|
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. |
On December 03 2016 01:53 Makro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2016 05:06 Incognoto wrote:On December 02 2016 05:03 Furikawari wrote:On December 02 2016 04:57 Incognoto wrote:
Good riddance Hollande. fucker deserves prison Calm down kid. As far as we know he deserves jail far less than Sarkozy. He fucked up big time and did nothing that was expected from him, but that's not a reason to behave like a 12yo. nah why don't you calm down hollande's a fucker and i'm allowed to say that if i want. i'd very much like for him to be tried and get thrown into jail a bit as a traitor but we know that won't happen. he's going to live a fat cat life with a great ass pension when all he did was fuck france over for 4 years. he deserves prison, what he's going to get is the complete opposite so no and of course i'm a liberal because hollande deserves to live like a parasite off tax payer money when all he did was ruin the country you should expect the country to be ruined again by the next candidate but i don't get why he deserves prison (for me hollande is the second worst president ever, after sarkozy) until we find out years after some juicy drama
He was stupid enough to brag about war crimes (“targeted assassinations”) in his last book, so here's a start.
|
On December 03 2016 04:51 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On December 02 2016 21:54 TheDwf wrote:On December 02 2016 20:30 Acrofales wrote:On December 02 2016 19:29 TheDwf wrote:On December 02 2016 14:37 maartendq wrote:On December 02 2016 05:58 Incognoto wrote:On December 02 2016 05:47 farvacola wrote:
The French seem to be the only people who can match the vitriol we Americans spew at each other when it comes to politics lol Well I mean I'm looked down upon like I'm a dog for saying that Hollande should face responsibility for his complete and total incompetence during his mandate. Go figure? geez man idk, France today is in a very, very rough spot. Literally nothing good happened, aside from gay rights (which is by the way another thing France sucks at, very homophobic country), over these past 4 years. Our political clique is almost criminally incompetent and corrupt, I think I'm allowed to say as much. Not to defend Hollande (he is incompetent), but has it ever occured to you that it is really difficult to put a country on the right tracks when any kind of reform is immediately met with violent mass protests? This typical right-wing myth fails to mention that antisocial bills still pass even with mass protests, violent or not. That was the case in 2010 for the retirement age, that was the case for the loi Travail this year. However, certain social categories can indeed block bills which threaten their interests. Hint: they're not your average Joe/worker. Raising the retirement age isn't anti-social. Putting an undue financial burden on young people due to the decreasing job market coupled with people living longer is anti-social. You have less than before for the same effort, it's definitely a social regression for workers. Living longer ≠ being able to work longer (especially as companies don't want old people, supposedly too costly and not productive enough...). Funding problems are created through revenue shortfall (high level of unemployment + companies get exonerations for the sake of competitiveness, with little to no effect). After that, wave the “debt! debt!” flag and reduce rights/pensions because TINA. Rince/repeat until budget balance comes back. You've created lots of poor pensioners, some people burnt their health (or even their life) at work, but eh, budget is balanced. Isn't it what matters? Having "less than before for the same effort" isn't automatically a social regression because social progress isn't synonymous with working less or having more stuff. When the living expectancy rises and annual work hours go down we can expect people to work longer. Yes it is. Literally. Reducing work time is one of the oldest demands of the labour movement and one of the main metrics for social progress. And when you go from situation A, in which you could retire at 60 with X annuities required, to situation B, in which you have to wait 62/63/65 with even more annuities (so retiring later, and on average with a weaker pension because the conditions are harder to meet), it is social regression. Fillon wants to raise the legal age of retirement to 65 years. That was the legal age in effect in… 1910. That is the literate definition of regression.
I don't really know why you think that the French labour movement has the universal monopoly on what constitutes social progress. Scandinavian countries have moved away from fixed pension ages to flexible ones that emphasize the shifting economy from rigid job structures to more flexible ones. Many people want to work and are still physically and mentally able to but can't because rigid labour laws stop them for participating.
