French pension reform censure rejected

[Economy 42,294]

1 minute ago, monstrosity said:

How tone deaf 

Plz explain

[BBhomemaker 5,439]

14 minutes ago, Economy said:

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...

 

So you think that the whole country benefit of these new technologies ? You can assure that everywhere in France (and islands) jobs changed so drastically that today its not even a point to speak about physical workers ?  
You just dismissed a whole rural, and sub-urban population. Just as the government you forgot them. 
 

If for you it makes sense to not used older workers for hard labours.. those thought are not shared or applied in every companies. I'm a steward, i'm one of the yougest workers, i witness many of my cooworkers in their 50/60s, having jobs implying lifting heavy charges, or working directly on the rails, and yeah i see them having back problems, surgeries, high tiredness.. so yeah we prefer to protect them than to refer to the good sense of some companies 

Also we could speak on the many negative effect of those "mental works" that you speak about as well, but do we need to...

Edited March 17 by BBhomemaker

[monstrosity 3,553]

Just now, Economy said:

Plz explain

I edited for more clarity 

[Economy 42,294]

6 minutes ago, monstrosity said:

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

What caused the deaths? The details are important for the context of the conversation

 

If they are safety problems for example that's a totally seperate issue to the age thing

[Economy 42,294]

13 minutes ago, BBhomemaker said:

So you think that the whole country benefit of these new technologies ? You can assure that everywhere in France (and islands) jobs changed so drastically that today its not even a point to speak about physical workers ?  
You just dismissed a whole rural, and sub-urban population. Just as the government you forgot them. 
 

If for you it makes sense to not used older workers for hard labours.. those thought are not shared or applied in every companies. I'm a steward, i'm one of the yougest workers, i witness many of my cooworkers in their 50/60s, having jobs implying lifting heavy charges, or working directly on the rails, and yeah i see them having back problems, surgeries, high tiredness.. so yeah we prefer to protect them than to refer to the good sense of some companies 

Also we could speak on the many negative effect of those "mental works" that you speak about as well, but do we need to...

I did not say that

 

I was making generalizations about how workplaces are less extreme in physical jobs than in the past as something to factor in relative to before when talking about what ppls ability to work is (that is not even automatically saying raising the age is therefore as a conclusion the route France should go with)

 

Realistically I'd say working 2 years longer now say to 64 in most cases is still more durable than 2 years earlier to 62 if it was 50 years ago the way they work

 

Yes for a few jobs or companies like u are saying that may not be the case. But laws and standards lways require a generalization. U cannot possibly account for every off or unique case in a country of millions when deciding whether a policy has more pros or cons. There's always gonna be a few ppl impacted negatively but a policy meant to help ppl as a whole. That's true like every time. 

Edited March 17 by Economy

[monstrosity 3,553]

3 minutes ago, Economy said:

What caused the deaths? The details are important for the context of the conversation

 

If they are safety problems for example that's a totally seperate issue to the age thing

No because people over 50 are disproportionately concerned by this, so this is ONE issue, which is further aggravated by this unnecessary reform 

[BBhomemaker 5,439]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

I did not say that

Good then im sure you can see why that this argument will still put on front and is important for us 

[Economy 42,294]

1 minute ago, monstrosity said:

No because people over 50 are disproportionately concerned by this, so this is ONE issue, which is further aggravated by this unnecessary reform 

Well I can believe this.

 

It's not like I was saying raising it is "ideal" or that it won't make ppl suffer

[Economy 42,294]

6 minutes ago, BBhomemaker said:

Good then im sure you can see why that this argument will still put on front and is important for us 

Yes I can and it's valid to take into account. But it still doesn't discredit my point entirely either.

 

Just because I acknowledge a concern or a problem does not automatically mean the concern from the other side is completely invalid.

 

I edited it to give more info

Edited March 17 by Economy
Simplify thought

[BBhomemaker 5,439]

31 minutes ago, Economy said:

I did not say that

I was making generalizations about how workplaces are less extreme in physical jobs than in the past.

Realistically I'd say working 2 years longer now say to 64 in most cases is still more durable than 2 years earlier to 62 if it was 50 years ago the way they work

Yes for a few jobs or companies like u are saying that may not be the case. But laws and standards lways require a generalization. U cannot possibly account for every off or unique case in a country of millions when deciding whether a policy has more pros or cons. There's always gonna be a few ppl impacted negatively but a policy meant to help ppl as a whole. That's true like every time. 

Well thats the difference here, we don't make generalization, we look at every activities sectors. We don't want to see our nurses forced to works at 64 or more, as much as our bakers, or our teachers. We like to take the hardness of the labour in count. 
 

Also a study made by the ministry of labours showed that actually the evolution of technology hasn't reduced the hardness of labours and that the rate increased : 

"Ruffin ( a deputy ) claims that the jobs are more physically demanding than in the 80s. "In 1984, there were 12% of employees who suffered from three physical constraints", he explains. “We say to ourselves, well, after 40 years of robotics, computing, all that must have been tremendously lightened. Well, on the contrary, we have gone from 12% to 34% who undergo three physical constraints today” , can we read on his personal website. This statement is true, as a study by the Ministry of Labor shows. In 1984, 12% of employees declared that they were actually subjected to at least three physical constraints, in particular carrying a heavy load, remaining in an awkward posture, or even being subjected to jolts or vibrations. And 35 years later, in 2016, that has almost tripled."

