What do you think about the protests in France about pension age rise?,what would you do if it happens in your country?
Most Helpful Opinions
Well like it or not, something similar will almost certainly happen in the US, and it's more a question of how. Our retirement-related policies, most notably the social security system, were created at a time in which a working man was lucky to live to or past 60, and there was a growing youth population paying into that fund by working. Now, the population growth is below replacement levels without immigration factored in, workforce participation in young adults is low, and most people are living to about 80. This is a subject that has been brought up pretty regularly in our politics, but almost always ends in political suicide just like going after most entitlement programs.1
Doesn't matter what crap in what country they announce now. The world is run by our enemies, eugenicists who have total mind control over at least 99% of humanity, and you can see the worst scenarios around the world and combine them to apply to the whole planet. Totalitariansim in the east, asexual veganism in Japan, are only minor petties compared to the globalist's nearly achieved goal, thanks to our insane ignorance.
It's been planned for a long time, they aren't afraid of writing it in the books they publish.
I was going to post just one but as I was getting the link, I got too many from just one source not to post more.
Another "admiring" dictators...
(This one is also gender inverted as are all rockefellers,
there are so many inhumans with the name rockefeller that are androgynous as hell)https://www.youtube.com/embed/WY8jAq9vTLY
It's all occult mind control that's the problem, not hating the blind followers opposite political party, although they have become part of the problem. “Whenever the people need a hero we shall supply him.” – Albert Pike 33 Degree Mason
Don't know about you all, but I was a hard core conspiracy theorist for years, and even I keep finding that I've still been falling for one trap or another. You may think I'm nuts, but the only solution to prevent what's coming, let alone reverse the current state of slavery, is if the whole world becomes twice as nuts as I am.3
The pension age is already high in my country. As of now, you have to be 65 years old and complete at least 15 years of the qualifying period. Our government wanted to rise it to 67 years, but the labour union was about to start a referendum and protests against it, so the government backed off.0
What Girls & Guys Said
noone ever says "I'll work harder and longer hours.. and smarter, and less vacation time". They always say "I want more"... with no reason why.
We'll... where does the "more" come from?
They could take it away from all the immigrants who invade their country and gobble up their resources and national identity for starters...
so the govt will just take from someone else or steal until the they can't anymore and system collapses, then do something else.0
It will happen in EVERY country , pensions ( hand outs ) must be sustainable , now why such a big deal in France? They have been bought up on Socialist ideals. If you just take the money , you are basically stealing from the young , and France is far from alone , people are living longer they have to be prepared to contribute , but the best thing you can be is self funded , not a hand out recipient , its decisions you make along the way.
Socialism , sounds great - ITS NOT , work for longer France , it will not hurt you , may keep you alive.
Pensions need to be funded.0
The trouble is every from of pension regardless of Goverment or private is simply saving/investing for a share of the resources of whatever children we currently have to work when you retire.
Thus the fewer children any economy has the fewer resources will be available for anyone to retire.
Goverment pensions like Social Securty may be a particularly harmful form of 'pension' in that it does not via investment increase our overall economic efficiency but rather puts the money in the goverment to the most to inhibit said efficiency.
In the grand scheme of things neither 'pension' is a particular good idea for an economy as a whole. As both 'systems of security' take away one of people's historic reason for having and raising children who might actually provide said resources in the future.
Thus making everyone's retirement situation collectively worse.0
As a French person who has been raised there... Any problems they have all relates to their socialist ideals and bad policy regarding social welfare which is choking industry, and basic economical growth. It redistributes wealth from people who create jobs and economical revenue, taxing it over and above to redistribute to people who are not working and or contributing.
This drowns out innovation and economical growth and an arena where everyone have a more equal stance of relative poverty. And you may think i am exagerating but if you are to observe a middle class American and a middle class French family in France, you'll be shocked at how worse off the French people are.
It's all bad policy10
France is far too complicated to discuss online/in writing (or in English language).
It is also far too integral to the Roman Empire to be considered just a country or just any republic. It is France (one coukd say _the_ France). I lived in Brussels for ~10 years and worked in French speaking politics so got to experience... well, the Roman Empire mixed with tge Frankish Kingdom mixed with the French Republic - some of those things are legendary/beyond anything the English speaking pop culture can grasp - both astpunding and often incredibly difficult but so genuine that... well, again, it is too difficult to explain that 'on paper'/in writing. It must be experienced to be even believed, let alone managed.1
Lol, I live in Denmark. As it is now - I'll be able to retire at the age of 68.
