Protests erupt in France over Macron’s retirement age push

[Loren Pechtel]

When people don't enter the labor force the burden of supporting them transfers to others. This raises taxes and thus lowers everybody's standard of living.

Sure. But there's not an option for "everyone is in the labour force", and there never has been.

So we're quibbling over the magnitude of the non-participation rate.

Which has nothing to do with it. There are always some who can't work or are in a position to choose not to work. The issue here is people being kept out of the labor force.

Push it far enough and your system will collapse.

Of course. So let's not do that.

Why do you assume that adequate income for non-workers will lead to too few workers?

Most people would work even if they could live comfortably without working. They just wouldn't do all the shit jobs that should have been mechanised years ago, and wouldn't kiss their boss's arse, so bosses would need to care about their employees.

Because the more non-workers the higher the tax rate and the harder it is to make a living. You will have more and more people with no useful job skills and thus big problems when the system becomes unsustainable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

But being unemployed is a much bigger problem for people living the countries without more protection.

So which is better?

Is it better if everyone has enough land to grow their own food, or that everyone has enough to eat, even though some don't have any land at all?

Unemployment isn't a problem, until your lack of protections makes it a problem.

You keep making the mistake of focusing entirely on the worker with no regard for the system they are part of.

When people don't enter the labor force the burden of supporting them transfers to others. This raises taxes and thus lowers everybody's standard of living. Push it far enough and your system will collapse.

What "people", disabled, elderly, or the lazy?

The issue is those priced out of the market.

 

[bilby]

The issue here is people being kept out of the labor force.

No, it's not.

 

[bilby]

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

But being unemployed is a much bigger problem for people living the countries without more protection.

So which is better?

Is it better if everyone has enough land to grow their own food, or that everyone has enough to eat, even though some don't have any land at all?

Unemployment isn't a problem, until your lack of protections makes it a problem.

You keep making the mistake of focusing entirely on the worker with no regard for the system they are part of.

When people don't enter the labor force the burden of supporting them transfers to others. This raises taxes and thus lowers everybody's standard of living. Push it far enough and your system will collapse.

What "people", disabled, elderly, or the lazy?

The issue is those priced out of the market.

Those priced out of the market weren't valuable workers to begin with, by definition. So it doesn't matter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

But being unemployed is a much bigger problem for people living the countries without more protection.

So which is better?

Is it better if everyone has enough land to grow their own food, or that everyone has enough to eat, even though some don't have any land at all?

Unemployment isn't a problem, until your lack of protections makes it a problem.

You keep making the mistake of focusing entirely on the worker with no regard for the system they are part of.

When people don't enter the labor force the burden of supporting them transfers to others. This raises taxes and thus lowers everybody's standard of living. Push it far enough and your system will collapse.

What "people", disabled, elderly, or the lazy?

The issue is those priced out of the market.

Those priced out of the market weren't valuable workers to begin with, by definition. So it doesn't matter.

They aren't now. But as time goes on they would have become more valuable--but the high entry barrier means that value will never develop.

 

[laughing dog]

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

But being unemployed is a much bigger problem for people living the countries without more protection.

So which is better?

Is it better if everyone has enough land to grow their own food, or that everyone has enough to eat, even though some don't have any land at all?

Unemployment isn't a problem, until your lack of protections makes it a problem.

You keep making the mistake of focusing entirely on the worker with no regard for the system they are part of.

When people don't enter the labor force the burden of supporting them transfers to others. This raises taxes and thus lowers everybody's standard of living. Push it far enough and your system will collapse.

What "people", disabled, elderly, or the lazy?

The issue is those priced out of the market.

Those priced out of the market weren't valuable workers to begin with, by definition. So it doesn't matter.

They aren't now. But as time goes on they would have become more valuable--but the high entry barrier means that value will never develop.

Being priced out of the market simply means that the person is not viewed as being sufficiently productive at the going wage rate to help the employer meet its goals. Given that market wages fluctuate, one can be priced out at one wage and priced "in" at another.

Of course, there are those who will never be perceived as being sufficiently productive to help their employer meet its goals.

 

[bilby]

They aren't now. But as time goes on they would have become more valuable

And they still will.

Your assumption that they won't is both false and insulting.

