French protests about raising retirement age.

[Number Six]

I'm reading that there are protests in France over raising the retirement age from 60 to 62. To an American this sounds crazy. I'm assuming it's not crazy though. I mean, if I knew more about the situation maybe I'd still think that they should raised the retirementa age but at least I've have some understanding of the protesters. As it stands now I have none and it just looks crazy.

So what I'd like is some perspective. What is the reasoning behind the people that want to keep the age as it is? Do they think their tax structure can support it? Do they want to raise taxes to support it? Who does the burden fall onto? Etc.

 

[WildCat]

What is the reasoning behind the people that want to keep the age as it is?

They want to retire early and not work so much in the meantime.

Do they think their tax structure can support it?

Evidence they "think"?

Do they want to raise taxes to support it?

Maybe, if it's on Someone Else.

Who does the burden fall onto? Etc.

Someone Else.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the spoiled child effect. For years mommy would give her precious angel everything he asked for, but now mommy's piggy bank is empty and precious angel can't get everything he wants.... waaaah! Waaaaaah! Waaaah! etc.

 

[Francesca R]

The "European Dream" (as opposed to the American one) is centred on a notion that progress is partly synonymous with increasing leisure and beneficial entitlements. Dismantling any of that is a challenge to the ideal, which is felt by some Europeans more than others, in much the same way as increasing government provision in the US (such as of health care) violates the individualistic values of some Americans.

So opposition to increased working age--apart from the obvious self-interested one--arises because making old people work longer strikes some Europeans as a backing away from the relentless progress to civilisation.

No--European tax structures can't support it. If fertility rates were running at replacement level, or immigration was welcomed more broadly, or longevity was not increasing, or European economies were printing productivity growth rates considerably higher than they are . . . then it could be supported without the tax take having to climb relentlessly, and/or without sovereign debt climbing inexhorably. Unfortunately none of those mitigating factors is powerful enough to do it.

 

[DC]

when the retirement age of those working in State owned companies is also risen to the same level of the private sector, then i cannot understand their protest, when not i can understand it very well. But i don't know the details of Sarkozy's plan.

 

[geni]

I'm reading that there are protests in France over raising the retirement age from 60 to 62. To an American this sounds crazy. I'm assuming it's not crazy though. I mean, if I knew more about the situation maybe I'd still think that they should raised the retirementa age but at least I've have some understanding of the protesters. As it stands now I have none and it just looks crazy.

It's a touch more complicated than that. In particular you don't get the full state pension at 60. You don't get than untill 65 and thats being raised to 67.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

The "European Dream" (as opposed to the American one) is centred on a notion that progress is partly synonymous with increasing leisure and beneficial entitlements. Dismantling any of that is a challenge to the ideal, which is felt by some Europeans more than others, in much the same way as increasing government provision in the US (such as of health care) violates the individualistic values of some Americans.

So opposition to increased working age--apart from the obvious self-interested one--arises because making old people work longer strikes some Europeans as a backing away from the relentless progress to civilisation.

No--European tax structures can't support it. If fertility rates were running at replacement level, or immigration was welcomed more broadly, or longevity was not increasing, or European economies were printing productivity growth rates considerably higher than they are . . . then it could be supported without the tax take having to climb relentlessly, and/or without sovereign debt climbing inexhorably. Unfortunately none of those mitigating factors is powerful enough to do it.

It appears to be a protest against math as much as anything else -- i.e., much like the American knee-jerk reaction to anyone mentioning Social Security.

 

[uk_dave]

They want to retire early and not work so much in the meantime.


Evidence they "think"?


Maybe, if it's on Someone Else.


Someone Else.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the spoiled child effect. For years mommy would give her precious angel everything he asked for, but now mommy's piggy bank is empty and precious angel can't get everything he wants.... waaaah! Waaaaaah! Waaaah! etc.

I was going to object to your crass characterisation of a whole country, but it's the French so...ummmm..... carry on.

 

[Bikewer]

I had much the same question. NPR's The World has been covering this daily. On the face of it, a raise in retirement age of two years seems trivial.
However, on today's segment they indicated many high-school age kids were joining the protests. Much like here, they seem to think that the system will fail them and their children as well.
That this is just the first step in general cutbacks to the free education, health-care, vacations, and all the other benefits of French society.
They also don't like Sarkozy as he appears to be an "old school" politician, with conservative views towards immigration and a number of other social issues.