I'd say, I'd get pretty upset if they raised it even further up at this point - this isn't realistic for MANY people within different professions, including my own.20
When SS was introduced in America, the retirement age was 65, while the average life expectancy way 60. While they would pay into the Ponzi scheme for their entire working lives, most of the population was never expected to live long enough to collect a pension.
In 2023, the average US life expectancy is over 77, and the retirement age for full SS benefits has only been raised to 67. So most of the population expects to receive benefits for t least 10 years. The scheme has been turned upside down.
For the scheme to continue as originally laid out, the US retirement age would have to be raised to 80.0
I do not know about what is going on in France but often older people have a harder time getting a job, I can understand why they would protest if getting a job is harder because companies want to hire younger people who will be around for along time.
I do not think they should use average life expectancy as a guideline they should be using how hard it is to get a job once you reach a certain age due to age discrimination.10
I think rioting about such a thing is dumb. If you can riot you are actually proving you can still work lmao.
Retirement to me is and always has been for people who've aged to the point they can't function working properly so if it turns out you can? Why should you retire?14
France is at it again huh? I haven't heard about this yet, but I believe it.
I think the government pulling out on prior promises is an example of them not keeping, or not being able to keep a promise. Oh they can't... yet I bet they spend on shit like gender and non-binary studies overseas and all over the place though...
Where they do and don't cut funding is what pisses me off.0
Historically speaking the people of France know how to fight back against their rulers. Personally I don’t know what the retirement age is over there but if it’s anywhere within the range of the retirement age for Americans then I would be pissed off too.0
Retirement age in the US has been raised since Biden took office. Between the crashing stock market and the inflation everyone's Retirement accounts have taken a beating and the cost of most consumer goods have doubled. Those that are close to retirement age are putting it off indefinitely.2
Pension is a lie
Basically you live life as a slave until 70 and after it you are expected to “enjoy” life really lol by that age you can’t hold your farts !
Don’t depend on it !
They are making fun of us they think of us a scavengers.. by they I mean those who hate us the world controllers10
I support pension age increases. It is the only way to keep the system from collapsing. As fewer people are born to replace the retirees, each new worker has to have a higher and higher percentage taken in taxes to support the retirees. Here is a chart that shows the long term issue with the U. S. Social Security System.
The French are babies. Don't they realize they're living longer than they were? Who do they think pays for their pensions? Their kids, that's who.
To be honest though I sometimes think we Brits should protest more instead of just grumbling over our corn flakes.10
France is different because you need to pay more taxes than in the US, where I live. Our pension age is 65, but we don't have to pay as much tax as in France (like around 50% tax of total pay?)
So in this case, I understand why people are upset. If you want to raise the pension age, lower taxes maybe. Or keep everything as is.0
They're looking at raising it in UK too. One news site reported the proposed age is higher than the life expectancy in some deprived neighbourhoods.30
The pension age in France is very low in comparison to many European countries, I think its 61 in France, while in Ireland it's 67.
I admire how French people always fight their government if they feel wronged, we should follow suit.0
It's happening. I am sceptical if retirement will be a thing when I get old enough for that. They would have wasted all the money and the generation that will work in about 20 years will never cover the costs of the older generation.0
Shit happens in every country. Greece and other countries went through the same things.
West is getting poorer so you need to wait longer for your pension.0
As far as the protests in France, they are merely a specific expression of a generalized attitude in the Western world as a whole. None too surprising and it has its parallel in the United States.
The American public talks a ferocious game against "big government," but when push comes to shove they will not relinquish it. This because that public has the following profile:
1 in 6 who works, works for government.
1 in 7 is a Social Security recipient - more about which anon.
1/3 of all families, this year, will receive some form of government transfer payment.
Further, protestations against high taxes notwithstanding, more than half of all Americans pay NO Federal income tax at all.
The case regarding pensions - SS in the USA and different systems in other Western countries - adding a particularly pointed dimension in that, first, people believe that they were paying taxes all their working lives and therefore have earned the benefit. This making their demands to receive those benefits all the more intense.