We should shape the economy in a way that makes working a good experience, not prohibit people from working at all with some fixed age that completely neglects that individuals make vastly different choices in the labour market.
|
On December 03 2016 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 04:51 TheDwf wrote:On December 03 2016 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On December 02 2016 21:54 TheDwf wrote:On December 02 2016 20:30 Acrofales wrote:On December 02 2016 19:29 TheDwf wrote:On December 02 2016 14:37 maartendq wrote:On December 02 2016 05:58 Incognoto wrote:On December 02 2016 05:47 farvacola wrote:
The French seem to be the only people who can match the vitriol we Americans spew at each other when it comes to politics lol Well I mean I'm looked down upon like I'm a dog for saying that Hollande should face responsibility for his complete and total incompetence during his mandate. Go figure? geez man idk, France today is in a very, very rough spot. Literally nothing good happened, aside from gay rights (which is by the way another thing France sucks at, very homophobic country), over these past 4 years. Our political clique is almost criminally incompetent and corrupt, I think I'm allowed to say as much. Not to defend Hollande (he is incompetent), but has it ever occured to you that it is really difficult to put a country on the right tracks when any kind of reform is immediately met with violent mass protests? This typical right-wing myth fails to mention that antisocial bills still pass even with mass protests, violent or not. That was the case in 2010 for the retirement age, that was the case for the loi Travail this year. However, certain social categories can indeed block bills which threaten their interests. Hint: they're not your average Joe/worker. Raising the retirement age isn't anti-social. Putting an undue financial burden on young people due to the decreasing job market coupled with people living longer is anti-social. You have less than before for the same effort, it's definitely a social regression for workers. Living longer ≠ being able to work longer (especially as companies don't want old people, supposedly too costly and not productive enough...). Funding problems are created through revenue shortfall (high level of unemployment + companies get exonerations for the sake of competitiveness, with little to no effect). After that, wave the “debt! debt!” flag and reduce rights/pensions because TINA. Rince/repeat until budget balance comes back. You've created lots of poor pensioners, some people burnt their health (or even their life) at work, but eh, budget is balanced. Isn't it what matters? Having "less than before for the same effort" isn't automatically a social regression because social progress isn't synonymous with working less or having more stuff. When the living expectancy rises and annual work hours go down we can expect people to work longer. Yes it is. Literally. Reducing work time is one of the oldest demands of the labour movement and one of the main metrics for social progress. And when you go from situation A, in which you could retire at 60 with X annuities required, to situation B, in which you have to wait 62/63/65 with even more annuities (so retiring later, and on average with a weaker pension because the conditions are harder to meet), it is social regression. Fillon wants to raise the legal age of retirement to 65 years. That was the legal age in effect in… 1910. That is the literate definition of regression. I don't really know why you think that the French labour movement has the universal monopoly on what constitutes social progress. Scandinavian countries have moved away from fixed pension ages to flexible ones that emphasize the shifting economy from rigid job structures to more flexible ones. Many people want to work and are still physically and mentally able to but can't because rigid labour laws stop them for participating. We should shape the economy in a way that makes working a good experience, not prohibit people from working at all with some fixed age that completely neglects that individuals make vastly different choices in the labour market.
Beautifully said.