 

[lionking]

When the 65 year old retirement age was set in Australia, it was about the same as the average life expectancy. Now an average Australian can expect to live until 80, and the retirement age was recently increased to 67 (on a sliding scale, six months extra per year until the 2020s) without a whimper.

 

[plumjam]

I think the French are great in that they're unwilling to lie down and just take whatever the state-corporate-media nexus (run by the rich, and largely in the interests of the rich) dictates.
The UK* would be better for a bit more Frenchiness.
In recent years they've won some of their battles, and that nexus had to desist from shafting the general populace.


* The UK refinery blockades worked to some extent, and petrol rises were put on hold.

 

[Number Six]

I had much the same question. NPR's The World has been covering this daily. On the face of it, a raise in retirement age of two years seems trivial.
However, on today's segment they indicated many high-school age kids were joining the protests. Much like here, they seem to think that the system will fail them and their children as well.
That this is just the first step in general cutbacks to the free education, health-care, vacations, and all the other benefits of French society.
They also don't like Sarkozy as he appears to be an "old school" politician, with conservative views towards immigration and a number of other social issues.

Getting it is one thing and paying for it is another. The US has a giant budget deficit, which makes it hard to pay for things but I think the idea/hope is that the economy is way down and when it comes back we'll be better off. Is France the same way? If so, is optimism about the economy in the future behind the "Don't take it away" POV? If France won't have enough money to pay for it, do the protesters want to keep all the benefits and just pay higher taxes than they do now?

I mean, on one hand it could be sensible..."we want these things to be provided by our society out of taxes"...or it could be non-sensible..."we want these things and we neither know nor care how how they'll be paid for, but we just want them." I understand and expect that at least part of the protests have the latter non-sensible approach behind them, as just about any mass movement has some nuttiness to it, but I'm wondering if there is a more sober, intellectually respectable aspect to it.

Can France simply keep their current benefits but pay more in taxes and have it all turn out okay, or is it just crazy to even think they can keep their current benefits? I suspect there must be at least some respectability to the "keep the benefits" argument, although on the surface to an outsider it doesn't seem that way.

 

[plumjam]

How come we're supposed to believe we'll never have enough money for old people (most of whom have worked all their lives), yet we'll always have a trillion or so available to bail out bankers (most of whom have done little work for great reward in their lives) ?

I'm Ben Elton, goodnight.

 

[WildCat]

I think the French are great in that they're unwilling to lie down and just take whatever the state-corporate-media nexus (run by the rich, and largely in the interests of the rich) dictates.
The UK* would be better for a bit more Frenchiness.
In recent years they've won some of their battles, and that nexus had to desist from shafting the general populace.


* The UK refinery blockades worked to some extent, and petrol rises were put on hold.

As NozedAvenger already pointed out, it's not the "state-corporate-media nexus" they're fighting, but math.

 

[geni]

When the 65 year old retirement age was set in Australia, it was about the same as the average life expectancy. Now an average Australian can expect to live until 80, and the retirement age was recently increased to 67 (on a sliding scale, six months extra per year until the 2020s) without a whimper.

They've done something simular in the UK and I'm complaining (because I wish they would stop messing around and admit it's going up to 70).

 

[geni]

Getting it is one thing and paying for it is another. The US has a giant budget deficit, which makes it hard to pay for things but I think the idea/hope is that the economy is way down and when it comes back we'll be better off. Is France the same way? If so, is optimism about the economy in the future behind the "Don't take it away" POV? If France won't have enough money to pay for it, do the protesters want to keep all the benefits and just pay higher taxes than they do now?

They want other people to pay higher taxes. Tax rates in france are already pretty high. They could go higher in that they are not as high as sweden but thats risky.

I mean, on one hand it could be sensible..."we want these things to be provided by our society out of taxes"...or it could be non-sensible..."we want these things and we neither know nor care how how they'll be paid for, but we just want them." I understand and expect that at least part of the protests have the latter non-sensible approach behind them, as just about any mass movement has some nuttiness to it, but I'm wondering if there is a more sober, intellectually respectable aspect to it.

