French pension reform censure rejected

[Dennis 5,045]

4 minutes ago, BBhomemaker said:

What is sad is that a president, from a so called "democratic" country has to force his reform, despite french people agreeing, use an article that totally shut down any vote from the people or the assembly, shut down any opposition, any talks (and its not even the first time). Basically doing whatever he wants... but yeah democracy right? 

Well apparently he's doing the equivalent of an "executive order" here in the U.S, which is apparently allowed by your constitution (article 49.3)? And he was elected in a landslide.

So it doesn't seem like he's doing anything illegal. Doing this reform is politically inconvenient. And I can see why not a lot of politicians are on board. But Macron has no more campaigns to run. I think he's genuinely worried about the future of France and its competitiveness as an economic player. 

Edited March 16 by Dennis

[Guillaume Hamon 4,951]

37 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Retirement age at 64 is very reasonable compared to other countries.

 

1 hour ago, Economy said:

Also this OP is about France... They have a lower retirement age than most developed Countries. I do not think 64 is unrealistic or unreasonable. We're not talking about a country raising it to 70 like a few have

Imo it being reasonable or not largely depends of the jobs you did till 64 yo. This reform didn't consider the differences between careers enough imo.

38 minutes ago, Dennis said:

France has a huge fiscal problem and an ageing population. Something has to be done. Either taxes are raised on younger people or push the retirement age a few years. Unless someone has a better solution, please tell me. 

If you know about the tax system in France you possibly know about the massive waste of public money here. So what else could they do instead is stopping this huge waste to balance the retirement system budget no? Or stop letting billions going lost in frauds with minimal actions against it?

Governments often pretend the only choice is either bigger taxes or an unfair reform to not have to admit they failed or disturbed certain interests.

58 minutes ago, Economy said:

I'm simply stating a reality... That demographics have changed (and significantly) and it puts an enormous strain on the system without any reform

A reality that nobody here denied and we don't say we don't want "any reform", simply that this could be fixed differently but years after years they still don't even try it seems.

 

[BBhomemaker 5,439]

1 minute ago, Dennis said:

Well apparently he's doing the equivalent of an "executive order" here in the U.S, which is apparently allowed by your constitution (article 49.3)?

So it doesn't seem like he's doing anything illegal. Doing this reform is politically inconvenient. And I can see why not a lot of politicians are on board. But Macron has no more campaigns to run. I think he's genuinely worried about the future of France and its competitiveness as an economic player. 

Yes it's legal, illegitimate but legal, the fact that he over used don't play on his favor as well. That's why we are signing petitions to block this article (49.3), and that most of us expect it to be a subject for next elections. But then again, for now, what's the point of a senate, of an assembly, of our right of striking, if the president and his first minister can just laugh and shut everyone and pass whatever they want ?

[Benji 20,108]

Cheering you on from the UK, who like Germany - just seems to roll over and accept dreadful pension age rises.  Do it for us Frenchies 

[monketsharona 40,629]

14 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Well apparently he's doing the equivalent of an "executive order" here in the U.S, which is apparently allowed by your constitution (article 49.3)? And he was elected in a landslide.

So it doesn't seem like he's doing anything illegal. Doing this reform is politically inconvenient. And I can see why not a lot of politicians are on board. But Macron has no more campaigns to run. I think he's genuinely worried about the future of France and its competitiveness as an economic player. 

The fact 49.3 wasn't originally  created to go against the people opinion (+ Parliament's vote) tells a lot about how Macron is just doing what the **** he wants. Not the first time he pass some laws using it. 

Just a questionable and dangerous move once again. It could literally means anything could be decided. 

Anyway, not a bright future for him as a president for sure. It's already a safe bet saying his government members days are already counted.

 

 

Edited March 16 by monketsharona

[Guillaume Hamon 4,951]

1 hour ago, Bat said:

Except you don't get to choose if France will go bankrupt because everyone is either in pension or striking 

What? France is not going bankrupt over the current strikes movement. The yellow jacket one was by very far longer and it didn't bankrupt the country.

49 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Well apparently he's doing the equivalent of an "executive order" here in the U.S, which is apparently allowed by your constitution (article 49.3)?

Sending your wife in an asylum to get rid of her was also legal in certain countries back then but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. 😉

Being born and living in France since nearly 30 years I can tell you that if a president would have the courage to make a constitutional referendum to determine the existence of the article 49.3 I HIGHLY DOUBT it would stay. 

49 minutes ago, Dennis said:

And he was elected in a landslide.

C'mon these presidential terms are not like 5 years-long King of France contracts.

94% of french workers are against this law rn...At this point that's just king-like to think you can still push it despite nearly all of the folks you ask an effort from being opposed to it imo.

49 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Doing this reform is politically inconvenient. And I can see why not a lot of politicians are on board. But Macron has no more campaigns to run. I think he's genuinely worried about the future of France and its competitiveness as an economic player. 

He could do a similar reform without using means that are unpopular so I doubt he's doing it out of patriotic concerns.

Also this reform is asked for by the big firms unions and he's a young man from the business world with many years of career coming after his term end in just 4 years... Corruption is never far in politics. 

If you want a recent example of it, our former president Sarkozy got a SUPER fancy job offer from Quatar after he gave fiscal advantages to Quatar investing in France during his term. How weird?... 😉

Edited March 16 by Guillaume Hamon

[Guillaume Hamon 4,951]

46 minutes ago, Benji said:

Cheering you on from the UK, who like Germany - just seems to roll over and accept dreadful pension age rises.  Do it for us Frenchies 

Thank you love! 