Further, and here the politics comes most into play, the population in the whole of the Western world is aging and older voters tend to come out in the largest numbers in election years. The net result giving older voters who want their pensions greater absolute numbers but greater intensity in political years.
Thus why, in the USA, any discussion of changing Social Security or Medicare is treated by political leaders - in BOTH parties - as if someone were setting out to touch up the Mona Lisa with a paint gun. They all but shriek in horror at the idea and insist that they will tolerate no reductions in SS or Medicare in any form.
The problem with this, however, is that eventually political demands must run up against demographic and mathematical realities. SS and Medicare are structured so that the young, in effect, pay for their elders. The understanding being that "we will pay for our parents on the understanding that our children will pay for us."
Given the demographic realities of an aging population, and with it a shrinking workforce and therefore a shrinking tax base - and given that younger workers object to tax increases and indeed that such increases tend to mitigate against economic growth - that is simply not viable over the long term. Thus does Social Security have $23 trillion in unfunded liabilities and Medicare has $46 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This in an economy that is $24 trillion in size.
Bottom line is that something will have to give. The structure of SS and Medicare is simply incompatible with the aging demographics not only in the USA, but the West in general. The will of the voters will not change the demographic and mathematical realities and the politics is crashing up against those hard realities.
It has been well said - and the recent COVID pandemic more immediately made the point - that "the American people never panic... Except in a crisis." It being most likely that nothing will happen in a meaningful sense to reform SS or Medicare until some financial or economic crisis galvanizes a change in the societal - and hence political - consensus.
It is not a happy answer, but those are the realities and there it is. As to the individual, the wises advice would be to invest in a private pension plan and to increase their savings more broadly as best they can. That is hardly a sufficient answer, but that is about the best that can be done.
The problem in the Western world - and the USA more specifically - being that human being are fond of willing the end but not the means to the end. It often taking a calamity of some sort to get people to think more than half a step ahead.
There is a solution to this issue. To realize that machine labor is still labor and tax appropriately. We have an ipso facto slave class in the firm of AI and robots. The idea that much of the workforce has been replaced by these slaves creates the unsustainable situation. If we instead look at production of goods and services as just that and tax appropriately it would relieve the pressure.
That is an excellent explanation. As I understand it, congress has borrowed the SS trust fund and gave IOU backed by nothing more than the full faith and credit of the USA.
@Adaeva First, thanks for your kind comment.
Secondly, the Trust Fund was ALWAYS IOU's from the day SS was started. That was the whole structure. It was NOT individuals paying into a fund like an IRA, because if it had been then - based on income - a person may have ultimately outlived what they paid in.
The Trust Fund was a legal fiction that FDR cheerfully admitted at the time was created so that "no damn fool politician would ruin my SS plan."
As I say, the system is based on a presumption, "We will pay for our parents on the understanding that our children will pay for us." That worked until the demographics of an aging population took hold. Now it is problematic.
@Anpu23 Well, what you are basically arguing for is a national sales tax. That idea has been floated and there is ZERO support for it. Indeed, such a sales tax would - to meet current and future needs - be posted at about 37%.
Suffice to say, the public would never tolerate that and, in any case, the tax would be seen as regressive and as likely as not stall the economy.
Nope, the bottom line is that the American public, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, rather enjoy living beyond their means. That is a cultural problems that comes before and shapes the political problem.
The trouble is every from of pension regardless of Goverment or private is simply saving/investing for a share of the resources of what ever children we currently have to work when you retire.
Thus the fewer children any economy has the fewer resources will be available for anyone to retire.
Social Securty may be a particularly harmful form of 'pension' in that it does not via investment increase our overall economic efficiency but rather puts the money in the goverment to the most to inhibit said efficiency.
In the grand scheme of things both systems of security take away one of people's historic reason for having and raising children and thus make everyone's retirement situation collectively worse.
You are of course correct that the designed deadlock of American politics will effectively prohibit anything from being done until the money is already gone and quite possibly even after that.
Put quite simply our Federal goverment was designed NOT to be able to manage any such contentious domestic program. and instead to be deadlocked by them. Social Securty and medicare is a relic of a far more culturally and economically uniform politics era and a period of clever vote buying politics. The same politics which we can no longer afford.
