[Poloss]

As many of you may have noticed, the French govt are trying to push a drastic reform of the pension system through parliament, with considerable opposition from the trade unions and from a great part of the population .

The major change is pushing back the standard retirement age from 62 to 64 years.
Macron announced that measure in his election campaign, aiming for 65 years.
He also promised a very attractive minimum pension at 1200€/ month for all who had a full career but carefully omitted the details.

Compared to other European countries, France has a problem providing jobs for older people.
In 2021, only 35% of those aged from 60 to 64 were employed.

https://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/Articles/2022/02/17/l-emploi-des-seniors-en-france

There have been several national strikes together with demonstrations starting on 19th January.

I know many people who've worked hard, in difficult conditions, for meagre salaries,
who are mentally and physically exhausted coming on 60 years old, let alone 62
- now let's condamn them to another two years of pretending to look for jobs,
trying to reconvert to something new, to create their own business etc, etc

The time is not right for this reform in this manner;
how many more will die before their retirement age without being able to profit from some well-earned rest?

Life expectancy has globally increased but not equally for those who are poor or less educated - usually in underpaid, physically demanding jobs.
They will suffer the most from this reform, already that things aren't easy for them ...

 

[conky2]

So when is a good time then Poloss ? Why have virtually every other European country increased the state pension age to 65-67 years then ? What is so different about France , that the state can afford to start paying pensions at 62 ?

 

[Poloss]

So when is a good time then Poloss ?

For advancing the retirement age to 64 for everyone?
Never - this is a scheme to save money by creating misery.

Why have virtually every other European country increased the state pension age to 65-67 years then ?

How many EU countries have chosen to carry out their important pension reforms during economically difficult periods like the one we are going through?
I'm talking about unprecedented price rises in energy, food, building materials.
We have a war on our doorstep, a climate crisis and we're just over the corona virus.

The retirement age was already 65 for men in the UK in the 60s.
Likewise in France ...
President Mitterrand actually decreased the French retirement age from 65 to 60 in 1982,
creating "the right to rest which workers are entitled to claim in return for services rendered to the community at the end of a normal working life"

Rather ask what the other EU countries proposed as a safety net/security in exchange for increasing the retirement age

What is so different about France , that the state can afford to start paying pensions at 62 ?

France has always been a very generous country for social spending,
champion of OECD countries with 32% of GDP in 2020:

https://www.oecd.org/social/soc/OECD2020-Social-Expenditure-SOCX-Update.pdf

That's part of the "social contract" in France, the fragile balance of rights and duties (droits et devoirs)

 

[conky2]

Then Mitterrand made a big mistake. So France is the only country with poor workers , working for meagre salaries, and mentally and physically exhausted by 60 ? Melodrama. French Unions will oppose anything for the sake of it. Always have and always will. They will hold government to ransom at the drop of a hat even if it is part of a manifesto.

 

[BackinFrance]

It's not just 64, it's 64 and 43 years of cotisations.

I think it’s worse than disgraceful. It's also not €1200 for everyone, far from it, that figure is a great big lie.

 

[Chrissippus]

So when is a good time then Poloss ? Why have virtually every other European country increased the state pension age to 65-67 years then ? What is so different about France , that the state can afford to start paying pensions at 62 ?

I am under the impression that it is not the French state that pays the pensions, but the enterprises and the workers, similar to the US Social Security system. What is different about France is that, by comparison with other European countries, the political right in service to the patronat is not as strong as it is in those countries.

The French pension system is not in danger of collapse. Demographics forecast a rising deficit for a few years after which it will self-correct.

It is particularly offensive that the political right has succeeded in promoting the use of the word "reform" with respect to this project of law. In fact the proposed changes are a permanent confiscation of some of the promised benefits.

 

[Bevdeforges]

I am under the impression that it is not the French state that pays the pensions, but the enterprises and the workers, similar to the US Social Security system.

I'm not sure this is correct - as in the US, the funds paid into "Social Security" are maintained in a separate fund (which has been raided a couple of times by Congress to pay for non-pension related expenditures). But both systems work on the principle that the workers of today are paying the pensions of the retired on a real-time basis. There is only minimal (if any) "investment" of the funds paid into the system.

In any event, I think there are ways to address some of the issues related to the French pension system. It definitely needs to be simplified, if only to put everyone on a single system, with allowances for special circumstances, like disabilities. However, the thing no one seems to consider is that 44 years of "in service" time to qualify for a full pension is way too long. You would have to have started work at the age of 20 and had no breaks in service in order to be able to retire at 64.