 

[Canard DuJour]

If you have to work 8 hours instead of 6 to support the growing masses of the [retired], that's 2 hours a day away from your family, or enjoying a good movie, or whatever it is that you think is worthwhile. Or alternatively, if you earn just 75% of what you otherwise would and have 25% less to spend on things that enable you to do these things.

As long as output per worker is increasing, you're also earning/buying the prospect of earier retirement yourself. As fewer people produce ever more, the marginal value of additional consumption in the present diminishes compared to retirement years in the future. AKA delayed gratification - ultimately a form of consumer choice.

 

[Jayjay]

If you have to work 8 hours instead of 6 to support the growing masses of the [retired], that's 2 hours a day away from your family, or enjoying a good movie, or whatever it is that you think is worthwhile. Or alternatively, if you earn just 75% of what you otherwise would and have 25% less to spend on things that enable you to do these things.

As long as output per worker is increasing, you're also earning/buying the prospect of earier retirement yourself. As fewer people produce ever more, the marginal value of additional consumption in the present diminishes compared to retirement years in the future. AKA delayed gratification - ultimately a form of consumer choice.

But it's not really a choice if participation is mandatory, is it?

 

[Canard DuJour]

If you have to work 8 hours instead of 6 to support the growing masses of the [retired], that's 2 hours a day away from your family, or enjoying a good movie, or whatever it is that you think is worthwhile. Or alternatively, if you earn just 75% of what you otherwise would and have 25% less to spend on things that enable you to do these things.

As long as output per worker is increasing, you're also earning/buying the prospect of earier retirement yourself. As fewer people produce ever more, the marginal value of additional consumption in the present diminishes compared to retirement years in the future. AKA delayed gratification - ultimately a form of consumer choice.

But it's not really a choice if participation is mandatory, is it?

It's a democratic choice.

 

[Toni]

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

But being unemployed is a much bigger problem for people living the countries without more protection.

So which is better?

Is it better if everyone has enough land to grow their own food, or that everyone has enough to eat, even though some don't have any land at all?

Unemployment isn't a problem, until your lack of protections makes it a problem.

You keep making the mistake of focusing entirely on the worker with no regard for the system they are part of.

When people don't enter the labor force the burden of supporting them transfers to others. This raises taxes and thus lowers everybody's standard of living. Push it far enough and your system will collapse.

Taxes support services and facilities that every society needs. I am no longer in the labor force, yet I still pay taxes. As I should do as I benefit from a well maintained system of highways, streets and roads, a functioning police and fire department, functioning hospitals and schools and a functioning system of government from local through federal level. Not to mention education, health care, health and safety, etc. For starters. I benefit from a well educated population, not just the part that is in the workforce. So do you.

 

[marc]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The issue is those priced out of the market.

Those priced out of the market weren't valuable workers to begin with, by definition. So it doesn't matter.

They aren't now. But as time goes on they would have become more valuable--but the high entry barrier means that value will never develop.

Being priced out of the market simply means that the person is not viewed as being sufficiently productive at the going wage rate to help the employer meet its goals. Given that market wages fluctuate, one can be priced out at one wage and priced "in" at another.

Of course, there are those who will never be perceived as being sufficiently productive to help their employer meet its goals.

Don't push your fingers so far in your ears that you break your eardrums!

There is no other labor market to be priced in--we are talking about people unable to obtain a first job because the de-facto minimum wage (including all benefits, not just $/hr) is above their productivity. Workers normally get more skilled over time but these people will not, until minimum wage drops they'll never have jobs and an increasing percentage of the potential labor force will be excluded until eventually the system collapses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They aren't now. But as time goes on they would have become more valuable

And they still will.

Your assumption that they won't is both false and insulting.

Become more valuable how? You don't become more skilled by sitting on your ass, you become more skilled by doing. And they're not doing.

 

[laughing dog]

The issue is those priced out of the market.

Those priced out of the market weren't valuable workers to begin with, by definition. So it doesn't matter.

They aren't now. But as time goes on they would have become more valuable--but the high entry barrier means that value will never develop.

Being priced out of the market simply means that the person is not viewed as being sufficiently productive at the going wage rate to help the employer meet its goals. Given that market wages fluctuate, one can be priced out at one wage and priced "in" at another.

Of course, there are those who will never be perceived as being sufficiently productive to help their employer meet its goals.

Don't push your fingers so far in your ears that you break your eardrums!

