gutter_trash
Banned
it starts with 2 then will be 2 more then it will be 2 moreAlthane said:
next thing you know people will be only eligible at 75
France to run out of fuel in days as strikes escalate
- Thread starter NotWii
- Start date
- Status
next thing you know people will be only eligible at 75
MonkeyMoves
Banned
Personally I think people should start working on the day they are born and work until the day they fucking die. And then maybe some more. And all of their money should go directly to the government. Also people should volunteer after working time to help the people who are involved in the government. Work is pretty important.
But that's just me.
But that's just me.
caffeinated
Member
I think she is right.
CharlieDigital
Banned
gutter_trash said:
There should definitely be an upper limit, but it makes sense to me given that the average lifespan is increasing. If one day, due to medical advances, the average male lifespan is 100, should the retirement age stay at 60?
Aside from that, working in some capacity can have a positive effect for the elderly as it can help stave off Alzheimer's by keeping the mind engaged intellectually and socially.
I'd like to see the governments design work programs with private industry (perhaps with some tax incentives) that specifically takes these individuals into account in terms of flexible scheduling, reduced hours, less physical work, and other adjustments.
On the other hand, I could see one big issue with raising the retirement age: less jobs for the younger generation as individuals along the entire career ladder end up employed for longer periods and thus not freeing up entry level jobs for the youth. This is bad for students and college graduates in terms of job availability, but also bad for businesses as more experienced workers will demand higher wages. And the effect is compounding in that if the youth have no jobs, they cannot spend to keep the economy moving forward. That is definitely a concern and a good balance has to be struck.
Like most political arguments, it often comes down to "slippery slope" posturing.
Also, it worked in 1995. Chirac proposed mild reforms and was met with such unrest that he backed off. Since then, the need for reform has only grown more costly. So if the French think they can defeat this again, in 10 years they will be facing even deeper cuts and less benefits.
GaimeGuy said:
Because most European countries have a higher pension age. In the Netherlands the current pension age is 65 years old, in 2020 that will be 66 years old and five years later 67. No one went on strike because it was a necessity in order to be able to finance the whole system. That's why there's not much sympathy for countries where the population can retire a lot earlier and rather have the system explode than add a few years to the pension age. An early retirement setup simply isn't possible when productivity is going down, the birth rate is dropping and the elderly live longer than ever.
The reality is that those kids who are now protesting against raising the pension age to 62 will ultimately pay the price sometime in 2050.
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
wmat said:
If you think these strikes will do anything to stop the retirement age from moving then you are wrong.
Too many European countries get away with incredibly generous retirement options. Those days are over, our generation will be working to 75 easily.
And fyi people, it's not simply "retiring at 62" that's being protested
Under current rules, both men and women in France can retire at 60, provided they have paid social security contributions for 40.5 years - although they are not entitled to a full pension until they are 65.
Sarkozy is trying to raise the retirement age to 62, the qualificaiton to 41.5 years, and the pension age to 67. The biggest issue people have is the qualification being raised to 41.5 years: That hurts people who have been on unemployment, as well as part time workers and women (maternity leave). It becomes harder to quality for retirement, it's not just about how long you have to wait to retire.
Protesters argue that anyone who has ever spent time unemployed will struggle to fulfil the time requirement. THAT is the major point of conflict.
Under current rules, both men and women in France can retire at 60, provided they have paid social security contributions for 40.5 years - although they are not entitled to a full pension until they are 65.
Sarkozy is trying to raise the retirement age to 62, the qualificaiton to 41.5 years, and the pension age to 67. The biggest issue people have is the qualification being raised to 41.5 years: That hurts people who have been on unemployment, as well as part time workers and women (maternity leave). It becomes harder to quality for retirement, it's not just about how long you have to wait to retire.
Protesters argue that anyone who has ever spent time unemployed will struggle to fulfil the time requirement. THAT is the major point of conflict.
