance.

Leave a Reply