Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

unknwnplsrs0 t1_jdvbamq wrote

Good, it's fucking them over the most. If only more countries had a culture of protest like France...

21

SardScroll t1_jdvftzk wrote

How so? If anything, I think it's fucking them over least, logically speaking, as pushing back retirement will both a) delay the need for them to support the would be retirees, b) reduce the number of retires who eventually need to be supported, and c) have the would be retirees help pay for the current retirees for a few more years..

Unless unemployment and/youth unemployment is very high in France?

42

maitreprendtout t1_jdvj3xa wrote

If retirement age is pushed back by two years now, imagine by how much it might be by the time they reach retirement. Better start fighting soonner than later.

2

Crimbobimbobippitybo t1_jdvmqj8 wrote

If it isn't pushed back these young people will be paying for Boomer pensions, and by the time they need one, it won't exist.

No slippery slope fallacy required, unlike your "argument."

32

Tagihi t1_jdxppn4 wrote

Why does it need to be pushed back? Set a cut off age.

−7

SardScroll t1_jdvn88e wrote

This is what you get when you have all of the following:

a) a state mandated and funded (in the sense that the funds are not separate from the general budget) pension system

b) a population that is ever living longer, with a static retirement age (as opposed to having the retirement age linked to some percentile of life expectancy, etc. ; France has it more complicated, because it's pension system is not strictly age based but how many units of work one put in, as I understand it); otherwise this could have been happening all along in easily digestible chunks.

c) a birth rate that is lower than replacement (because that means that more and more retirees have to be supported by fewer and fewer working age people).

I guarantee something similar will happen e.g. in the US as soon as enough baby boomers die off to make it not political suicide.

15

CommercialOk7324 t1_jdy0c36 wrote

Or. Stay with me, a higher tax on the wealthy and corporations. I know: “but they pay such high taxes already!” Apparently not high enough. “They’ll flee the country!” Ah. So we placate them or they take their ball and go home.

6

WoodPear t1_jdz7fif wrote

Did Google not just fire 10,000 people like two/three months ago because they were expecting slower growth/profits? (Same deal with Facebook around the same timeframe)

Sure, they're tech workers so they can find another job more easily, but what if Walmart or McDonalds were to "take their ball and go home"?

2

crambeaux t1_jdxt33m wrote

Well you figured it out on your own! Yes, youth unemployment is systemically high, as is the case for older workers. Why would you pit the two underemployed groups against each other for scarce jobs? Unemployed older people need relief (retirement benefits) and youth need the jobs.

−1

Kiwinomics t1_jdwbqg6 wrote

Literally the opposite. Pensions are a transfer of wealth directly from the youth to the elderly. This change benefits young people by reforming an unsustainable system and is actually good policy. Unfortunately benefit reform is politically toxic in a democracy and most people don’t care to understand the nuances of it.

13

turbo-unicorn t1_jdxk847 wrote

I'd argue this isn't really a reform - you'd need even more unpopular measures in order to properly stabilize it.

1

ViciousNakedMoleRat t1_jdvfqtj wrote

Right. The 20-year-olds now don't have to pay for the retirement of 62- and 63-year-olds for 44 years. And by the time they turn 64 only have 35 years of retirement left. It's an absolute tragedy for them.

1