Can France simply keep their current benefits but pay more in taxes and have it all turn out okay, or is it just crazy to even think they can keep their current benefits? I suspect there must be at least some respectability to the "keep the benefits" argument, although on the surface to an outsider it doesn't seem that way.

Each individual benifit could probably be kept (recent changes to the UK's pension system now mean that it should actualy fall as a percentage of GDP which is another problem). However france has multiple issues. That very large public sector for example also has a lot of people comming up to retirement age which adds a further cost.

 

[geni]

As NozedAvenger already pointed out, it's not the "state-corporate-media nexus" they're fighting, but math.

The maths is secondary. We don't see politicians turning up on TV and doing 30 pages worth of live accounting and statistics. Which is what we would see if it was the maths that was the center of the issue. The current cuts agender is being pushed by people who've had that agender for years. After all budget cuts are only one approach. For example we could get serious about reducing tax evasion and avoidance. The UK could quite legaly institute dirrect rule in the Cayman Islands and slap a 20% corporation tax on the place which would certianly have an interesting impact on the world economy. In practice even efforts to reduce tax evasion have been rather pathetic.

It can certainly be argued that the nominal 20% tax to 80% ratio should instead be say 30% tax 70% cuts.

 

[GlennB]

As with the recent debate about "Greeks retiring at 55" the idea that the French "retire at 60" is simplistic. They can, in theory, retire at 60 on the State Pension if they have enought years of social security payments behind them. (41 I recall hearing the other day, or in the Greek example above, enough qualifying years in a designated hazardous occupation to earn that lower retirement age). Don't quote me on the actual numbers, but you get the gist.

Like many of we simple, naive types though, I suspect that a lot of French people always kind of 'assumed' that the State was tucking their contributions into a vast fund to provide for future pensions. Of course this was not true and - as Francesca has pointed out - pensions are paid out of current income. This chicken has come home to roost and the old system cannot work in today's Europe. So, yeah, those people protesting and striking are arguing against maths. If they're going to act like responsible politicians (gasp!) then Sarkozy, Papandreou and the rest have no option but to reform a.s.a.p. We Brits bit this particular bullet some years ago and will have to do yet more biting as time goes on ....

 

[Eddie Dane]

Maybe the French could all take up smoking and lower the life expectancy?
Or maybe start using crack. I hear you can buy it in the Paris "suburbs", so one could theoretically simultaneously raise the living standards there.

Oh wait, they're French. They'd be demanding free crack provided by the state within a month.

Never mind.

 

[WildCat]

Looks like things got violent overnight, lots of cars burned. I bet if they burn down the whole country prosperity is sure to follow! How could this plan go wrong?

 

[ddt]

As with the recent debate about "Greeks retiring at 55" the idea that the French "retire at 60" is simplistic. They can, in theory, retire at 60 on the State Pension if they have enought years of social security payments behind them. (41 I recall hearing the other day,

The French wiki page says (if I'm reading this correctly), indeed what you say: you need 40.5 years of paying into social security to be able to retire. If you have less, your state pension is cut by 10% per missing year.

Like many of we simple, naive types though, I suspect that a lot of French people always kind of 'assumed' that the State was tucking their contributions into a vast fund to provide for future pensions. Of course this was not true and - as Francesca has pointed out - pensions are paid out of current income.

Apart from a fund that was created in 1999 from the surpluses in payments, especially to counter effects of aging. Of course, this was too little too late.

It's also interesting to read that the French system started out, in the interbellum, as a funded system; but in 1941, the Vichy government needed money, expropriated the funds and started paying pensions out of current income. And once you're there, it's virtually impossible to go back.

This chicken has come home to roost and the old system cannot work in today's Europe. So, yeah, those people protesting and striking are arguing against maths. If they're going to act like responsible politicians (gasp!) then Sarkozy, Papandreou and the rest have no option but to reform a.s.a.p. We Brits bit this particular bullet some years ago and will have to do yet more biting as time goes on ....

Of course, the sensible thing to do would be to revert to a funded system, but that would mean an impossible strain on the government budget. And unfortunately, politicians are too short-sighted to make decisions on things like pensions that have consequences 40 years down the road. The polarization in French politics, where left-wing governments will often undo measures of their right-wing predecessors and vice versa, doesn't help much either.