Just in time for Older Americans Month, the New York Times published a guest essay by Samuel Moyn, a 54-year-old tenured Yale professor, titled “Older Americans Are Hoarding America’s Potential.” The piece argues that older adults control too much wealth, too many jobs, too many homes, and too many votes—and proposes mandatory retirement, punitive taxes to force older homeowners out of their houses, age ceilings on political office, and reducing the civic participation of older adults.
For those of us who have devoted our careers to improving the lives of older people, this was more than a bad opinion piece. It’s pure and simple ageism, with potential repercussions for everything we’ve been working toward. When arguments like these get published in the nation’s most prominent newspaper, they seep into public consciousness, shape policy conversations, and give intellectual cover to discrimination. That should concern every single person who works in or cares about the aging sector.
What Moyn Gets Wrong Or Is Missing
He treats older Americans as a monolith—and ignores the ones who are struggling most. While briefly acknowledging that some older adults live in poverty and deal with ageism, Moyn for the most part paints older adults as a unified bloc of wealthy power brokers who are responsible for most of the country’s current ills.
The reality? I’ve often called older America a tale of two cities. Data sadly proves me right.
According to the National Council on Aging (NCOA), the older adult poverty rate rose to 15% in 2024. And older adults are the only group that saw a rise in poverty, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Meanwhile, NPR reports that older adults are now the fastest-growing group experiencing homelessness in the United States, and researchers estimate that older adult homelessness could nearly triple in big cities by 2030.
NCOA’s landmark 2025 report, “The 80%,” found that older adults in the bottom 20% of wealth die on average nine years earlier than those in the top 20%.
We have a class problem, not an age problem.
He ignores the retirement crisis many older workers are actually living. Economist Teresa Ghilarducci at The New School for Social Research has documented that a growing pool of older workers age 55 and over must continue working because their retirement income is inadequate. As she told Marketplace in April 2026, “People know that they’re going to live longer than their parents and grandparents, but they also realize they have less security.” More than a third of Americans now don’t think they’ll have enough saved for retirement—the highest proportion since 2017. Moyn’s call for mandatory retirement doesn’t just ignore these realities—it would make them catastrophically worse.
He’s pointing the finger at the wrong people. Seven of the 10 wealthiest Americans are under 65. Institutional investors are buying up single-family homes by the thousands. Freddie Mac estimates the U.S. is short approximately 3.8 million housing units—driven by decades of underbuilding, restrictive zoning, and a construction labor shortage, not by older people refusing to move. Framing this as an intergenerational war is a sleight of hand that protects the people actually hoarding power and wealth, and keeps us from discussing the real causes and impacts of income inequality.
We have a class problem, not an age problem.
He’s short on solutions to increase civic engagement. Moyn argues that older adults participate “too much” in local democracy. Since when is participating in democracy a problem to be solved? The answer isn’t to silence older voters—it’s to make participation easier for everyone. Make Election Day a national holiday. Expand early voting and mail-in ballot access. Invest in civic education for all ages. Redesign public participation processes so renters, younger residents, and underrepresented communities all have a seat at the table. Don’t punish engagement—expand it.
He proposes mandatory retirement when older workers already face age discrimination. AARP’s most recent data shows that 37% of workers 50 and over experienced discrimination during job searches in 2025 (up from 30% in 2024), 22% in work meetings, and 19% at social events outside of work. Moyn isn’t just ignoring this reality—he’s proposing to institutionalize it.
His own university’s research suggests his views are harmful. Moyn’s Yale colleague Dr. Becca Levy has spent decades proving that negative age stereotypes are linked to worse health outcomes, increased rates of dementia, cardiovascular problems, and shorter lifespans. People exposed to positive views of aging live an average of 7.5 years longer. Essays like Moyn’s aren’t just intellectually careless—according to research from his own institution, they are literally dangerous to the health of older people.
The path forward isn’t generational warfare—it’s intergenerational partnership, with people of all ages at the table designing solutions that work for everyone.
Why This Matters to ASA and Our Community
ASA’s strategic plan is built around three pillars: strengthening the resiliency of the aging sector, ending ageism while promoting the possibilities of aging, and ensuring a bright and sustainable future for the organization. Moyn’s essay takes direct aim at all three.
It threatens the people we serve—and the funding that supports them. ASA’s more than 5,000 members serve older adults every day—many of whom are already marginalized. Moyn’s framing makes it easier for policymakers to cut funding for programs that support the most vulnerable. Teresa Ghilarducci’s research through the RELAB at The New School has documented that cuts to Medicaid put older Americans and their families at direct risk—a finding that gains even more urgency when prominent voices argue that older adults already “have too much.”
It undermines our anti-ageism work. ASA’s second pillar is dedicated to “shifting dominant narratives on aging and older adults via strength-based frames and messaging, while advancing solutions that tackle ageism.” Moyn’s essay normalizes the very ageist thinking ASA has been working to dismantle. The World Health Organization defines ageism as “stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination toward others or oneself based on age.” Moyn’s essay is textbook.
It erodes intergenerational solidarity—the very thing we need most. Here’s what Moyn fundamentally misunderstands: the challenges facing younger and older Americans aren’t in competition—they’re connected. Unaffordable housing, inadequate healthcare, stagnant wages, a fraying safety net—these are shared problems that demand shared solutions. The most promising innovations in aging, workforce development, and community building are happening when generations come together, not when they’re pitted against each other. Both younger and older people bring unique perspectives, a reality that programs like ASA Rise recognizes. ASA’s foundational principle is that “older people are experts, agents for change and storytellers who make our work successful.” The path forward isn’t generational warfare—it’s intergenerational partnership, with people of all ages at the table designing solutions that work for everyone.
What to Do Right Now
We don’t have to accept this framing. In fact, we have an obligation not to.
- Speak up—locally and often. When arguments like Moyn’s trickle down into your local newspaper, community blog, or regional publication—and they will—be ready to respond. Write a letter to the editor. Keep it under 200 words, be specific, lead with data, tell the stories only you can tell, and be civil—but be clear. Local publications shape local opinion, and local opinion shapes policy. The more voices that push back on ageist narratives wherever they appear, the harder it becomes to mainstream them. You don’t need a platform at the New York Times to make a difference. You just need to show up—in print, online, and in your community.
- Lead with evidence. When someone cites Moyn’s arguments, respond with data—NCOA’s 80% report, Ghilarducci’s retirement research, AARP’s discrimination data, Dr. Levy’s health outcomes research. Facts are our most powerful tool. I’ve compiled some links to research reports here.
- Champion intergenerational collaboration. Bring younger and older people together—in your workplace, your community, your organization. Start conversations across generational lines about shared challenges and shared solutions. The aging sector knows better than anyone that our greatest breakthroughs come when all generations have a voice.
- Protect the narrative. ASA’s strategic plan calls on us to advocate for “age-inclusive messages, institutional and government policies, and practices across sectors.” This is exactly the moment that mandate was designed for. When ageism shows up wearing a tweed jacket and Ivy League credentials, it’s still ageism—and it still demands a response.
The essay may have been published in the New York Times, but the final word belongs to us—the people who show up every day for older adults and for a more just, age-inclusive society. Moyn’s argument isn’t just wrong on the facts. It’s wrong on the values. And it’s our job to say so.
Janine Vanderburg is the CEO of Encore Roadmap, co-founder and champion of Changing the Narrative, winner of ASA’s 2024 Ageism and Culture Award, and a member of the American Society on Aging. She writes the LinkedIn newsletter “Slaying the Ageism Dragon.”
Photo credit: Shutterstock