|
On December 03 2016 04:51 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On December 02 2016 21:54 TheDwf wrote:On December 02 2016 20:30 Acrofales wrote:On December 02 2016 19:29 TheDwf wrote:On December 02 2016 14:37 maartendq wrote:On December 02 2016 05:58 Incognoto wrote:On December 02 2016 05:47 farvacola wrote:
The French seem to be the only people who can match the vitriol we Americans spew at each other when it comes to politics lol Well I mean I'm looked down upon like I'm a dog for saying that Hollande should face responsibility for his complete and total incompetence during his mandate. Go figure? geez man idk, France today is in a very, very rough spot. Literally nothing good happened, aside from gay rights (which is by the way another thing France sucks at, very homophobic country), over these past 4 years. Our political clique is almost criminally incompetent and corrupt, I think I'm allowed to say as much. Not to defend Hollande (he is incompetent), but has it ever occured to you that it is really difficult to put a country on the right tracks when any kind of reform is immediately met with violent mass protests? This typical right-wing myth fails to mention that antisocial bills still pass even with mass protests, violent or not. That was the case in 2010 for the retirement age, that was the case for the loi Travail this year. However, certain social categories can indeed block bills which threaten their interests. Hint: they're not your average Joe/worker. Raising the retirement age isn't anti-social. Putting an undue financial burden on young people due to the decreasing job market coupled with people living longer is anti-social. You have less than before for the same effort, it's definitely a social regression for workers. Living longer ≠ being able to work longer (especially as companies don't want old people, supposedly too costly and not productive enough...). Funding problems are created through revenue shortfall (high level of unemployment + companies get exonerations for the sake of competitiveness, with little to no effect). After that, wave the “debt! debt!” flag and reduce rights/pensions because TINA. Rince/repeat until budget balance comes back. You've created lots of poor pensioners, some people burnt their health (or even their life) at work, but eh, budget is balanced. Isn't it what matters? Having "less than before for the same effort" isn't automatically a social regression because social progress isn't synonymous with working less or having more stuff. When the living expectancy rises and annual work hours go down we can expect people to work longer. Yes it is. Literally. Reducing work time is one of the oldest demands of the labour movement and one of the main metrics for social progress. And when you go from situation A, in which you could retire at 60 with X annuities required, to situation B, in which you have to wait 62/63/65 with even more annuities (so retiring later, and on average with a weaker pension because the conditions are harder to meet), it is social regression. Fillon wants to raise the legal age of retirement to 65 years. That was the legal age in effect in… 1910. That is the literate definition of regression.
More work isn't necessarily a bad thing... I've found I'm personally happier the more work I'm doing most of the time. I fully expect to retire late if at all.
That said, there's another side to this argument: the more people work, the healthier the economy will be. So yeah, maybe idleness is a goal of social progress... but it's also possible that we are engaged in writing checks we can't cash. People live longer, and that means caring for them in their old age is a burden that society must pay. To me, having older people help to pay that off and not continue to screw the young would be a really nice thing.
Edit: Agree Nyx makes a solid point as well.
|
Gotta like all this liberal wannabee that thinks work is an infinite resource and we havce some for everybody. Maybe some people should open their eyes. Raising retirement to 65? Great idea when half the people find a job after 55. But I bet u all smarter than this, arent you?
|
Well work is literally an infinite resource in the sense that everybody at least in principle can create work, it's not some limited resource you dig out of the ground, work and jobs are constantly being reinvented. It's not a zero sum game. If you can create something and you manage to sell it to someone else you've created more work and employment. There's not some fixed number of jobs that everybody needs to compete for, at least if society creates the right environment for people to actually be innovative.
Especially the digital economy has largely eliminated naturally and finite resources as a factor, which is a huge opportunity.
|
Nice theory. And also, amazing how it works well considering people thinking like you have all power for centuries...
|
It's not just a theory, you make it sound like we're living in the gold rush ages where all wealth is somehow just lying around and we just need to distribute it. If this were true cities would be a miserable place to live and everybody in the rural countryside would be living in luxury. The opposite is true, wealth today is created through work and intellectual effort more than at any time before and the regions with the highest density and influx of people are often the one's doing best, while countries with high braindrain are doing terribly.
This is the same logic that lies behind the immigration scare, while in reality regions with high immigration rates are just simply attractive and create more prosperity as they move forward people somehow act like there is some limited pie they desperately need to fight for.
|
On December 03 2016 04:54 Incognoto wrote:
We should all retire at 55 years, just like EDF and SNCF! So great working for the state, you're so much more privileged and you're also not private-sector liberal scum.
