Saving the French retirement system

[Robert]

Le French government and labor unions are headed for a fight. In a nutshell, the government doesn't have the money to fund its retirement system (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2072dc9a-cd7a-11de-8162-00144feabdc0.html). As in the USA, there are too many coming retirees and too few workers contributing too little to a system promising to pay the retirees "x" every month till they die. If France is like the USA, cost of living increases are guaranteed periodically as well. The problem has been evident for years, of course.

Sarkozy will in 2010 press -- not for an increase in the standard pension age of 60 -- but merely for an increase in the minimum contribution period. Unions will oppose, bien sûr.

Now, either Sarkozy, his economists, actuaries, and accountants are lying, or the system won't "cash flow" much longer. What to do? Raise taxes? Increase the retirement age from 60 to 65? Increase the contribution period? Lower benefits? A combination? Do nothing so that the system craters and the scene is set for revolution? Double retirement benefits and lower the age to 45?

What is best for the working class, all things considered?

[FSL]

In a nutshell, the government doesn't have the money to fund its retirement system (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2072dc9a-cd7a-11de-8162-00144feabdc0.html). As in the USA, there are too many coming retirees and too few workers contributing too little to a system promising to pay the retirees "x" every month till they die.


Please do elaborate further on how current workers are too few compared to what would be needed to fund the retirement system.

You 'd need how many per retiree? 4 for example?

Now, if among these 4 workers 2 are suffering from long term unemployment and the other two can only get part time jobs with awful salaries?
What about if all these 4 workers had steady, permanent jobs that would reward them and not their bosses the fruit of their labour. Then you 'd might find that 2 workers contribute enough for each retiree?
Rising cost of living you say? Maybe nationalize the companies that reap the profits without increasing the salaries, and voila!, no more price increases without you deciding first.
You'd might even want to get rid of the parasitic class that is capitalists alltogether and then, when the contribution of the workers benefit them and them only, you'd have less resourses wasted on the first lady's dresses and jewelry and more for the elderly. What an obscene proposal, I know.


Capitalists demand more sacrifices to gain larger profits, what will save the pensions in France is what will save salaries or healthcare or ...

[Robert]

I'll take your answer as "revolution now." Good plan.

But just so you know, there were about 40 workers to every retiree in the 40's in the USA. Now the ratio is about 3 to 1, and with declining fertility rates and people living longer, it's headed for 2 to 1. I think you assumed in your answer that it was "4 to 1."

I have no idea why you want to be forced to work not only for yourself, but also be required to work, together with just 2 other people, for an able-bodied person only 60 years old, no matter how long he lives.

As for taking away the first lady's wardrobe budget, that will feel good but not get you far. You can take 100% of the wealth of "the rich," give it all to the poor, and you've still got to deal with actuarial tables and declining birthrates.

Don't you think benefits should be doubled, contributions lowered, and the retirement age lowered to 50? Why not?

[FSL]

I'll take your answer as "revolution now." Good plan.

But just so you know, there were about 40 workers to every retiree in the 40's in the USA. Now the ratio is about 3 to 1, and with declining fertility rates and people living longer, it's headed for 2 to 1. I think you assumed in your answer that it was "4 to 1."

I have no idea why you want to be forced to work not only for yourself, but also be required to work, together with just 2 other people, for an able-bodied person only 60 years old, no matter how long he lives.

As for taking away the first lady's wardrobe budget, that will feel good but not get you far. You can take 100% of the wealth of "the rich," give it all to the poor, and you've still got to deal with actuarial tables and declining birthrates.

Don't you think benefits should be doubled, contributions lowered, and the retirement age lowered to 50? Why not?


Revolution now is an excellent plan but not what I suggested. I said that for whatever reason and with any excuse, capitalists will ask for sacrifices. Be it the crisis that emerged, the need for the economy to get up on its feet after the crisis, the urge to become more competitive to be in line with others -while they use the same excuse on their employees etc.
What should happen and what should be our immediate plan is not letting them.


4 to 1 is considered "healthy" or healthy enough anyway in most bourgeois opinion articles I've read, that's why I mentioned it.
And since you ask about my opinions I don't know the size of pensions in France but I think men should retire at 60 with women possibly earlier and both sexes should retire at least 5 year earlier were they employed in a profession that calls for it, like in the cosntruction sector. If money are sadly not enough (they will be pretty soon once we get past the joke of capitalism) then the first lady can work double shifts in addition to giving us cloth and jewelry. She can take the husband with. Maybe they should do so until say 80 or 90, it's not like they're of any importance.