There is no other labor market to be priced in--we are talking about people unable to obtain a first job because the de-facto minimum wage (including all benefits, not just $/hr) is above their productivity. Workers normally get more skilled over time but these people will not, until minimum wage drops they'll never have jobs and an increasing percentage of the potential labor force will be excluded until eventually the system collapses.

First, not all jobs are subject to the minimum wage. Second, people can and do learn skills that help them get a job. Finally, what don’t you understand in “Of course there are those who will never be perceived as being sufficiently productive to help their employer met its goals”?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

But being unemployed is a much bigger problem for people living the countries without more protection.

So which is better?

Is it better if everyone has enough land to grow their own food, or that everyone has enough to eat, even though some don't have any land at all?

Unemployment isn't a problem, until your lack of protections makes it a problem.

You keep making the mistake of focusing entirely on the worker with no regard for the system they are part of.

When people don't enter the labor force the burden of supporting them transfers to others. This raises taxes and thus lowers everybody's standard of living. Push it far enough and your system will collapse.

Taxes support services and facilities that every society needs. I am no longer in the labor force, yet I still pay taxes. As I should do as I benefit from a well maintained system of highways, streets and roads, a functioning police and fire department, functioning hospitals and schools and a functioning system of government from local through federal level. Not to mention education, health care, health and safety, etc. For starters. I benefit from a well educated population, not just the part that is in the workforce. So do you.

Which does not address my point at all. I'm talking about people who should be in the labor force but aren't--the lower the percent of people in the labor force the higher the tax rate must be to support the rest.

 

[Toni]

Check the unemployment rates of young people. They're a lot higher in the countries with more protection.

But being unemployed is a much bigger problem for people living the countries without more protection.

So which is better?

Is it better if everyone has enough land to grow their own food, or that everyone has enough to eat, even though some don't have any land at all?

Unemployment isn't a problem, until your lack of protections makes it a problem.

You keep making the mistake of focusing entirely on the worker with no regard for the system they are part of.

When people don't enter the labor force the burden of supporting them transfers to others. This raises taxes and thus lowers everybody's standard of living. Push it far enough and your system will collapse.

Taxes support services and facilities that every society needs. I am no longer in the labor force, yet I still pay taxes. As I should do as I benefit from a well maintained system of highways, streets and roads, a functioning police and fire department, functioning hospitals and schools and a functioning system of government from local through federal level. Not to mention education, health care, health and safety, etc. For starters. I benefit from a well educated population, not just the part that is in the workforce. So do you.

Which does not address my point at all. I'm talking about people who should be in the labor force but aren't--the lower the percent of people in the labor force the higher the tax rate must be to support the rest.

Are you aware of what the current unemployment rate is? In the US? In France?

Unemployment rates are low.

So are birth rates.

If we want more people to enter the labor force, we need to make it worth their while. Improve compensation and working conditions. Increase flexibility. Allow workers to be something other than cogs in wheels. We are all worth more than being treated as interchangeable cogs, good only for what we earn for our ‘betters.’

You want to increase or stabilize birth rates which are dropping in much of the world? Improve supports for families however they are configured. Improve healthcare and make it universal and universally excellent. Improve the social support. Improve work-life balance. Tax corporations and the wealthy at more just rates—something in the pre-Reagan era range.

 

[Elixir]

You want to increase or stabilize birth rates which are dropping in much of the world?

No, not me.
I would like birth rates to drop precipitously.
this planet was much nicer when there were <2 billion humans on it.

 

[Toni]

You want to increase or stabilize birth rates which are dropping in much of the world?

No, not me.
I would like birth rates to drop precipitously.
this planet was much nicer when there were <2 billion humans on it.

Precipitous changes are universally bad for survival.

 

[Elixir]

You want to increase or stabilize birth rates which are dropping in much of the world?

No, not me.
I would like birth rates to drop precipitously.
this planet was much nicer when there were <2 billion humans on it.

Precipitous changes are universally bad for survival.

For individual survival, maybe. But I don't see any human examples to bear that out. Anyhow -
Survival of the species is another matter.
So is the quality of the individuals of the species' lives.
I do not subscribe to the idea that more people is better, since we all live in what is effectively a closed system (planet).
Further, I have almost 3/4 of a century of experience watching human populations more than triple, and have paid attention to how things have changed.