Life expectancy is longer than before? No problem, the young will pay! 35 hours / week? God please no, let's work less and create less wealth. That will for sure make France great again!
Early retirment ages in public sector tend to be bullshit but if I understood correctly Fillon wants to raise the retirement age for everyone (why would you say that before the election btw? sounds reckless) which is bad for blue collar workers since usually human bodies age faster than human minds. People who work in services probably want to work longer but expecting physical workers with no education to work till 65 is uh... problematic. Raising the retirement age will force them to change their jobs to something less profitable unless you'll legally force their employers to keep such flawed workers which is also bad because A) they aren't as productive as younger people and B) younger people can't get their jobs.
My country raised the retirement age to 65 recently and that was one of the main reasons why the party responsible for that change lost the elections. If you do that (or promise to do that) don't be surprised when the poorest will tell you to fuck off and cast their vote for Le Pen, Trump or Kaczyński.
|
On December 03 2016 06:10 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 04:54 Incognoto wrote:
We should all retire at 55 years, just like EDF and SNCF! So great working for the state, you're so much more privileged and you're also not private-sector liberal scum.
Life expectancy is longer than before? No problem, the young will pay! 35 hours / week? God please no, let's work less and create less wealth. That will for sure make France great again! My country raised the retirement age to 65 recently and that was one of the main reasons why the party responsible for that change lost the elections. If you do that (or promise to do that) don't be surprised when the poorest will tell you to fuck off and cast their vote for Le Pen, Trump or Kaczyński.
PO raised retirement age to 67, PIS lowered it to 65 for men and 60 for women.
|
|
|
On December 03 2016 06:10 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 04:54 Incognoto wrote:
We should all retire at 55 years, just like EDF and SNCF! So great working for the state, you're so much more privileged and you're also not private-sector liberal scum.
Life expectancy is longer than before? No problem, the young will pay! 35 hours / week? God please no, let's work less and create less wealth. That will for sure make France great again! Early retirment ages in public sector tend to be bullshit but if I understood correctly Fillon wants to raise the retirement age for everyone (why would you say that before the election btw? sounds reckless) which is bad for blue collar workers since usually human bodies age faster than human minds. People who work in services probably want to work longer but expecting physical workers with no education to work till 65 is uh... problematic. Raising the retirement age will force them to change their jobs to something less profitable unless you'll legally force their employers to keep such flawed workers which is also bad because A) they aren't as productive as younger people and B) younger people can't get their jobs. My country raised the retirement age to 65 recently and that was one of the main reasons why the party responsible for that change lost the elections. If you do that (or promise to do that) don't be surprised when the poorest will tell you to fuck off and cast their vote for Le Pen, Trump or Kaczyński.
Yet most countries have a retirement age of 65. Why are they able to make it work but not France or Poland? I don't see a problem with older people taking a job where they're less productive. They can take a pay cut in line with their reduced productivity. There's nothing wrong with that. They've already had their most expensive phase in life.
A lower retirement age for women than for men is stupid. Most women live longer and should actually have a higher retirement age.
|
I didn't mean to say that it's impossible or wrong. My point was that blue collar workers will oppose such change and it is wrong to think they're wrong in not wanting to take a pay cut for the greater good.
|
Let me reassure on something: most French public sector workers don't work physically however they still retire on average 10 years before their private sector counterparts.
Here's another example. In France, family allowances (you have kids, you receive money from the state) in the private sector is indexed on the number of children you have and your salary. If your income is too high, you lose your family allowances. In the public sector, the more children you have and the higher your salary, the more family allowance you get.
it is wrong to think they're wrong in not wanting to take a pay cut for the greater good.
So it's wrong that anyone not want to pay more taxes for the greater good?
