CHARBONNEAU – I care about the future, Mr. Lütke

TOBI LUTKE, co-founder and CEO of Shopify, says that seniors aren’t interested in future planning.

On X, he posted that seniors should be excluded from voting because they no longer have anything to gain from the future of the economy. Voting, he said, should be limited to those “with a stake in the future.”

Well, Mr. Lütke, I’m not dead yet.

It’s so typical of ageism to assume that seniors have one foot in the grave. I intend to live much longer and I certainly have a stake in the future.

The false logic that Lütke uses is that seniors are less concerned with economic growth and more concerned with immediate things like pensions.

We are concerned with future growth.

Seniors have spent decades working, paying taxes, raising families, building businesses, financing governments and contributing to institutions that younger Canadians inherited and a business climate in which Lütke can prosper.

In fact, I may have more at stake than Gen Zs since the Canada inherited by my children and grandchildren represents a longer political time horizon than a 25-year-old voting solely on next year’s tax bill.

Lütke’s false conclusion is based on valid study.

The study was conducted by ProfessorTim Vlandas of Oxford University. He found that older voters tend to place greater priority on pensions and less on childcare, family and education policies. They are also less likely than working-age voters to punish governments for low economic growth or high unemployment.

As the numbers of seniors increase, Vlandas says, they form an influential group; what he calls “grey power.” This leads governments to protect pension spending rather than devote resources to social and public investments that may increase future economic growth.

It’s worth noting what Vlandas didn’t study: the so-called sociotropic factors.

Those are the things I mentioned above; factors based on how seniors think society or the country as a whole is doing. Rather than simply asking, “Am I personally better off?”seniors are concerned for descendants.

We care deeply about the economic prospects, housing affordability, education and environmental conditions of our children and grandchildren.

Our personal time horizon may be shorter, but our social time horizon extends generations.

Lütke makes a logical error, what philosophers call the “is–ought problem.” He makes a transition from what “is” to what “ought” to be.

Lütke takes the claim that older voters tend to place less importance on economic growth than younger voters and concludes that seniors should not be allowed to vote.

The word “should” is the giveaway.

Lütke leaps from what is true to what should happen with no logical connection.

The same reasoning could disenfranchise almost anybody. For example, high-income taxpayers may favour lower taxes even if they reduce public investment. Workers may favour protection of their industries even when protectionism reduces overall economic efficiency.

If seniors vote for governments that improve their living conditions, it’s not because they have no interest in the future.

The solution is for governments to propose benefits that would appeal to younger voters.

David Charbonneau is a retired TRU electronics instructor who hosts a blog at http://closetproductions.ca/EyeView/eyeviewcover.htm