I also recently read testimonies from Italian folks telling us french people to not accept this reform cause they did there and now regret it...

Edited March 16 by Guillaume Hamon

[monstrosity 3,553]

3 hours ago, Economy said:

 

I'm aware of this. My comment wasn't to suggest it's fun to raise retirement age or it doesn't matter 

 

I'm simply stating a reality... That demographics have changed (and significantly) and it puts an enormous strain on the system without any reform

 

The fact that it sucks does not change the reality of the problem

 

Also this OP is about France... They have a lower retirement age than most developed Countries. I do not think 64 is unrealistic or unreasonable. We're not talking about a country raising it to 70 like a few have

This such a fallacious argument lol, literally a sophism but this is so soc-neo-liberalism so no surprise here

FYI, life expectancy isn’t increasing the same for people having hard and physically demanding jobs, while the reform concerns ALL professional branches

also do you know the difference between life expectancy and life expectancy in good health? Because one is increasing while the other isn’t at all, I’ll let you figure out by yourself which is which 

 

Edited March 16 by monstrosity

[monstrosity 3,553]

French people, it’s time for u to show us the way, do a revolution again please this is enough 

[soularpower 2,950]

You should not have to work into your mid 60s, period. The fact that the world normalizes stuff like this is insane honestly

[BBhomemaker 5,439]

If y'all are so concern about France falling into bankruptcy maybe tell the mayor of Paris that creating pools in the Seine river is not a necessity, and as well, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to propose to host the 2024 olympic games, Or that the "grand Paris" new big railway plan that is still not finished and still needed more funding was not such great investment ...(we can go on) 

Edited March 16 by BBhomemaker

[Benji 20,108]

2 minutes ago, soularpower said:

You should not have to work into your mid 60s, period. The fact that the world normalizes stuff like this is insane honestly

Exactly this.  I think a lot of people forget a lot of jobs are physically demanding.  If those are the only jobs you’ve worked in your life, there’s no way you can continue them into your later life and they would really struggle to get an office job with no applicable experience at that age so we need to find a way to support them.  If people choose to continue working, that’s great but we can’t force people into poverty because they are legit physically unable to work.

[Economy 42,294]

1 hour ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

 

Imo it being reasonable or not largely depends of the jobs you did till 64 yo. This reform didn't consider the differences between careers enough imo.

 

A reality that nobody here denied and we don't say we don't want "any reform", simply that this could be fixed differently but years after years they still don't even try it seems.

 

Part 1: well jobs have changed a lot over the last century. A much higher percentage of people now do jobs that are more mental than physical... And even the jobs that are physical are not as tough as they once were thanks to new techniques and technology...

 

On top of that (I've worked blue collar jobs my whole life) it's not like the older ppl are doing the hardest labour either, most companies and manager I've always seen using common sense with this. You don't give someone who is 62 the job of lifting grills at my warehouse and a healthy 25 year old strong man the job of putting the labels in bottles.

 

I feel like if 60 years ago ppl already retired at a certain age and managed... A couple more years now should be doable when fewer ppl do physical jobs and the ppl who do still have it easier than in the past

 

Part 2: I agree. There's always multiple things to look at, if u can find enough efficiencies to offset the ageing population other ways so u don't have to raise it then great. But I still wonder if low 60s is realistic long term even with wasted spending more in check.

 

France demographics are not quite as terrible as many developed nations perhaps that's part of the reason they managed to keep it lower than elsewhere up until now. Most developed nations also have birth rates below 1.5 per woman but in France it's still like 1.8

[Economy 42,294]

16 minutes ago, Benji said:

Exactly this.  I think a lot of people forget a lot of jobs are physically demanding.  If those are the only jobs you’ve worked in your life, there’s no way you can continue them into your later life and they would really struggle to get an office job with no applicable experience at that age so we need to find a way to support them.  If people choose to continue working, that’s great but we can’t force people into poverty because they are legit physically unable to work.

As someone who has worked blue collar jobs his entire life I think ppl dramatize this slightly.

 

It may not be comfortable per say for older ppl but not as impossible as ppl make it sound

 

Now a days theres all kinds of things we use machines and tools for that up until as early as the 1970s and 1980s these construction guys were killing their backs over. There's techniques to work to not totally kill urself. Workplace conditions even in blue-collar work is a lot more comfortable and duable than it used to be and not as hard as what I imagined it would be

 

Also nearly every workplace involved in physical work there's always positions that involve operating machines (pushing buttons), computer or management jobs (which older ppl are more likely to do anyway cuz they've had time to move up) or just lighter duties that also have to get done.

 

Every place I've ever worked in used common sense with this. Yes a few duties are tough even with modern technology available, but U don't put someone in their 60s doing the hardest stuff. You make them do what's realistic while giving the harder stuff to ppl more capable. Even if a company is trash and don't care about u they still have an incentive to do it this way because it's not efficient to have the weaker ppl do the hardest stuff

 

I think people who don't work in blue collar work and don't know what it's really like are imagining situations of how ppl in their 60s are working that isn't actually the general case like they are picking up bricks and stones all day or something 

Edited March 17 by Economy

[monstrosity 3,553]

11 minutes ago, Economy said:

And even the jobs that are physical are not as tough as they once were thanks to new techniques and technology...

How tone deaf and not true, deaths on workplace have reached a all time high the last few years in France lol

this is not counting burnouts and depression due to work (also in sharp increase) 

you have to be uneducated or speaking in bad faith to say that work is easier

and in any event, if this was true (which again, isn’t), this doesn’t justify increasing the number of years worked, nor economically nor philosophically 

Edited March 17 by monstrosity