That said, there's probably something to be said about people who work physically. They shouldn't go from 16 to 60+ (though my uncle did that, unfortunately he's fucking liberal scum since he ran a small plumbing / electricity company and employed people, today he still works btw and he does all the physical work himself, but yeah according to TheDwf and Furikawari he's an asshole) working physically, at least not if it is very difficult physical work. It's still possible to work physically when old, you just aren't as efficient and to be quite frank you're probably better off passing that experience to younger generations. Mechanization and automation mean that work is becoming less and less physical either way however. I think there are intelligent ways to employ older people, one way is to pair them up with young people with little experience. The old person can pass on what they know to the younger person, the younger person does the physical labor and the older person can lay back a little. Older people are also able to work as foremen before retiring, this is something I've seen before. They can also work part-time. What's for sure is that more flexible labor laws would help in this area.
Nyxisto is posting a lot of things I agree with wholeheartedly. He's able to convey what he has to say politely, neutrally and effectively. I should probably take a leaf out his book.
|
On December 03 2016 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 04:51 TheDwf wrote:On December 03 2016 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On December 02 2016 21:54 TheDwf wrote:On December 02 2016 20:30 Acrofales wrote:On December 02 2016 19:29 TheDwf wrote:On December 02 2016 14:37 maartendq wrote:On December 02 2016 05:58 Incognoto wrote:On December 02 2016 05:47 farvacola wrote:
The French seem to be the only people who can match the vitriol we Americans spew at each other when it comes to politics lol Well I mean I'm looked down upon like I'm a dog for saying that Hollande should face responsibility for his complete and total incompetence during his mandate. Go figure? geez man idk, France today is in a very, very rough spot. Literally nothing good happened, aside from gay rights (which is by the way another thing France sucks at, very homophobic country), over these past 4 years. Our political clique is almost criminally incompetent and corrupt, I think I'm allowed to say as much. Not to defend Hollande (he is incompetent), but has it ever occured to you that it is really difficult to put a country on the right tracks when any kind of reform is immediately met with violent mass protests? This typical right-wing myth fails to mention that antisocial bills still pass even with mass protests, violent or not. That was the case in 2010 for the retirement age, that was the case for the loi Travail this year. However, certain social categories can indeed block bills which threaten their interests. Hint: they're not your average Joe/worker. Raising the retirement age isn't anti-social. Putting an undue financial burden on young people due to the decreasing job market coupled with people living longer is anti-social. You have less than before for the same effort, it's definitely a social regression for workers. Living longer ≠ being able to work longer (especially as companies don't want old people, supposedly too costly and not productive enough...). Funding problems are created through revenue shortfall (high level of unemployment + companies get exonerations for the sake of competitiveness, with little to no effect). After that, wave the “debt! debt!” flag and reduce rights/pensions because TINA. Rince/repeat until budget balance comes back. You've created lots of poor pensioners, some people burnt their health (or even their life) at work, but eh, budget is balanced. Isn't it what matters? Having "less than before for the same effort" isn't automatically a social regression because social progress isn't synonymous with working less or having more stuff. When the living expectancy rises and annual work hours go down we can expect people to work longer. Yes it is. Literally. Reducing work time is one of the oldest demands of the labour movement and one of the main metrics for social progress. And when you go from situation A, in which you could retire at 60 with X annuities required, to situation B, in which you have to wait 62/63/65 with even more annuities (so retiring later, and on average with a weaker pension because the conditions are harder to meet), it is social regression. Fillon wants to raise the legal age of retirement to 65 years. That was the legal age in effect in… 1910. That is the literate definition of regression. I don't really know why you think that the French labour movement has the universal monopoly on what constitutes social progress.
Nor do I know why you make this comment, since I never claimed that; but don't pretend it's a purely French thing.
Scandinavian countries have moved away from fixed pension ages to flexible ones that emphasize the shifting economy from rigid job structures to more flexible ones. Many people want to work and are still physically and mentally able to but can't because rigid labour laws stop them for participating.
