Protests erupt in France over Macron’s retirement age push

[Elixir]

If you have lived to 62 working in a mine, you must be a rare and valuable resource for any minor who would like to live that long. You should be teaching, not mining.

 

[bilby]

Overall, it's probably better for a society to have more retirees, and fewer unemployed young people, than vice-versa.

Talk of raising the retirement age should be on hold awaiting a permanent solution to unemployment.

 

[bilby]

If you have lived to 62 working in a mine, you must be a rare and valuable resource for any minor who would like to live that long. You should be teaching, not mining.

Many people are not capable of making such a radical change of career.

 

[Elixir]

I’m betting that your 62 year old miner is among those who would be capable. Usually.
There are a lot of professions that are not particularly suited for older or physically compromised individuals. Should we simply pay for their retirement?
I used to win money on a cutting horse, but both my horse and I have outlived that capability. Should I be compensated?

Overall, it's probably better for a society to have more retirees, and fewer unemployed young people, than vice-versa.

I would not argue against that.

 

[Jayjay]

Overall, it's probably better for a society to have more retirees, and fewer unemployed young people, than vice-versa.

Talk of raising the retirement age should be on hold awaiting a permanent solution to unemployment.

Unfortunately the more retirees there are and the more generous their benefits, the bigger the pension fees that even young people have to pay, and the harder it is for them to be employed. It's a vicious circle.

 

[bilby]

There are a lot of professions that are not particularly suited for older or physically compromised individuals. Should we simply pay for their retirement?

Yes.

Of course we should.

Society supports individuals who cannot support themselves. That's what a society IS.

 

[bilby]

Overall, it's probably better for a society to have more retirees, and fewer unemployed young people, than vice-versa.

Talk of raising the retirement age should be on hold awaiting a permanent solution to unemployment.

Unfortunately the more retirees there are and the more generous their benefits, the bigger the pension fees that even young people have to pay, and the harder it is for them to be employed. It's a vicious circle.

How does a higher cost of living make it harder for people to be employed?

What do you mean "even" young people?

Everyone who earns pays taxes regardless of their age. This is the French state pension system we are discussing - it's funded by taxation, and both the contributions and benefits schedules are decided at the national level, not the individual level.

 

[Elixir]

Overall, it's probably better for a society to have more retirees, and fewer unemployed young people, than vice-versa.

There are a lot of professions that are not particularly suited for older or physically compromised individuals. Should we simply pay for their retirement?

Yes.

Of course we should.

Society supports individuals who cannot support themselves. That's what a society IS.

I don’t think it should be quite so automatic. A social safety net should not be taxed to keep people from reinventing themselves, their jobs or their careers. If they are truly disabled, that’s another story. I certainly don’t expect anyone to pick up the tab if I keep losing at cutting competitions.

 

[bilby]

Overall, it's probably better for a society to have more retirees, and fewer unemployed young people, than vice-versa.

There are a lot of professions that are not particularly suited for older or physically compromised individuals. Should we simply pay for their retirement?

Yes.

Of course we should.

Society supports individuals who cannot support themselves. That's what a society IS.

I don’t think it should be quite so automatic. A social safety net should not be taxed to keep people from reinventing themselves, their jobs or their careers. If they are truly disabled, that’s another story. I certainly don’t expect anyone to pick up the tab if I keep losing at cutting competitions.

If you have no other way to obtain the necessities of life, then yes, society should pick up that tab.

That you do have other means to avoid starvation and homelessness, is your good fortune. A portion of that good fortune should be diverted to supporting those who are less fortunate.

To assume that your abilities automatically translate to everyone's abilities is crazy.

Society consists of huge numbers of people who don't work, being supported by a large minority who do. Mostly the ones who can't are children, and we mostly don't even consider trying to make them work, because it's widely accepted that child labour is immoral.

People who don't work, and whose families or support networks are poor, or abusive, or absent, need to be supported by society at large. That support can be in the provision of education and training to help them into work; or it can just be providing an income so they are able to live as full members of society.

