Incoming senators are nearly 15 years younger than departing ones, on average. But the chamber’s overall age isn’t shifting much.
Nov. 7, 2026Updated 3:17 p.m. ET
When the new Senate convenes in January, it will welcome some (relatively) young new legislators. A few are even millennials, including James Talarico of Texas, 37, and Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan, 42, two Democrats who may have energized young voters to turn out.
But their effect on the average age of the Senate — which has crept up over the last few decades — will be small. The senators of the 120th Congress will be less than a year younger, on average, than the Senate’s current members were at the start of the 119th Congress two years ago. That’s because so many sitting senators are old, and getting older.
These numbers assume that Mary Peltola and Scott Colom will win their races in Alaska and Mississippi; they were both ahead in the vote count Saturday. (If both lose, the Senate’s average age will land at 63.6.)
Now do it by privilege (aka wealth).
That’s actually really, really, surprising.
So of the entire 2018 Congress, fewer than half were millionaires.
That’s much better (as in, favorable to the proletariat) than I had ever thought.
A million dollars net worth isn’t really that much, in 2026. That’s attainable by mid-50s for practically any white male born in a suburb with just a modicum of additional luck on their side.
Given the reality of housing costs in the northeast, that’s basically being debt free + owning a house + a small retirement account.
A million bucks just doesn’t buy what it used to.
To be honest, I’d be skeptical of a white guy in his 50s with a law degree (or even an advanced understanding of law/finance/history) whose not a millionaire.
There should be term limits
It’s harder to argue for an age limit, because the issue of representation comes up. There are even pensioners’ parties here and there. The Netherlands, for instance, has a party called 50 Plus that represents people 50 and above. It wouldn’t be surprising if those voters wanted to elect someone over 70 to represent them.
It’s also easier to argue for term limits since they’re already in use for the presidency. Maximum age limits are uncommon all around the world
I do understand that this still wouldn’t prevent people like Sleepy Don or Mitch McFrozen from taking office though… But then you look at Bernie Sanders and he’s not sleepy at all. If anything, he’s at the peak of his career. So there’s my conundrum.
EDIT: Maybe it should be like a driver’s licence, where you have to do a medical check-up every few years! You fail it, you lose it. But something like that would be vulnerable to corruption
Personally I don’t like this because to me it violates a fundamental principle of Democracy and removes power from the people.
The negative side of this is when Representatives are doing a great job, why risk jumping ship to a less known quantity? If my Rep is someone like AOC, then by golly I’d want her for life if she maintained my support.
The real root of the problem resides in campaign finance & election reform, where newcomers are at a disadvantaged state facing an incumbent. This can almost mathematically be offset if this aspect of the system is corrected.
As far as age limits go, here in America we already have age-minimums. Can’t be a House Rep until 25; Senator until 30; President until 35. Clearly there is no representation for anyone below 25 whatsoever and their future in this world. That also skirts the real problems with the literal meaning of aging: cognitive and physical decline. While people may not need to be at peak performance, there are so many more probabilistic risks with those past retirement age / pensioners that it becomes a liability. Not only that, they’re less invested in the future because they’re frankly not long for this world. That said, given my belief here contradicts my take on giving power to the people, I’d say lift all age constraints and again fix the campaign finance / election reform system so the electorate is actually more responsive to political stagnation.
Voters should also be able to (a) Recall any Congressperson, House and senate, and (b) There should be federal-level referendum measures to enable direct / participatory voting by the people – even if the threshold is at a higher bar, like 65% or 70%.
Term limits sound great on the surface, but they come with a host of their own issues
itll climb back up.
people build trust on one candidate and keep voting them back in while they age. that is how the last layer happened.
retirement at 60 for people who have contributed to the system for 40 years.
So it’s 60 only if you started working at 20. Isn’t this just punishing people for getting education?