[Bud Struggle]

And since you ask about my opinions I don't know the size of pensions in France but I think men should retire at 60 with women possibly earlier and both sexes should retire at least 5 year earlier were they employed in a profession that calls for it, like in the cosntruction sector. If money are sadly not enough (they will be pretty soon once we get past the joke of capitalism) then the first lady can work double shifts in addition to giving us cloth and jewelry. She can take the husband with. Maybe they should do so until say 80 or 90, it's not like they're of any importance.

The question is--why should anyone be required to support anyone else? Wouldn't be best if everyone supported themselves? And yes there will always be those that need state support--and we should help them, but it would be best if everyone saved for their retirement during their lives and lived off that savings or investment till the moment of their eternal slumber

Instead of everyong having to contribute to someone elses retirement--it would be more prudent and economical if they for their own.

That seems the best way.

[Robert]

If money are sadly not enough (they will be pretty soon once we get past the joke of capitalism) then the first lady can work double shifts in addition to giving us cloth and jewelry. She can take the husband with. Maybe they should do so until say 80 or 90

Sadly, they are not enough. And it will be less "enough" as time goes by. So you will be required to pay more and more. I hope I retire before you do.

What's this agenda against the First Lady? I ain't crazy about her either, but making her work double shifts till she's 80 or 90 makes her working class. I hope she can get some benefits at age 80!

Finally, where is the age of 60 coming from? Just seems like a good number?

[FSL]

Sadly, they are not enough. And it will be less "enough" as time goes by. So you will be required to pay more and more. I hope I retire before you do.

What's this agenda against the First Lady? I ain't crazy about her either, but making her work double shifts till she's 80 or 90 makes her working class. I hope she can get some benefits at age 80!

Finally, where is the age of 60 coming from? Just seems like a good number?

Yeah, seems a nice round number. The first lady agenda comes from overexposure on such important subjects as whether Carla or Michelle looked more dazzling in their dresses. And please, that thing becoming working class? Not in a million years.

Regarding the actual answer, I am very happy to tell you that workers, even though it might not show on their paychecks, produce more every year. And they'd produce even more without unemployment, part-time jobs, economy cycles hampering them. So, deciding to use that extra product to get yourself a better third age, among other things, sounds like a better option than enrriching your boss for the fun of it.


The question is--why should anyone be required to support anyone else? Wouldn't be best if everyone supported themselves?

You can support yourself if you go live on an island far far away or invent a time machine. At this age, all production is socialized even though the profits remain private.

Workers produce as a class and can very easily support themselves as a class. They have no real interest in supporing those that employ them, however.

[Robert]

such important subjects as whether Carla or Michelle looked more dazzling in their dresses.

Oh, relax. People like looking at beautiful clothes.

I think part of the answer to all this retirement biz is to encourage families to care for their own relatives as they age. I've done it twice and it ain't fun, but the Chinese figured it out thousands of years ago. The Jews too. Most African societies also, I think.

Yeah, I know, if you don't have kids to help you, you need a safety net.

[Tatarin]

What if your relatives are disabled in some way? Or your children die when you reach old age?

[Robert]

What if your relatives are disabled in some way? Or your children die when you reach old age? We had a thread on this last year, and you make an excellent point. The answer is that both they and you will need assistance from the community, in the form of state welfare (funded through taxation), or a voluntary charity, to survive.

My personal view, and I know I am a lonely voice on this, is that a secular agency of the collective is needed to provide that assistance, and that collective is called ... the state. I don't like it but see no way around it. Neither does anyone else that I have met.

Churches do a lot, but they can't provide 24-hour nursing care, dialysis, or chemotherapy for a destitute widow or orphan, and socialists hate churches anyway and most want them eliminated. That leaves either the state to provide the care or leaving you out in the cold to die. Correct?

[danyboy27]

We had a thread on this last year, and you make an excellent point. The answer is that both they and you will need assistance from the community, in the form of state welfare (funded through taxation), or a voluntary charity, to survive.

My personal view, and I know I am a lonely voice on this, is that a secular agency of the collective is needed to provide that assistance, and that collective is called ... the state. I don't like it but see no way around it. Neither does anyone else that I have met.

Churches do a lot, but they can't provide 24-hour nursing care, dialysis, or chemotherapy for a destitute widow or orphan, and socialists hate churches anyway and most want them eliminated. That leaves either the state to provide the care or leaving you out in the cold to die. Correct?

well, there is a non-religious-non lucrative organisation in my city that is doing just that, and they are verry efficient.
basicly they give help and shelter to people in deep troubles.

one of their argument is that they are doing the state job at a small cost.
every individual they help out of povrety safe to the state million of dollars, litteraly. people that would end up in jail, hospital or psychiatric hospital.

seriously, this is the kind of services people need.
unfortunatly the governement dosnt seem to do much for them