We've warned expat wannabees about how fanatic French employers can be about "qualifications" over experience and how career changes aren't really a thing here. Maybe what is needed is to allow for some "down time" in the service time - by reducing the requirement to 35 years or even 37 years. I know my dentist is missing 3 years due to having trained in the US for a time (and he did not work in the US, so can't claim any time based on the treaty). Allowing people some time to make use of their "training allowance" to re-train or add some additional skills that would allow them to transition to less strenuous work as they age seems a much better route to encouraging seniors to stay in the work force a little bit longer. Or just to make re-training and re-qualification a "more normal" thing to do mid-way through one's work life. The "senior index" they are talking about just sounds like a massive paperwork exercise with no real benefit.

I have no problem with the notion that the pension system needs some sort of reform - for a whole bunch of reasons - but I get the feeling that those looking to force some kind of reform have just slapped something together to "get the numbers to work out." Until both sides (or all sides) are willing to sit down and compromise to work out a solution that meets the needs of the various parties, I guess we just have to get used to periodic strikes and disruptions.

 

[BackinFrance]

The fact that some other countries have increased their retirement age is not in itself an argument for France to increase its retirement age, and certainly not on top of last year's changes to chômage and without solid safety nets. Head and oven comes to mind.

Plus as Poloss says in these particularly difficult times.

 

[JayBee1]

If this article is correct, the current pension plan needs to change. I certainly do not pretend to have the answers but my opinion is the current situation is untenable.
www.nytimes.com/article/france-pension-strikes-macron-explainer.html

 

[BackinFrance]

Paywall.

 

[Bevdeforges]

OK, I can gift the article so that you don't run up against the pay wall. https://www.nytimes.com/article/fra...SwKAOVActLhtBTeieUIV9nZ-jrUhlw&smid=share-url
Will be interested to hear what people think about the article and the "issues" it discusses.

 

[conky2]

My lawyers have advised me not to comment any further on this thread due to ,possible legal action.

 

[BackinFrance]

Paywall.

OK, the article is seriously lacking in the details, meaning it is very misleading.

 

[BackinFrance]

It's not just 64, it's 64 and 43 years of cotisations.

I think it’s worse than disgraceful. It's also not €1200 for everyone, far from it, that figure is a great big lie.

The €1200 per month would only be available to 10% of workers when they retire because the conditions attached to it are far harsher than those proposed for the pension. Véran, the government's official spokesperson (a ministerial role) had to admit today that he got it wrong. In other words only 10%of retirees will be better off (by €100).No doubt some people will think that should convince everyone, even though it does not apply to the poorest retirees but those who are better off.

 

[JayBee1]

OK, the article is seriously lacking in the details, meaning it is very misleading.

Interesting. I found that it clarified many things for me. But it doesn't mean it's misleading. You just may not have liked the direction the information was leading to.

 

[BackinFrance]

Interesting. I found that it clarified many things for me. But it doesn't mean it's misleading. You just may not have liked the direction the information was leading to.

Or maybe you just liked the direction it was leading.

I don't really think the US is a standout when it comes to a social contract.

Also the changes will start impacting retiring workers within 2 to 3 years.

 

[JayBee1]

Or maybe you just liked the direction it was leading.
Everyone takes what they want out of an article was my point

I don't really think the US is a standout when it comes to a social contract.
It's the NYT journalisic viewpoint, not the US of A,

Also the changes will start impacting retiring workers within 2 to 3 years.

 

[Peasant]

It's not just 64, it's 64 and 43 years of cotisations.

Everyone should bear in mind that this formula (64/43) is for a full state pension. Retiring earlier is possible, with a lesser state pension, just as it's possible in the US to retire at 62 instead of 67 if you're willing to accept a lower pension.
OTOH, it really sucks to have to wait until you're 67 for a full pension...

 

[Peasant]

Paywall.

Wonderwall.
A much better song.

 

[JayBee1]

Everyone should bear in mind that this formula (64/43) is for a full state pension. Retiring earlier is possible, with a lesser state pension, just as it's possible in the US to retire at 62 instead of 67 if you're willing to accept a lower pension.
OTOH, it really sucks to have to wait until you're 67 for a full pension...

Canada has a similar system
Old age pension for everyone at 65 (bad name!) Clawed back if you are a very high income earners

Guaranteed income supplement for those that are lower income

And

The Canadian pension plan . Employees and employers put in a % of income every year (there's a max)
Based on years of work and amount contributed by both parties.
Withdrawals available early at 60 -to 64 at a reduced rate. 65 - normal rate. 66 -70...higher rate.
This is over and above any public or private pensions that exist. Public government pensions are in the tank because, guess what, governments can't afford them.

Time for reforms.