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
KevinRo said:
What about it can you not believe? IMO the public may win the occaisional battle but governments will usually get what they want since they're the only entity with any real say in the matter. The public can protest and riot as much as they want but all that does is disrupt their lives and eventually they'll get bored and the government will win. Maybe not today but in the long view they'll always win. As someone else noted, they public may win this one but then the problems will be even worse in 10 years time, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
CharlieDigital
Banned
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
I meant you're wrong in general when you say that "people will never ever win versus a government, the gov simply cannot allow it".Jedeye Sniv said:
The retirement age in France will definitely move, sure. It's a necessity, and most countries have a higher age.
But you're just not right when you say that the government is always right because might is right. It's a stupid blurb! No offense meant.
The full pension age in France is already 65 years old. You can retire at 60, but you can't receive a full pension until 65 (67 if sarkozy's changes are implemented). So yeah, they're not being whiny pricks who have it better than you (I assume you live in the netherlands)ymmv said:
lunarworks
Member
Think "Americans protesting healthcare reform."2San said:
People are stupid globally.
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
CharlieDigital said:
Ah, but that was a very very long time ago. I sincerely believe that the whole concept of 'revolution' is null and void in today's age. If you think it's possible then more power to you, enjoy being crushed under heel.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
Enjoy already being crushed under the heel.Jedeye Sniv said:
Saying that you don't believe in working towards a common goal with others against the will of the authority means you're either content with the status quo you've oscillated towards or that you're slave material.
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
wmat said:
None taken, but I do believe that governments will nearly always win versus the people, especially in the 21st century. If a government caves in to public opinion once (on a big important issue, like a war or this pension reform) then every controversial decision will be protested and the country would become unproductive. Governments have routinely told us how it's going to be for the past 30 or 40 years rather than the other way around. When voting all we are doing is voting for a different dude in a suit (educated at the same places as his rivals, obviously) and when protesting all we are doing is making noise.
// end disillusionment
wmat said:
It means that after my teens and early 20's I understand with crystal clarity that there is bugger all we can do to change anything. Culture and politics are moving in the same direction to ensure that there is no real alternative to our system of government, and even worse is that most people are so disengaged that they can barely even articulate this feeling of disillusionment if they want to.
Depressingly it seems that western culture has (for the time being) solidified into this bland, monolithic beast. In the past there were many valid ideologies being explored by passionate people, today it seems those battles have all been fought, we just have to live here now.
fortified_concept
Banned
Althane said:
It's also 65 to 67 and even if it wasn't why should they accept it? I don't understand this sad defeatist attitude of some people where their answer is always "oh well" every time the government screws them.
Look, I don't agree with the French high schooler, but to think that all of them are uninformed or don't know what they are protesting against is quite arrogant.2San said:
From what I've read so far, they argue that in a shitty economy, they can't find a job after graduating from university. When you are in your mid twenties, struggling to get a job and you are probably the first person to get laid off (because you are young), the 41.5 year employment is quite hard to reach before 67.
CharlieDigital
Banned
I'm actually curious to see if there's some economic research into the impact of earlier retirement in terms of creating opportunities for younger workers as older workers retire. Certainly, that has to be balanced with the financial burden or providing for social welfare for the elderly (and pensions for workers), but with the right balance, I'd hypothesize that it could lead to economic growth by allowing the younger, entry level workers to earn a wage and get started with the life and increasing their purchasing power (including buying homes and all of the economic activity that goes along with that). The young are more apt to spend more than the elderly; there may be some fulcrum where it makes sense to encourage the elderly to retire to open jobs for the youth.
If you look at it from this perspective, then, it is hurting them as it decreases their job opportunities by keeping older folks employed, longer.
2San said:
If you look at it from this perspective, then, it is hurting them as it decreases their job opportunities by keeping older folks employed, longer.
Exactly.CharlieDigital said:
It's not as simple as some people are making it out to be, you don't necessarily have to up the retirement age as time goes on.
Think about it people, what would you rather the government spent money on?