We should shape the economy in a way that makes working a good experience, not prohibit people from working at all with some fixed age that completely neglects that individuals make vastly different choices in the labour market.
There are already ways to work past retirement in France, so the prohibition you talk about doesn't exist. Only 7% of people between 60 and 70 work like this though, and most of them do so for financial reasons. I would be extremely surprised if other developed countries didn't have similar ways to extend one's professional life.
|
On December 03 2016 06:37 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 06:10 Sent. wrote:On December 03 2016 04:54 Incognoto wrote:
We should all retire at 55 years, just like EDF and SNCF! So great working for the state, you're so much more privileged and you're also not private-sector liberal scum.
Life expectancy is longer than before? No problem, the young will pay! 35 hours / week? God please no, let's work less and create less wealth. That will for sure make France great again! Early retirment ages in public sector tend to be bullshit but if I understood correctly Fillon wants to raise the retirement age for everyone (why would you say that before the election btw? sounds reckless) which is bad for blue collar workers since usually human bodies age faster than human minds. People who work in services probably want to work longer but expecting physical workers with no education to work till 65 is uh... problematic. Raising the retirement age will force them to change their jobs to something less profitable unless you'll legally force their employers to keep such flawed workers which is also bad because A) they aren't as productive as younger people and B) younger people can't get their jobs. My country raised the retirement age to 65 recently and that was one of the main reasons why the party responsible for that change lost the elections. If you do that (or promise to do that) don't be surprised when the poorest will tell you to fuck off and cast their vote for Le Pen, Trump or Kaczyński. Yet most countries have a retirement age of 65. Why are they able to make it work but not France or Poland?
The question isn't “why wouldn't it work here”. It's a social choice, there is no economic law set in stone somewhere demanding that retirement is to be taken at 65 for all countries.
I don't see a problem with older people taking a job where they're less productive. They can take a pay cut in line with their reduced productivity. There's nothing wrong with that. They've already had their most expensive phase in life.
A lower retirement age for women than for men is stupid. Most women live longer and should actually have a higher retirement age.
Women have smaller pensions on average because they are paid less and suffer from part-time work and discontinuities more than men. In France, the average pension of a woman is only 58% of the average pension of a man (the gap is a bit smaller for recent generations, but it's still quite large). Rising their legal retirement age would be absolutely ridiculous given how unfair the current situation already is.
|
On December 03 2016 07:58 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:On December 03 2016 04:51 TheDwf wrote:On December 03 2016 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On December 02 2016 21:54 TheDwf wrote:On December 02 2016 20:30 Acrofales wrote:On December 02 2016 19:29 TheDwf wrote:On December 02 2016 14:37 maartendq wrote:On December 02 2016 05:58 Incognoto wrote:On December 02 2016 05:47 farvacola wrote:
The French seem to be the only people who can match the vitriol we Americans spew at each other when it comes to politics lol Well I mean I'm looked down upon like I'm a dog for saying that Hollande should face responsibility for his complete and total incompetence during his mandate. Go figure? geez man idk, France today is in a very, very rough spot. Literally nothing good happened, aside from gay rights (which is by the way another thing France sucks at, very homophobic country), over these past 4 years. Our political clique is almost criminally incompetent and corrupt, I think I'm allowed to say as much. Not to defend Hollande (he is incompetent), but has it ever occured to you that it is really difficult to put a country on the right tracks when any kind of reform is immediately met with violent mass protests? This typical right-wing myth fails to mention that antisocial bills still pass even with mass protests, violent or not. That was the case in 2010 for the retirement age, that was the case for the loi Travail this year. However, certain social categories can indeed block bills which threaten their interests. Hint: they're not your average Joe/worker. Raising the retirement age isn't anti-social. Putting an undue financial burden on young people due to the decreasing job market coupled with people living longer is anti-social. You have less than before for the same effort, it's definitely a social regression for workers. Living longer ≠ being able to work longer (especially as companies don't want old people, supposedly too costly and not productive enough...). Funding problems are