Spoiler

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/le-vrai-du-faux/le-vrai-du-faux-le-nombre-de-salaries-qui-ont-un-travail-physiquement-penible-a-t-il-augmente-depuis-les-annees-80-comme-l-affirme-francois-ruffin_5595176.html
 

Its in our values even if we grumble a lot sometimes we do care about our liberty, equality and fraternity 

Edited March 17 by BBhomemaker

[Fuffy 872]

I don't want to retire late but paying for baby boomers seems unrealistic because they form a much larger proportion of the population. 

I'm genuinely curious and just thinking realistically, where do people think the money will come from? The working population will have to pay for that and medical support for the over 60s, all while trying to raise kids.

Edited March 17 by Fuffy

[monstrosity 3,553]

4 minutes ago, BBhomemaker said:

Its in our values even if we grumble a lot sometimes we do care about our liberty, equality and fraternity 

If only your government did 

[monstrosity 3,553]

2 minutes ago, Fuffy said:

I don't want to retire late but paying for baby boomers seems unrealistic because they form a much larger proportion of the population. 

I'm genuinely curious and just thinking realistically, where do people think the money will come from? The working population will have to pay for that and medical support for the over 60s, all while trying to raise kids.

The pension system is in approx 10 billion deficit 

Total made 20 billion profits in a year

lvmh 21 billion in 2022

[Economy 42,294]

2 minutes ago, BBhomemaker said:

Well thats the difference here, we don't make generalization, we look at every activities sectors. We don't want to see our nurses works at 64 or more, as much as our bakers, or our teachers. We like to take the hardness of the labour in count. 
 

Also a study made by the ministry of labours showed that actually the evolution of technology havent  reduced the hardness of labours and that it actually increased : 

Ruffin ( a deputy ) claims that the jobs are more physically demanding than in the 80s. "In 1984, there were 12% of employees who suffered from three physical constraints", he explains. “We say to ourselves, well, after 40 years of robotics, computing, all that must have been tremendously lightened. Well, on the contrary, we have gone from 12% to 34% who undergo three physical constraints today” , can we read on his personal website. This statement is true, as a study by the Ministry of Labor shows. In 1984, 12% of employees declared that they were actually subjected to at least three physical constraints, in particular carrying a heavy load, remaining in an awkward posture, or even being subjected to jolts or vibrations. And 35 years later, in 2016, that has almost tripled. 
 

  Reveal hidden contents

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/le-vrai-du-faux/le-vrai-du-faux-le-nombre-de-salaries-qui-ont-un-travail-physiquement-penible-a-t-il-augmente-depuis-les-annees-80-comme-l-affirme-francois-ruffin_5595176.html
 

Its in our values even if we grumble a lot sometimes we care about our liberty, equality and fraternity 

Well for the record I agree with u about taking the nature of the job into account for retirement age, it's just that since governments usually don't the entire retirement age becomes an all or nothing thing usually that doesn't seem to be an option in political debate (and to be fair that would also bring up other complications that would have to get resolved. For example, what if someone worked all their life in a non physical job then at 61 made a switch? Do they get earlier retirement? Or do u put a minimum number of years ppl had to be in it to ensure ppl don't make a last minute switch to cheat the system? Also classifying every type of job and what it falls into could get complicated. There could be grey areas. And what if someone works in a clearly blue collar job but their position is now operating a machine? What then?

 

So the idea in principal sounds good but it can also become complicated to define and I'm not surprised governments haven't really gone there for the most part tbh

 

As for physical constraints. That's definitely interesting. Tho I'd wonder too if there's factors affecting those numbers beyond just the work itself.

 

For example the population is now disproportionately older (and therefore more likely to have a constraint to begin with)

 

Secondly this is also self reported and more minor constraints may be a grey area that some ppl might report as one while others may not. Ppl in the past had a stronger "though it out" mentality at least here in North America they did. Could a few reports that ppl consider physical restraints not have been self classified as one in the past?

 

I'm not disregarding ur study btw. I'm just trying to also look beneath the numbers cuz sometimes the devil is also on the details

[Economy 42,294]

6 minutes ago, Fuffy said:

I don't want to retire late but paying for baby boomers seems unrealistic because they form a much larger proportion of the population. 

I'm genuinely curious and just thinking realistically, where do people think the money will come from? The working population will have to pay for that and medical support for the over 60s, all while trying to raise kids.

It's not impossible but it will be a bigger strain that will affect quality of life ppl will have to accept

 

Ppl talk about hurting ur quality of life having to work a couple years longer when ur at an age where it's not longer comfortable to do so. But no adjustments to reflect major changes in demographics will also hurt ur quality of life just in other ways and especially the younger ppl supporting them that must now share more of their purchasing power with them (it's not just potentially taxes, labor shortages are also inflationary so that's another way we are strained by too many retirees)

 

But this also comes down to values too. Raising the age isn't the only option as some pointed out. U can cut elsewhere to pay for it. U can make the young ppl deduct a bit more to sustain a larger retired cohort.

 

There's options, it's just a matter of what u consider most acceptable or least desirable. But nothing changes the fact that the system gets strained and it affects quality of life. That u have to accept. Complaining about it doesn't really change

 

Someone also mentioned efficiency and less waste. I do agree with that cuz that's true for nearly every nation. But I also think that alone won't fix it if that's the only thing u wanna go for on its own. Unless ur government is wasting like 5% of GDP equivalent (usually at least like 20% of a budget) in stuff with no worth at all what's so ever and that brings no gain at all to society I doubt u can find enough extra resources (including both labor and financial) to fully offset the massive loss involved with the boomer's leaving the workforce on its own. The scope is just very large