|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
The new system will mechanically make pensioners poorer because
• the governemnt wants to freeze the global spending on pensions to at most ~14% of the GDP while the number of pensioners is projected to rise by something like 25% in the next decades: obviously each individual pensioner will get less with those numbers.
• the pension will be calculated on the whole career instead of the 25 best years (private) or the 6 last months (public). Since people have generally weaker wages at the beginning of the career, this will lower their pension.
The new system will be particularly unfair for people in precarity and/or with irregular careers (women in particular).
Life expectancy is increasing (well, not so much lately...) but not life expectancy in good health.
Something like the two thirds of people are already unemployed or on sick leave by 62 (the human body cannot stand forever...). Bosses don't want to hire seniors anyway.
As for people in some sectors having certain advantages, well, that's life. There are dozens of collective bargainings which result in advantage X or Y in such or such domain, some people have a 13rd month while others don't, some have more days off, etc. Oddly enough, neoliberals are only intestered in equality when it makes people's lives worse...
|
If life expectancy is increasing, either the retirement age goes up or individual pensions must be lowered. Unless you plan to have the working generation spend more money on the pension system as a whole. Which probably isn't feasable, considering the fact that, as you said, the percentage of pensioners as part of society is growing which makes funding the pension system even harder. And that is not even counting in the fact that, due to the increased life expectancy and advances in science, medical costs for western societies are rising every year.
In the end, something's got to give. The wealth we use to spend on the things we want, must be created by the working generations first.
|
On December 15 2019 07:31 Sr18 wrote:
If life expectancy is increasing, either the retirement age goes up or individual pensions must be lowered. Unless you plan to have the working generation spend more money on the pension system as a whole. Which probably isn't feasable, considering the fact that, as you said, the percentage of pensioners as part of society is growing which makes funding the pension system even harder.
It's feasible, it's just a matter of political choice: how much wealth you allocate to pensions. Macronists in particular and neoliberals in general don't want to increase it because it would cut into companies' profits (higher wages and/or pension contributions to maintain the living standard of pensioners), so they plan to impoverish pensioners instead. Not because of fatality, but because their political priority is business' sacrosanct "competitiveness".
For numbers. In blue the part of 65+ years old in the population, in orange the % of the GDP allocated to pensions, in grey the planned freeze at ~14% of the GDP by macronists:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Wealth is not infinite. According to the Forbes billionaires list, France has 41 billionaires with a combined wealth of roughly 500 billion USD (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_billionaires_by_net_worth, I added the values in my head so some calculating and rounding errors are possible). France had a GDP in 2018 of $ 2,780 billion. 14% of that is $ 389 billion. Bump up the pension expenses to 20% of GDP, and you need $ 556 billion, a yearly increase of $ 167 billion.
So if you keep spending more on pensions, you are going to run out of sources of taxation soon. Stripping all the French billionaires of all their wealth, assuming for a moment that you can, will only fund a pension increase from 14 to 20% of GDP for 3 to 4 years. And then what? Who are you going to tax next? The millionaires? And how long will their wealth fund the pension increase?
|
So your argument is, that the relative amount of pensioneers to workers raises.
Great, then provide me supportable X-ratio in the formula of the relation.
pensioneers/worker = X
Because I am not willing to raise the pension age without a guarantee to lower it again, once the boomer generation is dead and the resulting imbalance therefore is resolved.
Make a dynamic mechanism that doesn't make me lose out for something that is not going to be a problem in my generation.
![[image loading]](https://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/population-pyramids/austria-population-pyramid-2018.jpg)
(bottom of the pyramid gets more or less balanced through migration, so the development is probably going to be stable in the future; for boomers not even migration could balance it, that's why they are a problem for the pension system)
It is a temporary problem and although I am willing to pay (more) for my parents generation I do understand that not everyone thinks like that. But when I lose out on pension, not because it will be a problem for my generation but it was a problem before, then I'm going to be pissed.
|
Looking at not just the current sitation but also at the point in time where our generation retires is very sensible and fair as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure a guarantees for something that far away in time has much political value though. Who knows what we need to spend our money on 30-40 years down the line? I wouldn't trust the government of that time to always honor then decades old promises.
Also, the baby boom generation is not the only (maybe not even the biggest?) reason retirement age needs to be raised. The amount of money workers place in the pension fund is based on how long they will be receiving pension (though this depends on where you live). If, let's say, 30 years ago the average expected amount of pension receiving years was 10 and now it turns out it's 15, you can see how pension funds can't pay out all the pensions without either lowering the payout or increasing the retirement age.
|
On December 15 2019 20:36 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2019 07:31 Sr18 wrote:
If life expectancy is increasing, either the retirement age goes up or individual pensions must be lowered. Unless you plan to have the working generation spend more money on the pension system as a whole. Which probably isn't feasable, considering the fact that, as you said, the percentage of pensioners as part of society is growing which makes funding the pension system even harder. It's feasible, it's just a matter of political choice: how much wealth you allocate to pensions. Macronists in particular and neoliberals in general don't want to increase it because it would cut into companies' profits (higher wages and/or pension contributions to maintain the living standard of pensioners), so they plan to impoverish pensioners instead. Not because of fatality, but because their political priority is business' sacrosanct "competitiveness". + Show Spoiler +
If you put the additional burden on the companies (which has to be said in France social contributions per employee are already extremely high, IIRC among the highest in Europe in fact), then this will also come down on workers because whatever you're taking out of the corporate balance sheets will be passed down to wages, less hiring, and also less competitiveness internationally and so on.