A bunch of resource demanding youths without jobs or some docile elderly people that won't burn up cars and start riots?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/r...lth-care-costs-national-debt-credit/19674778/
So, I guess that's the fire you play with by holding on to these earlyish retirement benefits. You could threaten the credit rating of your country, then you end up losing them anyways as debt collectors demand you make changes once the bottom falls out (like what happened in Greece).
empty vessel
Member
Sir Fragula said:
Why should retirement age scale with life expectancy? The point of a society undertaking organized wealth creation--which is what economic systems like capitalism or socialism are intended to achieve--is to reap benefits that make our individual lives less arduous. Our lives are less arduous today because of the contributions to social wealth creation from generations past. So, too, do we contribute to making future generations' lives easier. Retirement age can and should be considered one way in which we make our lives easier. If it scales with life expectancy, our work as a society is being wasted (or misused/maldistributed). In short, raising the retirement age is a step backwards.
That's not to say that raising the retirement age might never become necessary and/or be a good idea, but I would be skeptical of any proposal that suggests it necessary not just to maintain the status quo, but to go backwards. It is like being called into the boss's office and being told that it is necessary for the sake of the company that I take a pay cut. That may be the case, but I would be interested to learn first whether it was truly necessary or whether, e.g., executives are cutting my salary but not their own. Typically, raising the retirement age is a way to accomplish an end that puts the pain of doing so on a certain class of people and which saves those better placed (and more powerful) in the society from taking a hit. It may be an easy way to accomplish the goal of reducing costs, but it probably isn't the best or most equitable.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
It only seems that way to you since you have no battles to fight. I'm sure you'd be on the streets in no time if a governmental decision severely impacted something you depend on or want. Well, unless you're, again, slave material.Jedeye Sniv said:
The latter is certainly possible; nowadays, slave labour is pretty much the norm, and people are properly conditioned to 'deal with it'. I'm not disputing that it's hard to break out of this condition, but as history tells us, it's not impossible; there's a switch to flip for everyone out there.
What you're dismissing is the grade of the severity of outcomes. Meaning that as soon as an outcome is so severe that a government breaks down because of it unless things are re-negotiated, public protest is successful.
And that, in turn, is a matter of methods and numbers. There is a point where every government will break down. The latest point where this happens is acts of violence against the state, just like history shows. A reenactment of the storming of the Bastille is imaginable, given enough people and a substantial disagreement. You can't black-ops 30k people storming the White House, for instance. You can't block them with police. You can't not negotiate at that point, or get replaced.
Of course I'm doubtful that this is such a hot topic. But that doesn't mean you're right in general.
It's a very complex matter and won't give easy solutions.CharlieDigital said:
One example: Not every retiree is a burden to the economy. Many old folks do some unpaid work in their community or are engaged in club activity. Some help young families with parenting, some do scientific researches for free. Those activities are underestimated, but help the economy greatly (if paid, it would cost billions).
Edit: So idealistically, the retire age doesn't have to go up gradually, if the society (or the government) can motivate the elderly to contribute more to the society after reaching the retire age.
CharlieDigital
Banned
empty vessel said:
Good point, bro.
Neo C. said:
Definitely true; some will start businesses, they will continue to spend, they may volunteer, etc. But I'd say that by and large, they are a net minus in terms of economic contribution (not all, but a sizable majority).
Mercury Fred
Banned
<3 les Français!
Vive la France!!!
Vive la France!!!
I don't think the French should be chided or looked down upon because they want to maintain a lifestyle where life does not revolve around work. If they want to work less and retire earlier than everyone else (in the future), than more power to them. It would be a depressingly boring world if the end result of globalism is a species of people that all behave, think and act the same.
That being said, they also have to realize that having such a lifestyle is going to cost them more. So, they shouldn't squabble when their taxes will be among the highest in the world to maintain this lifestyle.
That being said, they also have to realize that having such a lifestyle is going to cost them more. So, they shouldn't squabble when their taxes will be among the highest in the world to maintain this lifestyle.
fortified_concept
Banned
ToxicAdam said:
First of all, this is the blackmail and fearmongering the politicians, bankers and corporate media want the people to believe. Most of it is bullshit, if the bankers don't want a country to "plummet" it won't. Second, what happened to Greece was premeditated. The free market is not free and is being manipulated to execute the plans plans of a few. Greece is used as an example for the citizens of Europe to scare them into submission and as laboratory like Chile was in the 70s.
