121–130 of 835 posts
This is another example of how the state gets its numbers wrong, promising something it can not deliver without bankrupting the country. France is not alone, other country's have raised the pension age, but other countries use their food legislation to keep the population docile, high house prices to keep people from protesting for fear of losing a roof over their head, and other tactics people are getting wise to an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a lot of people assume that pension systems ought to or actually do work as savings/investment systems, like private 401(k)s do. So you pay into the system when you're working age, your money is saved, then it is paid out to you later.
After seeing the pensioners in my home country living in poverty because of economic crisis destroying their pensions, the government using pension money as if it was its own, and being actively hostile to pensioners by delaying trials to pay the pension money fairly waiting for them to die, I will take a 401(k) over that always, my money is mine and no one else's.
You can always lose your money. Best to accept that and not worry too much.
The french pension reform attempts have been going on for decades . I remember in the mid-90s a huge, weeks- (months-?) long public transit strike which, funnily enough, kick-started Parisian's interest in roller-blading (and led to the awesome weekly Friday-night roller-blading tour [1]. If it's your thing, I highly recommend it! But be prepared to have to go over some cobblestone sections) France's system has the w…
I really don't understand this reform. However for me to understand it, one would need an 8 hour video stream full of spreadsheet with an actual expert working on that reform.
And no media is ready to do that
The french pension reform attempts have been going on for decades . I remember in the mid-90s a huge, weeks- (months-?) long public transit strike which, funnily enough, kick-started Parisian's interest in roller-blading (and led to the awesome weekly Friday-night roller-blading tour [1]. If it's your thing, I highly recommend it! But be prepared to have to go over some cobblestone sections) France's system has the w…
French here: Though the problem is well known (at least for 40 years), No french governments has considered diversifying the source of the revenue funding the pension system. Actually its worse as the only capitalisation existing are in a process to be nationalised. Moreover, this reform is purely the outcome of political game. Macron electorat is mainly the 'boomers' who fully beneficiated of th situation ( in fact…
This is another example of how the state gets its numbers wrong, promising something it can not deliver without bankrupting the country. France is not alone, other country's have raised the pension age, but other countries use their food legislation to keep the population docile, high house prices to keep people from protesting for fear of losing a roof over their head, and other tactics people are getting wise to an…
France already has high taxes and amazing work-life balance. I don't know much about state of medical industry to comment. However, if its not completely terrible, then raising the retirement age seems like the only knob that could be turned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it isn't a sustainable system. This is wrong. We have an institute that has one mission. Evaluate its sustainibility, and it disagrees with you.
We should make a list of organizations that have one mission and fail in that mission. It would take much time.
So it's why polls quite unanimously report that 70% of the population is opposed of this reform on a quite developer friendly axiom : "When it ain't broken don't try fix it!"
Bonus fun fact 1 : Even with the cherry picked scenario of our gov the system might be in slight imbalance starting 2027 while it's currently balanced. To put this in perspective 10 years ago the same organisation predicted a great imbalance for today.
Bonus fun fact 2 : The 70% rejection poll is an average. One of the only group that is less rejecting the reform consist of already retired people. There is a growing resentment against baby boomers in the xyz generation.
This is another example of how the state gets its numbers wrong, promising something it can not deliver without bankrupting the country. France is not alone, other country's have raised the pension age, but other countries use their food legislation to keep the population docile, high house prices to keep people from protesting for fear of losing a roof over their head, and other tactics people are getting wise to an…
France pension system isn't close to bankruptcy. It needs some adjustment but pushing retirement age isn't the only option. Also one thing to understand is that there are two criteria to get a full pension
1. work 43 years (this used to be 36.5 but has been increased 10 years ago), so we're not feeling this yet
2. be at least 62
The reform wants to push 62 to 64 in 2. The problem is that educated people will already retire after 64 because of the first constraint. So this reform targets explicitly those who started to work younger, and who are also those with lower life expectancy and with the hardest job. This is unfair. At the same time, France (as in French citizen) has never been as rich in history as it is now. There should be better wealth redistribution here. It's very apparent when you look at the numbers.
Another issue is employment. In practice, a lot of people struggle to find a job when they are 55+. These reforms will increase poverty in the country.
Last point. France isn't like the US were people are incentized to build equity for their retirement. The rule of the game here is that current employees pay for retirees and in exchange expect their pension to be taken care of when they are older. The rules are changing midway and people are upset about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the UK using pension funds?
It is (so is the US). But ultimately productive value from workers must be transferred to retired people. How exactly that happens, whether through deferred spending power (ie savings/investments) or through direct payments, it has to happen. Although I admit that there being other countries in the world does change the calculus a bit; it would be possible (albeit weird and unsustainable) for everyone in France to be…
In the more common model, you pay for the previous generation hoping that the next one will pay for you, and you need intergenerational agreement on what's a fair amount. You don't need that with the fund model, as you (usually) agree & know beforehand how much you'll pay and how much you'll get.
I'm fortunate to not be part of it, but I'm pretty sure German employees are looking at France where rents are higher and retirement age is lower and think "hey, you can do that?". I guess we'll see whether you can (though, fair enough, Germany is a special case, the reunification cost a lot of money).
This is another example of how the state gets its numbers wrong, promising something it can not deliver without bankrupting the country. France is not alone, other country's have raised the pension age, but other countries use their food legislation to keep the population docile, high house prices to keep people from protesting for fear of losing a roof over their head, and other tactics people are getting wise to an…
>promising something it can not deliver without bankrupting the country. If the government can not get something basic like covering subsistence-level costs for its population over 62 working without bankrupting the country, the government is broken, the economic system is broken and shutting it down is an appropriate response. Technology and efficiency has caused labor productivity to increase [1] and that increase…
> The truth is that this trade surplus is not really a choice: it is the outcome of decentralised decisions made by millions of economic actors and in the absence of an adequate mechanism for correction. To put it simply: there is no pilot in the plane, or at least the pilots available are not very accurate.
The way retirement is done was broken from the start. If you have a fixed age, you will get issues when the population pyramid changes and fewer people are around to support the retired. What the system ought to be is: 1) Everyone who can't work gets a pension/state support/whatever you want to call it. If you get run over by a car at 25, you are on this list until you die and the state supports you. It's expensive,…
1) Everyone who can't work gets a pension/state support/whatever you want to call it. Of course, this creates a giant perverse incentive to get yourself classified as "can't work". Ask the US Social Security disability system how that goes.
There's no way around it though. Either you make a judgement about who gets a pension, or you just let people who've gotten paralyzed in an accident try to fend for themselves.