created through revenue shortfall (high level of unemployment + companies get exonerations for the sake of competitiveness, with little to no effect). After that, wave the “debt! debt!” flag and reduce rights/pensions because TINA. Rince/repeat until budget balance comes back. You've created lots of poor pensioners, some people burnt their health (or even their life) at work, but eh, budget is balanced. Isn't it what matters? Having "less than before for the same effort" isn't automatically a social regression because social progress isn't synonymous with working less or having more stuff. When the living expectancy rises and annual work hours go down we can expect people to work longer. Yes it is. Literally. Reducing work time is one of the oldest demands of the labour movement and one of the main metrics for social progress. And when you go from situation A, in which you could retire at 60 with X annuities required, to situation B, in which you have to wait 62/63/65 with even more annuities (so retiring later, and on average with a weaker pension because the conditions are harder to meet), it is social regression. Fillon wants to raise the legal age of retirement to 65 years. That was the legal age in effect in… 1910. That is the literate definition of regression. I don't really know why you think that the French labour movement has the universal monopoly on what constitutes social progress. Nor do I know why you make this comment, since I never claimed that; but don't pretend it's a purely French thing. Show nested quote +Scandinavian countries have moved away from fixed pension ages to flexible ones that emphasize the shifting economy from rigid job structures to more flexible ones. Many people want to work and are still physically and mentally able to but can't because rigid labour laws stop them for participating.
We should shape the economy in a way that makes working a good experience, not prohibit people from working at all with some fixed age that completely neglects that individuals make vastly different choices in the labour market. There are already ways to work past retirement in France, so the prohibition you talk about doesn't exist. Only 7% of people between 60 and 70 work like this though, and most of them do so for financial reasons. I would be extremely surprised if other developed countries didn't have similar ways to extend one's professional life.
Then why not just be honest and let the law reflect reality? This is also true for the 35 hour work week. It hasn't reduced workload in France especially because low income earners simply cannot live on it and it pushes them into unregulated or even black market work. So not only does it not accomplish anything, it's actually harmful. The Hartz reforms in Germany are something everybody likes to rant about but at least they got people back into the work. The problem was not to make work more flexible but to neglect the welfare state and public investment.
Labour policies of the 60's don't work any more fifty years later, so instead of taking it to the streets every time someone actually says that out loud find some sensible compromise and modernise the system. France seems in dire need of this. It's not exactly popular but I don't think there's any other way to fix the employment situation.
|
Incognoto you don't understand me. I'm trying to say that it is wrong to expect them to support a solution that makes their life harder for the greater good. You can't blame them for voting for someone who promises to get the money needed for pensions from other sources, e.g. from the employers, budget cuts or the magic 1%. Objectively raising the retirement age might be the most optimal solution but it's not the only solution and it's not a solution that will satisfy everyone.
|
On December 03 2016 08:09 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +I don't really know why you think that the French labour movement has the universal monopoly on what constitutes social progress. Nor do I know why you make this comment, since I never claimed that; but don't pretend it's a purely French thing.
You specifically said:
Yes it is. Literally. Reducing work time is one of the oldest demands of the labour movement and one of the main metrics for social progress.
Which pretty much means that the French metric of social progress, working less, is one of the main metrics of social progress. It comes quite close to saying that France has it right and everyone else has it wrong when it comes to labor laws.
It seems you're unable to admit that some people would like to work more and earn more, work longer and keep the fruits of their work (their salary) in their pockets. It also means that people would like to employ people who work more and earn more, after all what's being proposed is loosening labor laws, not lowering the minimum wage. You demonize work as if it's human slavery when some people legitimately want to work. The way it works in France is that if you don't fit the mold of "I want to work 35 hours a week and not a minute more" or "I want to employ people who are more productive than the bare minimum", then French society (well, not all French society) violently riots.