As a society, we can easily afford to be kind, even generous. Choosing not to do so is deeply immoral, even if you are able to kid yourself that the suffering of others is primarily due to their poor choices or their lack of motivation.

 

[Jayjay]

Overall, it's probably better for a society to have more retirees, and fewer unemployed young people, than vice-versa.

Talk of raising the retirement age should be on hold awaiting a permanent solution to unemployment.

Unfortunately the more retirees there are and the more generous their benefits, the bigger the pension fees that even young people have to pay, and the harder it is for them to be employed. It's a vicious circle.

How does a higher cost of living make it harder for people to be employed?

What do you mean "even" young people?

Everyone who earns pays taxes regardless of their age. This is the French state pension system we are discussing - it's funded by taxation, and both the contributions and benefits schedules are decided at the national level, not the individual level.

The French system is a bit too complicated that I don't really know the actual cost. I think I read somewhere it's over 25% on top of gross salary, and if the system isn't reformed, there's pressure to increase it to 28%. That's a lot.

Ultimately unemployment is about the total tax wedge, including pensions but also other taxes and fees. And it hurts young people more, because they're just entering the work force and are less productive. France has about double the youth unemployment rate compared to the US. (source)

The bigger the wedge, the greater the unemployment, and the more those who are still employed have to pay. Only way out is either to start popping out more children, or reduce the benefits for retirees.

 

[bilby]

France has about double the youth unemployment rate compared to the US.

Only way out is either to start popping out more children

Do you not see the problem with these two statements?

Increasing still further the number of dependents in society doesn't seem like a viable way to reduce the cost of dependent people in society.

The only problem I see here is an obsession with reducing (or at least with not increasing) taxation. I'm not sure why this obsession is so blithely glossed over by everyone, but I suspect it has a lot to do with the handful of greedy and very rich people who own the media.

Taxes are good. Raising taxes isn't a disaster. Particularly if the increases are highly progressive.

 

[Elixir]

If you have no other way to obtain the necessities of life, then yes, society should pick up that tab.

Yes, that is agreed.

That you do have other means to avoid starvation and homelessness, is your good fortune. A portion of that good fortune should be diverted to supporting those who are less fortunate.

That is also agreed, and is one reason why I don’t scratch and claw to avoid paying taxes.

As a society, we can easily afford to be kind, even generous. Choosing not to do so is deeply immoral, even if you are able to kid yourself that the suffering of others is primarily due to their poor choices or their lack of motivation.

Nothing I have said is in disagreement with that. The flip side is that it is equally immoral for those who do have the option of being productive, to decline it because it is not sufficiently more profitable than taking what society provides for the helpless and the hapless.

 

[bilby]

The flip side is that it is equally immoral for those who do have the option of being productive, to decline it because it is not sufficiently more profitable than taking what society provides for the helpless and the hapless.

And if that becomes a significant problem, I shall start worrying about it then.

My experience is that people want to work. They don't want to be abused by exploitative employers, but they certainly don't want to just sit around all day doing nothing - well, not in numbers that are sufficiently large to worry about, in a world in which unwanted unemployment is rife.

Every lazy good-for-nothing who is forced into a job they don't want pushes a diligent person who desperately wants to work into unemployment.

If we must have unemployed people (and it seems we must), lets give them enough to be comfortable, and lets ensure that the tiny minority of people who could easily work, but don't want to, are all dumped into the category of 'unemployed', so that as few people as possible are in that category against their will.

A small number of freeloaders is a price well worth paying, if it provides opportunity for those who want to participate, but can't. And there are plenty of folks who would like to have a job, but can't get one because they don't have a fixed address, or can't afford smart clothes for an interview, or can't afford the bus fare to get to the interview (or to work), or have any number of other obstacles placed in their way by poverty.

 

[Elixir]

And if that becomes a significant problem, I shall start worrying about it then.