As some have already mentioned, I think much of how valid these strike are comes down to how much the retired can contribute to society.
And that's the big word: contribution. While I'm entirely of the belief that you can't keep a low-retirement age forever and that people shouldn't irrationally believe in that ideal, there's something bothersome about modern civilization where anyone retired are deemed or even expected to be unproductive and there are never solutions to capitalize on their capabilities/knowledge and by proxy generate some kind of base stability for their healthcare needs.
Is there ever any discussions of any kind of social mechanism that allows for a lessening of responsibilities or a better allocation thereof with age instead of the black and white concept of work vs. not work? Maybe it's just me, but the idea that one of the major long term goals of work is to hit a certain point where we can all go into fuck-all mode seems somewhat strange, if not poisonous.
And that's the big word: contribution. While I'm entirely of the belief that you can't keep a low-retirement age forever and that people shouldn't irrationally believe in that ideal, there's something bothersome about modern civilization where anyone retired are deemed or even expected to be unproductive and there are never solutions to capitalize on their capabilities/knowledge and by proxy generate some kind of base stability for their healthcare needs.
Is there ever any discussions of any kind of social mechanism that allows for a lessening of responsibilities or a better allocation thereof with age instead of the black and white concept of work vs. not work? Maybe it's just me, but the idea that one of the major long term goals of work is to hit a certain point where we can all go into fuck-all mode seems somewhat strange, if not poisonous.
Smiles and Cries
Member
mauvaises nouvelles pour la France?
what will Pepe do?
what will Pepe do?
This really is along the same lines:
When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
People across Europe and the U.S. have laid all of their economic woes at the feet of the rich, and of government. The only politically viable way for the economies of the West to recover is to do so without (seeming to) take benefits away from the middle/lower classes.
Most young people nowadays were born and raised with the gravy train running full steam ahead. They can't even contemplate a Great Depression where each family member has a nail and a single outfit of clothing, where food is rationed, and where people work as long as they are physically capable. Whatever solution the government comes up with cannot involve taking benefits away from them, not while there exists people who are better off. Sadly it may take a failed Revolution for the reality of our situation to hit these people, which obviously is going to make things much, much worse.
When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
People across Europe and the U.S. have laid all of their economic woes at the feet of the rich, and of government. The only politically viable way for the economies of the West to recover is to do so without (seeming to) take benefits away from the middle/lower classes.
Most young people nowadays were born and raised with the gravy train running full steam ahead. They can't even contemplate a Great Depression where each family member has a nail and a single outfit of clothing, where food is rationed, and where people work as long as they are physically capable. Whatever solution the government comes up with cannot involve taking benefits away from them, not while there exists people who are better off. Sadly it may take a failed Revolution for the reality of our situation to hit these people, which obviously is going to make things much, much worse.
fortified_concept
Banned
nyong said:
Failed revolutions rarely make things worse. Even when they fail, revolutions intimidate the ruling class and force them to rethink their plans.
fortified_concept said:
It's hard to take your words seriously when you shroud them in conspiracy-theory language.
But, despite that, you may be right. What happened to Greece is a seperate issue and is really being used as political shorthand for what can happen when a government doesn't exert fiscal responsibility for it's people. It's highly doubtful that a situation that happened in Greece would happen in France, but maybe a lesser version of that.
demosthenes
Member
Wii said:
http://www.independent.ie/world-new...fuel-in-days-as-strikes-escalate-2383646.html
:lol
Gotta love the french, they don't take shit from their government
The rest of the world can learn a thing or two from them instead of making old frog jokes
Some places apparently have mountains of garbage because the garbage collectors are on strike as well :lol
VIVA LA FRANCE!
60 to 62 and they're freedom fighters?
- Status