On December 03 2016 08:35 Sent. wrote:
Incognoto you don't understand me. I'm trying to say that it is wrong to expect them to support a solution that makes their life harder for the greater good. You can't blame them for voting for someone who promises to get the money needed for pensions from other sources, e.g. from the employers, budget cuts or the magic 1%. Objectively raising the retirement age might be the most optimal solution but it's not the only solution and it's not a solution that will satisfy everyone.
No solution satisfies everyone, which is why liberals like me like for solutions where people are more accountable for themselves and don't benefit from state welfare to live. I don't care much for solidarity myself when it basically means "hey, you're middle class, cough up and also fuck you and your family allowances, by the way your kids are going to inherent a debt-ridden country". Whenever you have egalitarian measures, you're just fucking one group over to gain the favor of another group. That's hardly what I call solidarity, it's just a racket. Don't talk about the 1%, they're shits who don't pay taxes and the government is full of crooks who conveniently overlook that.
Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is, lol
|
On December 03 2016 06:41 Sent. wrote:
I didn't mean to say that it's impossible or wrong. My point was that blue collar workers will oppose such change and it is wrong to think they're wrong in not wanting to take a pay cut for the greater good.
They'll have to take the pay cut either way. Due to the increased costs either taxes or the insurance premium will rise. Either that or government has to cut somewhere else and they lose out that way.
It's not just for the greater good it's for their children as well.
On December 03 2016 08:09 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 06:37 RvB wrote:On December 03 2016 06:10 Sent. wrote:On December 03 2016 04:54 Incognoto wrote:
We should all retire at 55 years, just like EDF and SNCF! So great working for the state, you're so much more privileged and you're also not private-sector liberal scum.
Life expectancy is longer than before? No problem, the young will pay! 35 hours / week? God please no, let's work less and create less wealth. That will for sure make France great again! Early retirment ages in public sector tend to be bullshit but if I understood correctly Fillon wants to raise the retirement age for everyone (why would you say that before the election btw? sounds reckless) which is bad for blue collar workers since usually human bodies age faster than human minds. People who work in services probably want to work longer but expecting physical workers with no education to work till 65 is uh... problematic. Raising the retirement age will force them to change their jobs to something less profitable unless you'll legally force their employers to keep such flawed workers which is also bad because A) they aren't as productive as younger people and B) younger people can't get their jobs. My country raised the retirement age to 65 recently and that was one of the main reasons why the party responsible for that change lost the elections. If you do that (or promise to do that) don't be surprised when the poorest will tell you to fuck off and cast their vote for Le Pen, Trump or Kaczyński. Yet most countries have a retirement age of 65. Why are they able to make it work but not France or Poland? The question isn't “why wouldn't it work here”. It's a social choice, there is no economic law set in stone somewhere demanding that retirement is to be taken at 65 for all countries. Show nested quote +I don't see a problem with older people taking a job where they're less productive. They can take a pay cut in line with their reduced productivity. There's nothing wrong with that. They've already had their most expensive phase in life.
A lower retirement age for women than for men is stupid. Most women live longer and should actually have a higher retirement age. Women have smaller pensions on average because they are paid less and suffer from part-time work and discontinuities more than men. In France, the average pension of a woman is only 58% of the average pension of a man (the gap is a bit smaller for recent generations, but it's still quite large). Rising their legal retirement age would be absolutely ridiculous given how unfair the current situation already is.
The situation isn't unfair. Women work less so they get less. In that way pensions work exactly how they should. If you think that it's a problem that women get paid less and work more part time then try to fix that. Trying to fix it via changing the pension system is a bandaid and a terrible one at that.
Fun fact: In The Netherlands young women (under 30) make more than young men. This is actually explained by the fact that they're better educated so I think it's fine. Dutch source though. In the long term the wage gap (and in extension the pension gap) will most likely fix itself.
www.cbs.nl
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
