Choosing the Right Leaders: Understanding Age, Experience, and Representation in Modern Politics.

How often must we stumble before we understand our actions? Many people no longer delve into our living environment, merely following the loudest voices. Are we choosing the right leaders based on age, experience, and character? The situation in the USA raises questions about electing elderly leaders like Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Can younger candidates like Kamala Harris provide better leadership?

How many more times do we need to stumble before we understand what we are doing? Sometimes I quietly wonder if we want or can see everything around us and assess it in a healthy way. Or are we just following the loudest voices? Are we only following our instincts now, or do we think that others around us always have our best interests at heart?

Who are we following now?

I have noticed for a while that many people no longer delve into our living environment. Yes, we see if the “ordinary” person fits in with us, or if we are entertained on time by the “clowns” around us who keep us busy with various amusements. But how is our life going, and who could improve it?

Are we choosing the right representatives?

For example, when we choose a new leader, how do we do that? What do we look for before making the right choice? Does the age of that person matter, should they have sufficient life experience? Should it be an independent person? Should it be a man, or could it also be a woman, and why? I have been looking with suspicion at the situation in the United States of America for quite some time. Repeatedly over the past years. They have been electing retired individuals as their leaders for a long time. Candidates for the position must also be of impeccable character. The person in question should never have spoken a harsh word, and corruption or lies are completely unacceptable. This makes me think of the current leaders in America and their potential successors.

Do you have enough knowledge to choose at all?

Picture: Theodore Roosevelt President of the USA 1901 (EW Magazine)

A few days ago, the eighty-one-year-old current president Joe Biden indicated that he no longer wanted to continue in the elections because he could no longer express himself well during the current election race. Remember that this president was already seventy-six when he was elected president. Most companies in the world do not need a man of that age in their workforce. In the Netherlands, the retirement age is sixty-seven. Of course, some workaholics continue to work past that age because they think they are indispensable or because they need the money. But most people stop working when they are entitled to do so.

Do you want to exchange one retiree for another?

His opponent, until a few days ago, was the seventy-eight-year-old Donald Trump, who is still in the race. Also, a man who has long since reached retirement age. A man who made his money in a way that many have criticized over the years, by acquiring real estate in the Manhattan district of New York. A man who is certainly no stranger to the necessary malpractices with that real estate. A man who has even been convicted. I have my doubts, do you? And this man will also be eighty-four when his legal term as president ends. What is the average life expectancy for a man in the USA? According to insiders, it is 76.1 years. In 2020, it was still 77, so the age is decreasing. In other words, will Trump even make it to Inauguration Day? A state funeral is also not cheap these days!

Does the "new" presidential candidate have the right life experience?

Kamala Harris, a fifty-nine-year-old woman from California, is currently vice president behind the recently resigned Biden. Before this position, she was a senator from the state of California, and before that, a state attorney. Kamala is the daughter of a Jamaican father and an Indian mother. This is, of course, not a problem in the land of unlimited possibilities, but her age. Fortunately, others who were even younger preceded her, such as: Theodore Roosevelt at 42 years and 322 days, John F. Kennedy at 43 years and 236 days, Bill Clinton at 46 years and 154 days, Ulysses S. Grant at 46 years and 311 days, and in 2009 Barack Obama at 47 years and 169 days (EW Magazine). Fortunately, these were not the least in our history.

Can we look to the future with Kamala with peace of mind?

Perhaps the trend of high age in presidential elections will be discarded after these elections, but then Mrs. Harris will have to be elected on the upcoming election day. We could still have the misfortune that this lady dies prematurely, but she is likely to have more understanding of the questions and living conditions of her peers and might be more familiar with the current issues that concern the world population. A woman in the prime of life is what the world needs, don't you think?

“Why Lifelong Learning Matters: Balancing Career Growth and Personal Fulfillment”

"Lifelong learning" is increasingly being promoted in the Netherlands. This concept stems from the rapid pace of global developments that are constantly rendering old jobs obsolete and creating new ones requiring new knowledge and techniques. Thus, continuous learning is the future. But who determines when, how, and what you will learn, and who covers the costs?

Are there subsidies?

Since I know I am now writing for a broad international audience (thank you all), I will briefly explain how it works in the Netherlands. In simple terms, like in many other countries, there are subsidies available for employers and employees to pursue education and training. This means that the costs do not always fall on the shoulders of employers and employees alone. Often, there are arrangements for employees as well. If the education or training is entirely relevant to the employee's work for the employer, the employer often covers these costs, which can then be deducted from their taxes.

Are the costs fairly distributed?

If the education is something from which the employee might personally benefit, they may have to cover part of the cost. Typically, if the employer contributes to these activities, the employee must sign a statement obligating them to stay with the employer for a longer period. Employers can refuse to cover costs if the benefits of the training or education are solely for the employee. Many employers adhere to this method, thus helping their employees advance in their careers. Of course, there are many exceptions, and many of you may not recognize these situations in your own countries. All these arrangements are designed to ensure that the employee grows, which in turn helps the employer's business grow, generally leading to more profit for the owner.

What does the average employee do with all these growth aspirations?

Often, employees are happy to be able to follow training and education, as it usually means continuity in their work and income. However, some employees find this "driving force" challenging. They prefer to continue their work in the "normal" way and will look for another job if necessary. They are not chasing more knowledge, power, and salary. They prioritize their home, family, and personal life. These exceptions are often the ones who ask their overly ambitious colleagues, "Do we live to work, or do we work to enjoy this beautiful world?"

Why do we live?

A beautiful philosophical question, but can you answer it for yourself directly? Do you live in a wonderful and loving family, or do you prefer to be at work? Do you work so hard to earn enough money to spend a few weeks each year in a beautiful exotic vacation paradise? Does this mean you only know those exotic places and barely your own surroundings? Are you one of those people who dares to say after retirement that they did everything right? The family is financially well off, the mortgage on an oversized house is almost paid off, your often dissatisfied children’s education is completed and paid for by you, and there's even a nice inheritance waiting for them because you think it's important, and they are looking forward to it.

Do you really go all out?

People who have retired often say, "So, it's done, now we can enjoy." Do you recognize these words from someone who is sixty-seven years old (the retirement age in the Netherlands)? Enjoying with stiff limbs, sleep apnea, poor vision and hearing. Really enjoying, having nothing more to do? Suppose you reach the fantastic age of eighty or older, then you have thirteen years, which is 5.15384 percent of your entire life, left to "enjoy your life." That 5.15384 percent is a lot compared to people in other parts of the world for whom retirement is a concept they will never reach or have. Know that I hold these people in high regard. But also think about those who respond to your comments by saying, "If you wanted to stop working earlier, you should have stopped earlier, started your own business, taken more risks."

Why didn’t you take risks?

After a lifetime of learning and raising several children, and all the tensions that came with it, you can finally enjoy your retirement. You did your best for all those people who were wiser, lazier, and more enterprising than you. As a civil servant or otherwise, the entrepreneurs you worked for throughout your life may have enjoyed and seen more of their surroundings, but you can be proud because you did everything to contribute to the world’s continuous learning and development. Proudly you sit in your senior chair by the geraniums, looking outside. Your children love you for their financial independence. You can barely see, hear, or walk. Your "old" employers were happy with you, and you discovered last month that the nature around your house is beautiful and something you have never seen before. Who is right, the worker or the enjoyer, you keep wondering.