As Sr18 points out, there is no magic money tree. Milking the billionaires only gets you so far (and is also really difficult as the french 'rich tax' collected barely any revenue), putting more burden on business has indirect effects on workers and consumers (which is to say everyone).
The amount of money required to stabilise the current pension systems is so large given how large of a percentage of the budget pensions are that the only way to fund it is through broad tax increases on the general population. If that's what you politically want that's fine but then at least everyone should be honest and talk about that trade-off rather then to pretend there's some sort of wellspring of money.
This is a general theme among very progressive people, they point to the welfare systems of say, Scandinavia without actually pointing out how heavy and broad the tax burden on the working population is.
|
|
|
That is an interesting stat. What are the drivers?
I will say that "years of work" is not a great metric on its own without correcting for work fraction over those years. A couple who both work 2-3 days a week seem like they would count for double the working years of a 9-5-5 breadwinner on that chart, without producing any more tax overall.
It seems likely that nations with better social nets would have more people working part-time. Adjusted FTE would be a lot more useful for that argument
EDIT: yeah it's a metric for workforce participation, it's a bit of a stretch to relate it to the tax base like that without more data
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Duration_of_working_life_-_statistics
As it is an average computed over all adults in the country, the indicator is heavily influenced by the number of inactive persons in a country. In other words, it does not make any claims about how many years the persons who are in employment work. It rather shows the combined effect of:
- what proportion of the adult population is in the labour market (being employed or unemployed) in each year of their life
- and the life expectancy.
|
On December 15 2019 21:33 Sr18 wrote:
Wealth is not infinite. According to the Forbes billionaires list, France has 41 billionaires with a combined wealth of roughly 500 billion USD (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_billionaires_by_net_worth, I added the values in my head so some calculating and rounding errors are possible). France had a GDP in 2018 of $ 2,780 billion. 14% of that is $ 389 billion. Bump up the pension expenses to 20% of GDP, and you need $ 556 billion, a yearly increase of $ 167 billion.
So if you keep spending more on pensions, you are going to run out of sources of taxation soon. Stripping all the French billionaires of all their wealth, assuming for a moment that you can, will only fund a pension increase from 14 to 20% of GDP for 3 to 4 years. And then what? Who are you going to tax next? The millionaires? And how long will their wealth fund the pension increase?
Pensions are not funded by taxes on billionaires' patrimony but with social contributions. A part of the wage is socialized to pay the pensions. You can decide to increase that (by rising wages or increasing the contribution rate), it's a matter of wealth distribution between capital and labour. Several points of added value have gone to the capital for a few decades in pretty much all countries, maybe it's time for workers to get it back to get decent pensions...
|
Trump slapped with sanctions everyone connected to the building of the gas pipes between Russia and Germany (the north stream).
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50879435 The US sanctions have also angered Russia and the European Union, which says it should be able to decide its own energy policies.
"As a matter of principle, the EU opposes the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business," a spokesman for the trading bloc told AFP news agency on Saturday.
Russia's foreign ministry also strongly opposed the move, with ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accusing Washington of promoting an "ideology" that hinders global competition.
The consortium behind Nord Stream 2 confirmed that it would build the pipeline as soon as possible, despite the sanctions.
"Completing the project is essential for European supply security. We, together with the companies supporting the project, will work on finishing the pipeline as soon as possible," it said.
However, Allseas, a Swiss-Dutch company involved in the project, said it had suspended its pipe-laying activities in anticipation of the sanctions.
https://www.dw.com/en/nord-stream-2-gas-pipeline-faces-sanctions-under-us-defense-bill/a-51641960 Washington pushes ahead with sanctions against the gas pipeline, claiming it strengthens Russia's grip on EU energy markets. In Germany the move is condemned as an "unfriendly act" to promote US commercial interests.
Under efforts to halt the construction of the $10.5-billion (€9.6-billion) Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, US lawmakers have imposed sanctions targeted primarily at companies providing pipelaying services to the project. The provisions were adopted on Wednesday as part of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which is an annual Department of Defense policy bill aimed at covering measures unrelated to defense.