It’s not going to become a problem for you or for me. It effects those who need the help. Pretending that people don’t take advantage is naive. The fact that there’s no ready solution doesn’t make it not a problem.

 

[bilby]

Pretending that people don’t take advantage is naive

I did no such thing.

The fact that it's not a problem, makes it not a problem.

The only problem is that lots of idiots think it's justified to hurt many genuinely needy people, as long as doing so reduces the incidence of freeloading. That's a cognitive error and a failure of morality and compassion. Or as I call it "The American Way".

 

[Jayjay]

France has about double the youth unemployment rate compared to the US.

Only way out is either to start popping out more children

Do you not see the problem with these two statements?

Increasing still further the number of dependents in society doesn't seem like a viable way to reduce the cost of dependent people in society.

Youth unemployment in France or more broadly in many France-like countries in Europe, including my own, isn't due to too many young people. It's due to too few young people relative to people they need to support via taxes, which causes tax wedge per capita to go up and pose a barrier to entry-level jobs.

Especially problematic are young people who never get that first job and end up being dependents of the state for their whole lives.

The only problem I see here is an obsession with reducing (or at least with not increasing) taxation. I'm not sure why this obsession is so blithely glossed over by everyone, but I suspect it has a lot to do with the handful of greedy and very rich people who own the media.

Taxes are good. Raising taxes isn't a disaster. Particularly if the increases are highly progressive.

That's true. But usually the fees that go to the pension fund are not progressive: everyone pays the same percentage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Youth unemployment in France or more broadly in many France-like countries in Europe, including my own, isn't due to too many young people. It's due to too few young people relative to people they need to support via taxes, which causes tax wedge per capita to go up and pose a barrier to entry-level jobs.

Especially problematic are young people who never get that first job and end up being dependents of the state for their whole lives.

Yup, too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job.

 

[bilby]

Youth unemployment in France or more broadly in many France-like countries in Europe, including my own, isn't due to too many young people. It's due to too few young people relative to people they need to support via taxes, which causes tax wedge per capita to go up and pose a barrier to entry-level jobs.

Especially problematic are young people who never get that first job and end up being dependents of the state for their whole lives.

Yup, too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job.

Americans say this sort of thing a lot; I suspect that they truly and honestly believe it.

But it's not true. Places with excellent worker protections (by comparison to the USA, that's the entire rest of the OECD) haven't seen notably worse unemployment than the USA; Just notably lower poverty and homelessness rates.

If "too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job", what is it that's protecting them out of jobs in places where worker protection is woefully inadequate?

Political slogans are a very poor source of information about reality.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If "too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job", what is it that's protecting them out of jobs in places where worker protection is woefully inadequate?

Maybe it is the economists who think the answer to inflation is unemployment?

 

[laughing dog]

Youth unemployment in France or more broadly in many France-like countries in Europe, including my own, isn't due to too many young people. It's due to too few young people relative to people they need to support via taxes, which causes tax wedge per capita to go up and pose a barrier to entry-level jobs.

Especially problematic are young people who never get that first job and end up being dependents of the state for their whole lives.

Yup, too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job.

Americans say this sort of thing a lot; I suspect that they truly and honestly believe it.

But it's not true. Places with excellent worker protections (by comparison to the USA, that's the entire rest of the OECD) haven't seen notably worse unemployment than the USA; Just notably lower poverty and homelessness rates.

If "too much worker protection ends up protecting them out of a job", what is it that's protecting them out of jobs in places where worker protection is woefully inadequate?

Political slogans are a very poor source of information about reality.

I don’t know what you mean by “notably worse unemployment” but the US rate is 3.6 % while the rate in the OECD is 6%. Both are at historic lows. Historically, the US tends to have lower rates of unemployment than the OECD. Usually that is attributed to a mix of factors including (but not limited to)weaker job security protection in the US and the willingness and ability for US workers to move significant distances for jobs.