Old people tend to have children, grandchildren, and beyond, and tend to be very concerned with what sort of world they'll be living in. That's a very strong investment.
The relatively abstract problems of the future tend to take a backseat to the more concrete problems of the here-and-now, disproportionately so in regards to risk
For example, if I give you the choice of $1 today or $1.20 next week, most people take the 'today' choice even though it's objectively worth less. There's a tipping point though when the value of future propositions become more favored.
More to the point of the discussion, how much quality of life today will people be willing to sacrifice for an abstract idea of quality of life (particularly for somebody else) in the future?
https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclope...
I think what you're referring to is more akin to uncertainty risk.
But that is itself a function of age. We are pre-wired to be in favor of the continuation of the species. Below a certain age, that means a short-term focus. Above a certain age, that means ensuring that the kids are OK.
There aren't a lot of old undergrads (and undergrads themselves are not terribly representative of the entire population within the same age group -- this has been a known problem with tons of university research for a long, long time).
This implies that the research you're referring to wouldn't necessarily speak to what drives older generations.
A bit of both. There is research that suggests, but does not prove, as far as I am aware, that this is a function of age (or, more accurately, a function of having children). And my personal observations are in accord with that.
The underlying hypothesis is that when you're young, the priority in terms of species preservation is personal preservation: you have to stay alive and healthy enough to reproduce. That encourages short-term thinking.
After you've had children, though, the priority in terms of species preservation becomes the preservation of the children: they need to stay alive and healthy enough to reproduce, not you. You've already done your reproduction bit.
I'm still not aware of research that speaks specifically to the present-bias though in terms of it changing as one ages. If you have research related to it, it would be something I would be interested in reading.
It is! IIRC, the thinking is that the usual reproductive strategy is to have as many babies as possible, so that enough will survive by chance to reproductive age. Humans veered away from that as a result of the need to give birth far earlier in the development process than other animals (because of our huge skulls).
This increased the cost (in terms of time and energy from the parents) of children significantly, making it impossible to have huge numbers of offspring. Thus a different species survival strategy was needed, involving increasing the chances that any single child will survive. This, the thinking goes, led to social structures such as the continued involvement of grandparents, etc.
If you look at other animals that have "expensive" children (such as, for example, elephants), you see similar effects.
The whole subject is really fascinating.
> If you have research related to it, it would be something I would be interested in reading.
Me too, actually. I came across this stuff a long while ago while working with a researcher in a closely related field, and haven't kept up with it much since. I may have a list of the related research papers in my archives somewhere. I'll see if I can dig it up.
Don't worry, the near future "65+ plus" people will hardly be able to afford retirement, much less housing...
It's not uncommon that they fail to understand why their children can't afford to buy a flat, while they had theirs in their early twenties.
Well, they also have several decades of working, investing, and accumulating wealth on them, so why wouldn't they?
The question isn't whether "the median of tomorrows old will still have more than the median of tomorrow’s youth" but whether the median of tomorrows old will have more than the the median of tomorrows youth when said youth gets old itself.
In two words: climate change.
In three words: the housing crisis.
The old have a marked tendency to vote against the long-term interests of the young.
First, I don't know if there's a clear age divide on opinions on those things. Perhaps there is, but I haven't seen data on that either way. Subjectively, it doesn't appear to me that this is the case.
Second, it may very well be that the stances people are taking on those issues are because they see those stances as being positive in the long term. (I'm not considering "the housing crisis", because I'm not sure what you mean by that in this context).
You and I may (and it sounds like we do) disagree with other's assessments on these things, but that doesn't actually speak to motivation.
For the climate, I think the point is that the younger and future generations will have to live with it, while the oldest will be dead. Not that either generations tried to deny climate change or make it happen.
As for climate change that has been the result of half a century of increased consumerism kickstarted in the 50s and spearheaded by the Baby Boomer generation (which, for the most part of the ride, was young).
Raising the age gets you there, I think raising taxes does the opposite.
That being said, I'm not in the US but I am pretty sure the US is not that different from here.
It's still unsustainable and it's expected to increase again to 47-49. The politicians are dragging their feet because nobody wants to be the guy announcing that, but it's going to happen, it's just a matter of time with the president rotating every few years until one will be painted in a corner.
I remember a comment from an estate planner. Old people don't care about their children. They care about their grandkids.