The legislation gives the Trump administration 60 days to identify those companies and individuals providing such services, and allows for the revocation of US visas and the blocking of property of these individuals. It also gives 30 days to those targeted by the sanctions to wind down their operations.
for some reason i find it funny.
not that it happened, but because ... something something, i told you so; and it's funny because it's to late to care for it now.
US and EU are not unconditional allies, interests are interests, bullying is bullying and vassalage is still a thing(the dutch here).
i guess i find the cluelessness of people(those that have an opinion on the matter) on how geopolitics work(among perceived 'allies') as ... funny.
|
I'd love to hear you explain who this is people being clueless on geopolitics and not Trump being Trump, having complete disregard for anyone/anything that isn't him.
|
Also, why point out the Dutch specifically being vassals? The Dutch are the least interested in the pipeline as they have their own gas. Right now they also import gas, because pumping it out of the ground in Groningen is causing some problems, but all the infrastructure is there and they can switch the pumps back on over the backs of environmental and local protestations. So it's more likely the Dutch are acting entirely selfishly here in response to Trump's bullshit rather than cow towing.
|
bad move from the US because it only accelerates the idea pushed by Macron that the EU needs more independent policy and decouple from the US and if anything renormalises relationships with Russia. But expected from Trump who has shown to have absolutely no long term vision and doesn't understand that the most important leverage the US has is global trade. The same thing is also playing out in Asia where Trump's protectionism is driving countries into China's economic sphere.
With Italy already on board to sign onto China's belt and road infrastructure plans I can only imagine officials in Beijing are laughing their asses off whenever Trump makes a new enemy out of old allies.
|
- because Obama did it to the EU too(when EU tried to overreach in the Middle-East);
- selfishness between business partners, especially when there are commitments and investments involved is ... bad(credibility loss) to say the least, especially when your partners continue the project.
(i mentioned a while ago some 4-5 EU countries and implied that when there's a squabble between US and EU, will always side with the US because US owns their money/has more leverage there than the EU; Netherlands was in there).
- France is dying to normalize its relations with the russians and Germany is fine with that(they'd want more rules and regulations though). most of the opposition against France+Russia, comes from inside the EU(the eastern block and some central EU states).
Trump just signed a trade deal(a phase one) with the chinese; do you think he cares about or has warm and fuzzy feelings towards old 'allies'?.(US and China could've made plans to carve the EU like Germany and Russia did in the last century. Trump is in a position to hand them their (EU)belt on a silver platter and you'd be none the wiser)
the sooner you ditch the whole 'incompetent Trump' narrative, see him just as a front man for the cameras as he is, then ignore him/his statements, the faster you'll start to realize that what's happening behind US moves on geopolitics, economics and military deployments, is not only working, but it's also consistent with an agenda, a world view; a republican bent w.w. agenda)
|
Polish government has been opossed to NordStream ever since it was in planning stage. Noone here is going to lose sleep over Trump sanctioning compenies involved in it. Some might even clap. Nord stream (1 & 2) ARE NOT European Projects, they are direct attack on intrests of one of the EU members (Poland) in favor of intrests of Russia and Germany. They are also examples of double standards in EU, member states love to talk about Solidarity and Environment right up to the point when they have to take action or actually give up something. Then it stops being an EU matter and becomes "private companies doing buisness". Disgusting.
|
Russia is the biggest supplier of crude oil and gas to Europe by a huge margin so the reality that Russia is part of European energy security isn't some sort of grave betrayal but a geographical reality. There is a degree of hypocrisy involved in the differing treatment between South Stream and North Stream but NS itself isn't really that objectionable. It's not like the Eastern European motivation for opposing it isn't pretty nationalist, they know that it will weaken their political position if they're not part of the energy supply chain.
|
On December 25 2019 04:18 Nyxisto wrote:
Russia is the biggest supplier of crude oil and gas to Europe by a huge margin so the reality that Russia is part of European energy security isn't some sort of grave betrayal but a geographical reality. There is a degree of hypocrisy involved in the differing treatment between South Stream and North Stream but NS itself isn't really that objectionable. It's not like the Eastern European motivation for opposing it isn't pretty nationalist, they know that it will weaken their political position if they're not part of the energy supply chain.
That is the case with Ukraine, but is certainly not with Poland. I don't think Poland has ever threatened anyone with blocking the transit.
|
Russia is biggest supplier only because Germany & Russia keep sabotaging efforts to change that. It is in their interest, but it is also big "fuck You" shown to all EE EU members. Once Nord Stream 2 becomes active Russia will be able to tottally circumevent Slovakia with one switch -->meaning they will be able to supply enough gas to Germany/France/Italy etc. while supplying 0 to Slovakia. With some small cuts to western Europe suplies also tottaly shut off Poland. Russia already shown they are willing to use this card against Ukraine, we do not want to be in that position.
|
I think accusing Germany of sabotage isn't fair. Hypocrisy or selfishness yes, but sabotage is too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://blogs.alternatives-economiques.fr/system/files/inline-images/Figure.JPG)
