AAFRP

By Kevin

Many nonprofit organizations have special chapters for children. But as far as I can tell, AARP doesn't. As flush with cash as they are, they could have websites, literature, and meetings for children grandchildren to teach them all about the benefits of pro-elderly activism.

But the parents of these children are likely to be younger and working; they are definitely not of one mind regarding the policies AARP would like to see enacted or maintained. In fact, the median view of this younger group is likely opposite to many policies AARP lobbies heavily for.

Of course, the AARP openly discriminates against the young--i.e. those who are younger than 50. They can be members, but only "associate members" who get no benefits, and only if they "support the association's goals and objectives", which in the libertarian view are evil..

How can one effectively oppose this goliath?

What if the 87.5% of the U.S. population not in AARP formed an association to further their own interests. This organization would discriminate against those older than 50--call it the American Association of Future Retired Persons, or AAFRP. It would profit and lobby like the AARP; it would solve shirking and collective action problems in the same way that AARP does, by jointly producing activism and selling personal services.

I'm not certain that another tremendously powerful lobbying organization--even one that opposes AARP--is something that would work out well in the long run. In particular, time would put an AAFRP at a clear disadvantage to AARP, since every member of AAFRP would eventually be eligible for AARP... Given the relative rise in the retiree/worker ratio, maybe a feeder organization is not such a good idea.

-- January 10, 2005 1:26 PM |

Comments

pettydemon wrote:

This article illustrates exactly why I am not renewing my AARP membership. There is a serious discrepancy between the policies that AARP leaders and directors have decided to back and my own views. I have received no good answer when I inquired who selected these policy positions. I have not seen any polling in the AARP literature that indicates that these leaders have the backing of the majority of their members.
Here there lies a more general problem, often typical of unions - there is a serious discrepancy between the interests of two or more large components of their membership. WHile the dictatorial attitude of the current leadership may carry on for a while, it is my belief that in the long run, boomers and later will not find it appealing.

-- January 11, 2005 2:21 PM ∞

triticale wrote:

The AARP is actually a front for an insurance company, and the policies they advocate are intended to maximize their profits. I send back every invitation they have sent me since I turned fifty, in the enclosed postage paid envelope, informing them that I will not join until they start working for the right for retirees to carry concealed firearms. I haven't gotten anything from them in a while now.

-- January 11, 2005 5:18 PM ∞

cjharr wrote:

I agree with the open discrimination policy of having to be 50 or older to enjoy full benefits regardless if you are retired or not. Not everyone, who is retired, are over the age of 50. Another reason is the name that AARP is using.
American Association of Retired Persons(the key word is RETIRED). They should not have used the word Retire in their name. IMO Anybody who is retired should have full eligibility.

-- May 6, 2005 8:18 PM ∞

Post a comment