@monorprise That is why, as I mentioned, the aging of the population is such a problem. It is both a cause of SS's problems and a symptom of them.
Be that as it may, the political reality is that you are spitting into a hurricane. The bipartisan consensus on behalf of SS and Medicare is rock solid and apt to modify only as necessity requires. As one wag once put it, "The American public never panics - except in a crisis."
That all said, I would quibble with you to some extent. The welfare state was founded by two conservatives - Disraeli in Britain and Bismarck in Germany - in order to reconcile the masses to the dynamics of a free market economy by alleviating the impacts of old age, illness and temporary unemployment. (In this it differs from the "liberal" welfare state. The latter of which seeks to use the welfare state as an instrument of social engineering and transformation.)
Bottom line is, while there is an undeniable degree of validity in your economic analysis, man is not simply homo ecomicus. He is more complex and when placed in a constantly changing and dynamic social context - and free markets are not nothing if not dynamic and often tumultuous - he will often seek to tear down that social order in the forlorn hope of finding a stable replacement.
Thus it is the purpose of conservative statecraft to artfully balance the need for economic dynamism and social stability. Realizing that the two are often connected as well as at odds.
Suffice to say, whatever their limits, SS and Medicare have, on the whole, been a force for social stability. indeed, having been born in the tumult of the 1930 and 60s respectively. Thus while your economic analysis is not without validity, it is only part of a larger picture of a comprehensive statecraft.
@nightdrot The concept of conservative does not translate well across borders, as it is defined based on history not a particular ideology. Neither of those men would be regarded as conservative is in America a country who's historic origins is in what we now call Libertarian ideology so different than in Germany or the United Kingdom who embraced monarchy and elitism.
I don't agree that SS and Medicare are a force for social Stability, what evidence to you have for such a claim, the enormous instability that took place after their creation would seem to indicate they are a major source of instability.
Which is precisely what you would expect from a program who's effective function was to take the grand parents out of the home and away from instilling their lifetime of wisdom in their grandchildren while the parents worked.
That the boomers became soo unstable and every generation thereafter even more unstable should hardly surprise anyone given they are the first generation to mostly grow up without said grand parents in their homes.
@monorprise On the first point, you can trace a pedigree of ideas across time. In fact, I agree that what Americans call conservative is not, historically speaking, conservative in the Burkean tradition. It is rather classical liberalism with a strand of social traditionalism rooted in Protestant Christianity.
For further detail, I offer my responses to these two questions:
1) What is your political philosophy? ↗
2) Which political party do you support? ↗
As far as the second point, look at the broad bipartisan consensus in favor of both programs. You do not have a fundamental argument over the extent of the state on this question. Both sides may quibble on details, but across the society there is a commitment to the preservation of the programs and thus, either explicitly or implicitly, to the institutions that sustain them.
In fact, in fact, I would quibble about the Boomers. Compared to what? The generation that gave you the Civil War?
Any era is apt to have its conflicts and disputes. However, on the whole, the period since the 1940s has been relatively stable. In part, that stability born of the societal reaction to the tumult of two world wars, a pandemic, the Forgotten Depression, the Great Depression and the Korean War.
To be sure, the relative stability of the 1950s conduced to the upheavals of the 60s and 70s. However, that period, in turn, led to the relative stability of the 80s and 90s. The pendulum swinging back and forth.
To be sure, human beings being imperfect, eventually all things tend toward entropy. However, on the whole, the Boomers have been relatively stable. These things also being relative.
P. S. Apologies for the type-o's and repetitions. I am having some difficulty with my computer today, including it not appearing to write out words that I type. Then belatedly typing them.
Suffice to say, I love this site, but I am not a big fan of computers.
No, not a sales tax. But a re-imagining of the withholdings from employee taxes. Income tax, but what income the machines replace. And before you start talking about how consumers not businesses pay taxes it is a gross misunderstanding of corporate tax structure as to be laughable.
@Anpu23 Well, a "re-imagining" is a bit too vague. Certainly, if there is a practical proposal, there might be a constituency for it.
That said, for the time being, there does not appear to be any political will - in the public at large or in Congress specifically - to alter the system that is currently in force. Like any system - including the one you have referred to - it has its benefits and liabilities.