Not really, you get to spend extra years not producing labor other people can retire on (the entire goal of the economic system basically) before starting your duty to the elderly and if you choose a good degree, you’ll be rewarded for it quite well once you’re part of the leech/retirement class. Balances out.
and if you choose a good degree, you’ll be rewarded for it quite well
Good salary shouldn’t be the only motivation to pursue education. Teachers, historians, environmentalists, physicists, social workers… They all need education but don’t make good money. Should we just stop deepening our knowledge about people and the world because there’s no financial incentive to it? Mechanics and construction workers are also important but I don’t think they should have advantage over teachers when it comes to retirement age.
Falls to 63
Reminds me of the time I found an animal lighter than an elephant
65 should be the maximum for newly elected officials, forced retirement at 70, and strict term limits. They can hold advisory roles after that, but should be excluded from directly making decisions which they’ll never experience the consequences of.
Don’t set a definitive age. Pin it to some percentage of life expectancy; say, 90%. Want to stay in office longer? Make it so everyone lives longer.
In your state, specifically.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯, that’s an implementation detail.
A ‘career politician’ should be socially, utterly untenable.
That’s not really related to the maximum age thing.
I say the oldest you can serve as an elected official should be 62, which is when the government itself says it’s time to withdraw social security benefits.
At the very least apply term limits for senators, governors, and judges.
The actual full retirement age to start taking Social Security without a penalty is 67. You can start taking it as early as age 62, but that’s with a significant penalty so the amount you get per month will be permanently a lower number. If you wait until after 67 you would be rewarded with a higher monthly amount, which maxes out at age 70.
I was aware of that. My whole point is that 62 is the age the government decided when citizens can start to access retirement benefits, well then that’s when elected officials should serve their term by.
imagine giving a shit about something other than yourself and planting trees whose shade you will never know, or having pride in creating a better world. lol cuck shit.
obviously we shouldn’t let people like that make our decisions at any age.
If those were the gerontocrats we were dealing with, nobody would be concerned about this.
Down from 65.
Was it 65 just before the midterms or 65 when the current congress got elected?
Because it’s going to be 65 by the next election cycle if it’s 63 right now. That would mean no real progress if the 65 was just before midterms.
Isn’t that when corporations have decided that you are no longer useful and you are forced to retire. Finding a new job at that age is laughable.
And yet, people seem to think 80 is a proper age for running a country and deciding laws.
I still think Congress should have a mandatory age limit at whatever they set Social Security at.
They chose when that age should be, they need to adhere to it. Not sure what the mechanism would be to prevent them from raising that just to let them stay longer though, gotta think of some sort of negative that would balance it out.
While we’re at it, they get the same Medicare coverage as anyone else, not the super special cover everything plan they do now. Again, they get what they determined is good enough for everyone else.
yeah the social sevurity thing seems like it would create some incentives we don’t want.
do like the medicare thing.
You don’t want an effective retirement age of …checks Wikipedia …95 (Chuck grassleys age at the end of his term in 2028)?
Huh, I guess you must be lazy. These silly forgotten generation kids just don’t know how to work anymore. /s
its true. I work almost as little as a congressman. why do you think I have so much time for posting?
So you want to give them incentive to raise the retirement age for two reasons?
With no more elected for 2 years…
a few will die. inevitable at that age. special elections/appointments will happen.
Yes, but the average age dropping by 2 years where most are staying for 4 is not a real age drop.
Generally, the longer they’ve been in office, the more likely they’re corrupt. And, as a side effect, they’re older.
Age correlates with corruption, but does not cause it. Money is power and power corrupts.
Term limits would help mitigate corruption. It’s why we have term limits for the President, and we should have the same for Congress.
Term limits can also help cause corruption. You can really get that revolving door spinning. You can really encourage people to think about what they’re going to do after their Senate job.
It’s why we have term limits for the President
No, you have term limits for the president because Congress thought FDR was too popular. This is, however, why every other democracy has term limits for the President.
Wow, they are spring chickens now
That’s like going from dust to retirement. Hooch change, very hooch.
Wow, that must mean they’ve got fifty odd 30 year olds
