Before I jump on my high horse about lazy latin Europeans, I'd like to find out if there is a difference in what "Retirement Age" means in France, Greece and Italy, and the rest of the industrialised world.
A quick search found this report from the OECD comparing retirement ages across countries (open the first link to the Excel file for the comparison report).
I am concerned with the offical retirement age here, don't care about the average effective age that they're calculating.
The official age in certain countries like France, Belgium, Italy and others is 5 or so years below the other countries, which are mostly 65. Is there a reason for this, do they have different entitlements? Or is it a simple comparison?
I'm not sure what to make of the footnotes, what portion of the population does (b) refer to?
"(a)...The official age corresponds to the age at which a pension can be received irrespective of whether a worker has a long insurance record of years of contributions
b) For Belgium and France, workers can retire at age 60 with 40 years of contributions; for Greece, at age 58 with 35 years of contributions; and for Italy, at 57 (56 for manual workers) with 35 years of contributions."
I am appalled that the French are striking over raising the retirement age from 60 to 62 when Europe is so debt laden at the moment, and I am curious that there is more to the story.
Why raise the retirement age when youth unemployment is so high?
First of all, all the european consensus/policies about finance and social rights are nowwhere near examples to follow, they're just ultra-liberal dogmas that are imposed to its people.
Second, there is money to fund the current retirement scheme in France it is just that the gvt does not want to touch the bankers and all other wealthy people (friends). The french gvt has decided to dismantle the social rights that are the fundations of the french society to accomodate a wealthy minority; these rights were not given to the workers they've had to fight for them ... and fight hard.
You can be as appalled as you want, frenchs have a different view on what a society is or should be and they'll let the gvt know about it.
One thing is sure, NAMA couldn't have been implemented in France the way it has been here. You've sold your soul (and your children) to the banksters in the hope they'll let you in peace ... you wont get it (I think the words W. Churchill pronounced right after Munich would fit well here).
From what I can tell at least the french people are alive ; one cannot say the same about most other nations where the only policy is to bend in front of those who put the world in the mess it is. Come on France ... lead the way ... f#@? the debt and those who own it.
Victory to the French people! You are a beacon of light in this f**ked up capitalist world.
Are you having a laugh?
France 2010 Median Age 39.7
15m of their 65m population are already pensionable, they can expect up to another 20 years of life, a figure that is ever increasing. When the pension age was set to 60, people were looking at 5 years odd on average before they popped their clogs.
Western countries have only been able to keep this pension charade going til now because they had the young people to pay for the old. With low birthrates and aging populations this is simply unsustainable. France cannot afford to keep its pensionable age at 60, and adding 2 years to it is the thin end of the wedge, with current pension levels and life expectancy people in their 30's will have to work into their 70's or else taxation will have to increase massively to cover the ever growing and more unsustainable pension black hole.
Thankfully despite Ireland being fooked, we have an avg age just over 34.5 and its something we really have going for us.
Nonsense. The only reason to raise the retirement age would be if there is a shortage of labour. France has 2 million unemployed. The reason for raising the retirement age is not demographics but rather a bailout for pension funds as it will force people to pay into them for longer and save the hides of investment bankers.
It is not about the ratio of workers to pensioners, it is about the ratio of workers to the total numbers of dependents which include pensioners, the unemployed, children and the sick and disabled. The ratio of children to workers in France and Ireland was much higher 20 years ago yet no one was calling to raise the retirement age to pay for public education. If the unemployed were given jobs then there would be no reason to raise the retirement age.
Come on. Red dogma doesn't make reality go away. You cannot argue with the demographic time bomb. The unfortunate reality is that by the time the rest of the industrialised world wakes up to the calamity that will be pension obligations in the next 20 years, we'll be up to our eyebrows in debt.
Some people don't want jobs, hell we had @5% on the dole when we had genuine full employment at the peak of the Celtic Tiger, the same is true in France. How do you propose to give jobs to the 2m unemployed in France, as remember employing them needlessly in the PS is no diff to paying them the dole for all intents and purposes.
Also 20 years ago the ratio of workers to pensioners and the associated life expectancy of those pensioners was a wildly different calculation.
Of course there is a problem with demographics but we've had a higher dependency ratio at times in the past. And part of the demographic problem is that in the Celtic Tiger, McCreevy and Fianna Fáil implemented anti-kids and anti single parents policies which disincentiviced people to have kids as it became so expensive and 2 incomes were necessary in a household.
If we in Ireland or France need more labour to support dependants then we need to create jobs. Raising the retiremnt age will only lenghten the dole queues.
You're overlooking something key. A dependency ratio with a high proportion of children is a good thing - a very good thing. It means within the next two generations the economy will be able to grow at full capacity and reap all the rewards of the demographic dividend. This was the foundation of the rise to supremacy of the US and western Europe following WWII. The baby boom was incredibly important to this process.
Retires are not productive, and hold no prospect of being productive in the future. In short the more retirees there are the worse it will get. A dependancy ratio with no prospect of future relief is a recipe for disaster. It only makes sense to make pensioners work till older if they are fit to do so and/or pay more in pension contributions during their lifetime.
Children aren't going to be productive if they are forced to emmigrate or onto the dole queue. Don't forget Ireland had lots of children in the 50s too. I've already said that the solution is about getting people back to work and creating jobs.
If we get back to 5% Unemployment, is it going to pay pensions in the future?
How much of a pension will it pay and what tax and PRSI rates are needed?
Just to avoid propaganda, here are the facts:
Minimum legal age for retirement in France is 60 BUT you need to have completed 40 years of work. If you came late to the labour market, you'd still need these 40years or retire at 65 (max legal age).
Now what they want to do is raise the minimum age to 62 and the max to 67.
Fact is that past 50 you're out of the job market because employers simply don't want you : you're too old. Here's the prospect: from 50 to your retirement well you'll be on the minimum welfare.
Fact is that France is not becoming an old country as many believe, some prospects even say that past 2050 France could become the most populated country in Europe
Fact is that the GDP of France is growing since WWII it's just that the benefits of it are capted by the ****#@? wealthy minority especially since the 80s.
Fact is that there is a huge unemployement in France and if these people were to get a job there won't be any retirement funding issues. And to those who believe that there is smth like 5% of the population that is happy to be on the dole, my only wish is that they experience being unemeployed and the sooner the better !!!
Your recipes for recovery belong to your ultra-liberal system but wake up this system is no longer working they ****ed it all. You're living in denial but next February might wake you up (that's not even sure). Meanwhile continue licking Moody's, Fitch and S&P asses
In line with the rest of the western world.
There are people who are on minimum welfare from 18-65. What's your point? Its not like these people will just abandon their jobs on their 50th birthday.
Only with widespread immigration. Which is rather my point. The west has to face up to the fact that our indigenous populations are growing older and need to embrace vast immigration to settle the difference and to pay the taxes needed to sustain a booming ageing population.
Whats the French word for 'bullshít'?
Really, that's another good reason too. Based on that why not pay every worker a reduced minimum wage (except a for a bunch of ....) cause you know it could be worse "you could be on welfare from 18-65"
No it's not, you were talking of the funding of the retirement saying that there won't be enough workers to pay for the retired.
I dono ... maybe NAMA