However, on balance, the public seems to prefer what it has to what it does not. Moreover, the tried and tested is, in general, to be preferred to the theoretical and untested.
@nightdrot While I can't say I agree there can exist a ideological definition of "conservative" across national and cultural lines. It seems we do indeed agree on the ideological definition of American Conservationism as distinct from Europe.
Regarding the topic of political support for social security I would call this a reflection of political reality of a program which has nearly the entire population financially invested in it.
That political reality does not make said program ideologically desirable or as discussed economically viable. Nor does it mean the program is good for people anymore than an drug or alcohol is good even if it is quite popular at the time among those soo addicted.
Social Securty and Medicare did in fact do what they were designed to do in first world countries able to afford them in helping to keep grandparents out of the house with the grand kids. This is what enabled the widespread adoption of the post 1940s "nuclear family".
As for the destabilizing effects of theses changes you would see them when said generation started to act independently in this case in the 1960s and this would be increasingly reflected with each subsequent generation becoming ever more detached from the vital cultural rules and skills needed to sustain itself.
This is of course exactly what we have seen in the post Social Securty generations.
Yes the 1980s & 90s react to what happened in the 60s and 70s trying to correct themselfs on the surface level and deal with the consequences of what was happening to the family. But failing politically to deal with the system that prevented the transition of said value ad skills they also failed to stop the underlining family and culture from continuing to fall apart.
As for comparing said generation to the one that for example led to the civil war, or great depression. Those events were political events resulting from political choices at the top.
The population actually involved was nonetheless despite said demands upon them was still actually growing with stable children raised almost elusively in stable families.
Our generation having lost soo much from 2-3 rounds without our grandparents is no longer even having enough kids of any quality to sustain their current numbers much less growing.
Furthermore of the children that are being born today a larger than ever share are unstable having grown up in only a single parent households. This is a direct result of people who never learned the cultural and personal skills of working together as parents.
Probably because their parents were NOT around and both working to teach them and grandparents were out of the picture as well.
The next generation as such should be expected to be much worse and so far that is exactly what we are seeing.
@monorprise You have a lot here but I will focus on your point about the civil war as I believe it is illustrative of an error in your thinking. Specifically, you seem to separate the cultural from the political. You seem to forget that old maxim that politics is downstream of culture.
The Civil War occurred when it did because certain macroeconomic and cultural factors reached a nexus point. As the economy transformed from a mercantile/agricultural base to a manufacturing/extractions base, the cultural presuppositions changed.
The objections to slavery took on a moral cast, augmented by the fact that those who objected were empowered by the aforementioned economic factors. These factors themselves born of, and reinforcing, a changing social ethos.
This was not simply something so simple as leaders. Indeed, leaders only become leaders when they express, enforce and reinforce certain cultural - and thus also political - trends.
The current problems in politics is born of a similar transformation. The economy is moving from a manufacturing/extractions base to a service/tech base. This working to the disadvantage of the old blue collar class with its patriotic and church going and traditional ethos. (This indeed why the blue collar vote, once solidly Democrat, moved to Mr. Trump.)
Also a factor is that the technologies of the past - movies, radio and television forced people of divergent views to see the world through a more or less common prism. The new technologies deploy algorithms that play to the individual's worldview. Thus why the generation that in the 60s was crying "Do your own thing" is now - as they age and reach the top of the social-cultural-political- economic pyramid, arguing for wokeism.
Bottom line, and I intend no offense, you seem to have an overly simply view of the nexus of politics and culture.
My concern is this, all work is subject to encroachment. I've written about this extensively, I work in the AI field, program multiple programming languages, build robots as a hobby, as well as worked on system automation in large manufacturing facilities. I can tell you that there is no work that will not be replaced by machines. Its simple, if we don't start looking at this reality, humanity, at least the working classes will be left behind. My suggestion is to address this now, as only goods and services can be exchanged for goods and services (the government can't just print money as a sustainable model). So it's simple if a machine does the work of 5 men working full time the tax burden to the company must be the same as income tax for those 5 men. As the people have been replaced. I think that companies over a certain size (say $100,000,000.00 valuation or more) should be taxed as if they still had those employees.
@Anpu23 Well, it is hard to know how technology will progress. At the turn of the century the concern was that automation would end farming. There would be no need for farm workers.
