Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

French workers protest plan to increase retirement age

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 835 posts

Re: French workers protest plan to increase retirement age

#501

Post by pdntspa »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #304

In the US at least, the original retirement age, set in 1935, was 65. The average life expectancy was 60. Today in the US it's 77.8. In France, it's 82. As populations age into a higher percentage of retirees, the system is forced to cope with more people who are purely consumers, and contribute nothing to the system. In a post-scarcity world, this would not be a problem, but currently with the oldest generations own…

> and contribute nothing to the system

I'm sorry but I've contributed a fuckload of money to this system and I better be getting the value I paid for out of it when it comes to that time. These people are not 'consumers'

Re: French workers protest plan to increase retirement age

#502

Post by mynameishere »

jtr1 wrote: post #458
atleastoptimal wrote: post #304

In the US at least, the original retirement age, set in 1935, was 65. The average life expectancy was 60. Today in the US it's 77.8. In France, it's 82. As populations age into a higher percentage of retirees, the system is forced to cope with more people who are purely consumers, and contribute nothing to the system. In a post-scarcity world, this would not be a problem, but currently with the oldest generations own…

1. At least in the US, contributions to social security stop once you hit 160k, making it a regressive tax. Raise that cap and like magic, the system is solvent. 2. Growing home prices come from a lack of supply. And you’ve completely flattened an entire generation into one wealth class, which is a gross distortion of the facts.

That doesn't make it "regressive". The untaxed dollars after 160k don't count towards benefits.

Rather, the tax is extremely progressive due to the various "bends". As you contribute more into the system, they make the per-dollar value of your contributions go from .9 to .3 to .15.

Anyway, Social Security is fine. It's Medicare/Medicaid that's going to nuke the budget.

Re: French workers protest plan to increase retirement age

#503

Post by kaushikc »

gleenn wrote: post #386
spywaregorilla wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just because people died young. The mode (most common) age of death was over 75 in France for men in 1930. I'm not sure how WWII factors into that. It's now about 82, eyeballing it (yes, still higher). https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POPU_1204_0683--the-mos... People were not "old" and dying at appreciably higher rates given they reached age 60 back then. The general premise that there's a lot of rich old…

My understanding was that almost all countries with advanced economies are experiencing negative growth in producing children. So even if you are right about the nuance in age, go look at Japan. Their population is shrinking.

If the system is expecting population to grow infinitely and holding everyone to hostage for it then the system needs to change.

Re: French workers protest plan to increase retirement age

#505

Post by mc32 »

gleenn wrote: post #386
spywaregorilla wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just because people died young. The mode (most common) age of death was over 75 in France for men in 1930. I'm not sure how WWII factors into that. It's now about 82, eyeballing it (yes, still higher). https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POPU_1204_0683--the-mos... People were not "old" and dying at appreciably higher rates given they reached age 60 back then. The general premise that there's a lot of rich old…

My understanding was that almost all countries with advanced economies are experiencing negative growth in producing children. So even if you are right about the nuance in age, go look at Japan. Their population is shrinking.

I think the population distribution by age band in the different eras would illustrate why there was enough money then and insufficient money now.

The premise wasn’t that you the worker would pay your own retirement but that you would pay for the current crop of retirees and then when you retire the younger age bands would be paying for your retirement.

If the worker would be funding their own retirements then they have to pay in a whole lot more.

Re: French workers protest plan to increase retirement age

#506

Post by Seattle3503 »

supernova87a wrote: post #296
76384638 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I should not have said efficiently, as it really understates it. It's like if someone gets hired to work full time and then only works 20 minutes per week. Is that person committing fraud or just inefficient? What if the person gives part of their salary to their boss to look the other way? What if the person is a company, their boss is a politician, and the money is given to campaign organisation?

I don't know what case you're alluding to or what program that has such examples. But those examples sound like fraud and corruption.

Citizens hold their government to a higher standard. As an analogy, the government can't just go to the hardware store to buy a hammer. It needs to buy a hammer from an American using a drawn out bidding process that preferences veterans and minorities, etc etc. Iterate this for evey little thing.

That isn't fraud or corruption as most folks understand those terms. It is more simply not designing for efficiency. People are more concerned with other factors like fairness transparent process.

Re: French workers protest plan to increase retirement age

#507

Post by [deleted] »

bjourne wrote: post #321
atleastoptimal wrote: post #304

In the US at least, the original retirement age, set in 1935, was 65. The average life expectancy was 60. Today in the US it's 77.8. In France, it's 82. As populations age into a higher percentage of retirees, the system is forced to cope with more people who are purely consumers, and contribute nothing to the system. In a post-scarcity world, this would not be a problem, but currently with the oldest generations own…

At some point we have to rethink what "contributing to the system" means. What are web developers designing ads for online casinos contributing?

[deleted]

Re: French workers protest plan to increase retirement age

#508

Post by hungryforcodes »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #304

In the US at least, the original retirement age, set in 1935, was 65. The average life expectancy was 60. Today in the US it's 77.8. In France, it's 82. As populations age into a higher percentage of retirees, the system is forced to cope with more people who are purely consumers, and contribute nothing to the system. In a post-scarcity world, this would not be a problem, but currently with the oldest generations own…

But what will you say when you are 60 or 65?

These people are not contributing during retirement, but HAVE contributed in the past. In fact people pay (especially in places like France) into a government retirement fund.

And this happens over 20-40 years of work. This is a long time and if properly managed, should be fine.

So people aren't just being given "free money", this is something that they have paid for and so they are protesting, because it's basically a kind of service that they have been promised in exchange for being taxed each pay check.

But I still come back to the question of what you will do at retirement?

Re: French workers protest plan to increase retirement age

#509

Post by JenrHywy »

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #481
JenrHywy wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Aus, the government doesn't manage the money. They set a mandatory percentage of your wage which must be put into superannuation, but you as an individual can choose the fund to manage your account, and you can move funds at-will with no penalty. The Tax Office actually facilitates the move to help prevent any nefarious actions from the funds. There is also the option of running a self-managed fund, where you inve…

> They set a mandatory percentage of your wage which must be put into superannuation For further clarification, it's the employer who has to pay the super contribution, not the worker. And if anyone is about to claim "same thing, if the employer didn't have to pay that, they would pay it out as additional wages", my only response is a heartfelt "lol".

I think "lol" needs to be expanded a bit to be convincing.

I can't see how it is not the same thing. The employer looks at the total cost of employment and works out if it's worth hiring someone. If that cost is 10% higher because of super, that means there is 10% less to go to (direct) wages.

Now granted, that will differ at different points in the labour market. For minimum wage jobs, I agree that employers wouldn't suddenly start paying 10% above award if super was scrapped.

Re: French workers protest plan to increase retirement age

#510

Post by m463 »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #304

In the US at least, the original retirement age, set in 1935, was 65. The average life expectancy was 60. Today in the US it's 77.8. In France, it's 82. As populations age into a higher percentage of retirees, the system is forced to cope with more people who are purely consumers, and contribute nothing to the system. In a post-scarcity world, this would not be a problem, but currently with the oldest generations own…

> "Giving old people money for free "

uh, didn't the old people finance their own social security? Didn't they give up money their whole lives to finance their homes? Don't they contribute to society in other less-measurable ways?

That said, there could be some ways to retire, but be able to work in such a way that retirement is not adversely affected. Some of my friends who retired had to carefully not work or social security was adversely affected.

Post reply on HN