In truth, the need for farm workers declined sharply, but that was compensated for by the increased need for factory workers. The pattern repeats itself.
As the economy transitioned from an agricultural/mercantile economy to a manufacturing/extractions based economy, the nature of the workforce changed. Often slowly and painfully as it took time for the education and job training systems to catch up with the economic and technological transformation of society. Thus came the populist wave of the late 19th century - see also William Jennings Bryan, the Donald Trump of his day.
So we have been here before. The pattern is shifting again. This time from a manufacturing/extractions based economy to a tech/service based economy. The result is the economic dislocations the nation is experiencing - the decline of the blue collar workforce and the concomitant resentments this generates. Hence the populist tone of American politics.
Of course, anything made by man may not last and there are no absolute assurances that all will be well. However, the doomsday predictions may be a bit premature. First, because writing computer programs is more profitable - and pays better - than turning screws on a factor assembly line. (Just as turning screws on a factory assembly line paid better than picking crops in a field.)
So, bottom line, this is not a new pattern and the predictions of doomsday may be a bit premature. As I say, we've been here before.
It is absolutely foolish to look at the past and assume the future. Machines iterate at an incredible speed. Yes in the 18th and 19th century the industrial revolution changed the face of the workforce. And it created mmnew, unexpected jobs. So we are assuming that we are safe, that we'll just find new work. But as ai iterates at a speed that humans can not meet it is safe to assume that any new work will quickly be done though automation. We are just beginning to see the possibilities of AI and robotics and yet virtually every "job that is safe from machines" is currently in the laboratory or Alpha stages of implementation. Even such things as lawyers and doctors are currently being targeted by artificial intelligence laboratories. Its like the list of "safe" jobs are a hit list to prove technology. Its just a matter of time before AI starts programming AI, and AI already designs robots.
Let me give you an example, ChatGPT has in its terms that you can not use it to program other AI modules. And it won't support AI languages (LISp, AIML, etc) that tells me that OpenAI is reserving this for itself. Don't think that ChatGPT-4 isn't relying heavily on versions 2&3 as they build it. This is AI programming AI. Again we're looking at time of iterations, how quickly a machine builds the next best version. If it takes a computer 2 years to master law or medicine yet a human 12 humans get left behind. Same thing with labor, a robot can learn a task in about 10 minutes by mimicking another person or machine, even if it took that person 6 months or even 10 days to learn it, it can then self Evaluate and improve the motion and outpace its human worker.
No, we are not there yet, which is why we must start talking about it now. Right now an industrial robot has an 18 month return on investment in other words after 18 months the machine is cheaper than the labor it replaced.
My proposal will change that ROI significantly and allow humans to compete in the labor market.
@Anpu23 It is worse to assume that you are free of all the old rules and that existence is a blank slate upon which you can write whatever you wish. Aside from the fact that human nature has an irreducible dimension, the crimes that have been committed when the old rules are assume to have been waived away are well known to history.
It is easy to suggest what you do when your presumption is that nothing in science or human nature restricts you. It is also the most sublime folly.
Yes, the industrial revolution changed much, but there is much more that it did not change. War remained, only now it is wholesale rather than retail in scale. War continues, poverty continues, progress is NOT inevitable.
Leaving that all aside though, be specific. How would your plan work? You have outlined it, but I see nothing about how it would be implemented and what elements in society would carry it out - not only in government but in the wider culture. Nor do I see any suggestion that you have taken into account from what sources it might face resistance and from whom.
You are a good man, but you seem prone to sweeping generalizations that do not allow for the nuances and ambiguities. Those things matter.
It is more about opening up dialog. I am not saying I have all of the answers, just a possible solution that many minds should work on, or find something better. I am afraid if we don't address it now, though that the option to address it will someday be taken away from us. I understand that this is essentially a UBI but a UBI without an offset of some kind of production is bound for failure. The only logical production is mechanical, that is my solution.
@Anpu23 Well, it is worth exploring, but as I have noted a few of the potential pitfalls and, in any case, at this stage there is simply no constituency for it. Anyhow, if you are in a position to do so, suggest it to an organization or Member of Congress who could entertain the idea. Might be worth it to you to see the reactions and refine the idea.
All the best.