Just because something is worse somewhere else doesn't mean you should be happy when things only get slightly worse where you are. They are angry because not only they are historically againt pension reforms, and the way the government forced through the bill by bypassing parliament in a legal method, but one that shows they are really just forcing this down despite popular opinion being very, very against it.
This.
"Someone else has it worse" is the cry of someone who wants you to have it worse, too. It's just promoting a race to the bottom.
it’s easy to just yell “hippie” at someone with healthy boundaries they feel threatened by.
You work work work and when you finally can enjoy your life, you're old. Brilliant system.
My mum has just been diagnosed with terminal cancer aged 61. I know people lose their parents much earlier, but I am furious that she worked so hard her entire life just to die before she reached retirement.
My condolences. Hugs. I hope she's not in pain D:
With your permission...
You work work work to barely afford necessities like shelter and food and when you finally can enjoy your life, you’re old. Brilliant system.
You work work work to barely afford necessities like shelter and food and when you finally can enjoy your life, you’re old and still can't afford shit. Brilliant system.
They're so right, if only I had worked more 🥴
You load sixteen tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. St. Peter, don't you call me, 'cuz I can't go. I owe my soul to the company store.
When I was a kid, retirement age was 55. Raising the retirement age does nothing more than funnel more money into the pockets of the rich.
Counter question:
Why are the Australians not more mad?
Work is shit. Nobody wants to work.
Aussies aren't big on protesting against anything. They just grumble and get on with it. Wouldn't want to be called a whinger.
But yet they’ll throw stuff at the clerk if they take too long to ring them up or sneak in a tax at the register.
Or tossing out their PM at the drop of a hat.
Or someone trying to hijack a plane
Or drunks on the bus.
I think they are big on protesting. They don’t see it as whinging either. They see it as not putting up with shit.
No, they're right. Speaking as an Australian protester - we have a very conformist culture here. We haven't been taught to imagine outside the status quo, it's why Yank flavour and Neoliberal policies get pushed uncritically here. We're sectioned off in the little castles of our homes - we have to seek out any form of community that isn't our workplaces in the first place, let alone subversion, let alone (toothless and state captured) protest, let alone direct action and informed praxis.
We might have once, but the majority of Australians don't know shit about anything that isn't themselves. We might want to look out for ours - but that circle is very small for mainstream Australia and you bet your ass that's manipulable by wealthy interests.
Not all of us, but the majority of us are spineless people terrified we're not safe enough.
That's not entirely true.
Lot of CEOs LOVE their job, bankers too.
It's just the people doing actual work who tend to hate their jobs.
It depends, right? There are lots of people who enjoy working, but the problem is that the work that people want to do isn't the work that bosses want them to do. In studies on UBI, very few people choose to become couch potatoes.
Cost of living is so shit here that most people can't afford to retire at that age anyway. There might be some older Gen-Xers who complain, but they're not exactly known for protesting.
better question is why isnt the rest of the world joining the french?
This is the real question.
An aversion to starvation, right now alot of people would starve without they're next paycheck, exactly as the system intends it.
Is this a legitimate question? Seriously?
It's funny that we never see headlines like "The rich already have lots of money. So why are they so upset about proposed tax increases?"
“Why are the rich so upset about paying a living wage?”
Switzerland's wealth tax is only 0.3 - 0.5 percent. So why are U.S. billionaires so upset over 0.0 percent?
H
Because of all the advances over the past generation from email to AI have all combined to make the economy at least twice as productive as it was 30 years ago but we aren't seeing any benefit.
The years of leisure workers get at the end of their career should be increasing, not decreasing. Where are all the productivity gains going?
"Oh, but people are living longer" OK, but we're also generating twice as much wealth over our careers than the generation before us, and instead of more retirement years or shorter working weeks all we see is billionaire pricks buying up media conglomerates.
Good luck to the French people. Keep it up. Get angry.
Because we can take the needed wealth from the stupidly rich instead of trying to make old people drag on 2 extra years.
There is s lot of unemployment at over 50 too, and that will just cost the society anyways while bringing suffering (instead of retirement :-)
So that they don't have to work until 67.
I mean if it were for the government they would put old people in an island and nuke it from time to time.
Enjoying the fruits of your labor? How dare you.
It's also true that population is living longer and younger generations are not having kids. I mean there's a little trick most don't know is that those contributions in the form of taxes that you made all your life towards retirement, most of it gets spent immediately by the government. So if younger generations don't have kids to keep the ponzi running the whole thing falls apart, and one of the symptoms is this, the need to raise retirement age.
It's good to know that in France, there is a required number of "working years" next to the retirement age. So for many people 64 is already not an option as they went to university for example. I often hear people argue that the French shouldn't complain because in country X it's age Y, but for a lot of French it's already Y or >Y (I don't know the exact details though as I'm not French, but have family there. So feel free to add or correct me)
IIRC (haven't looked into the details recently) in France you can have full pension from 64yo IF you've worked every year from 18yo. You can retire earlier, but your pension will be cut down for each month not "cotisé" up to 64.
I think years of high school don't typically count, but there are ways to "convert" or "buy" those years back for the calculation of your pension. Parental leave also can be converted.
So yes, the less you work, the longer it takes to unlock 100% of your pension funds.
EDIT: I just checked. To be eligible for full pension at 64 in France (full pension is 50% of the average of the best 25 years salaries) you need to have "cotisé" for 498 or 516 months (depending on your year of birth). Missing months can be bought back, or you can take a lower pension.
Assumimg four weeks in a month, that's 2,064 weeks/43 years. In Mexico, you "only" need 1,250 weeks, or 25 years or work (although the pension is locked until you're 65 years old.
That's an insane number.
Thanks for doing the math. With that, it means a french worker must work every single month without any gap from 21yo to 64yo to be eligible for full pension. Literally live to work.
Fun fact: french policitians (and some other specific work fields) "cotisent" months faster. Our deputies can get the full pension unlocked after only 5 years of work (while it takes us plebs >40 years).
Liberté, Égalité*, Fraternité, brothers...
*Different terms may apply
I really fucking hope we can muster up at least 2 more terms of democratic majority in the US as my ass creeps toward taking "early" retirement at 62. Republicans have a hard on for stripping every social program, and Social Security is the most socialist thing they want to strip and give to the War Machine.
It's pretty unlikely to get two more terms of a democratic presidency. Biden wasn't VP when he won. The last VP to be elected was Bush 1. Before him, LBJ, special circumstances. Truman, also special circumstances. That takes us back nearly 100 years.
Maybe if Kamala were to step aside we could get a governor as the nominee, but that seems unlikely even though governors have better records in presidential elections. Biden didn't run when he was VP, but I don't remember another VP that stepped away from the ticket voluntarily.
Yeah I know, they have a habit of pissing away any advantage...system is working as intended.
For the record, OP posted the article title and not a question of their own.
We've been producing more and more year after year, the working hours have practically not changed in 50 years. And somehow we have no money to put in any social platform and we have had austerity measures for decades at this point. And now we have to work for longer. All the while billionaires exist and are getting richer by the second, yet a lot of people struggle to eat or retire decently.
The world population has also exploded over the last 50 years, which is something nobody takes into account.
1973 - 3.92 billion people 2023 - 8 billion people
For 1968, so 65 years ago, when people at retirement age today were born, the population was 2.9 billion people. So from birth to retirement, a freshly retired person today has seen 5 billion more people get added to the world.
With increasing population you need more resources to fund social platforms. We have been producing more and more but we have also consumed more and more. Not just food, but planned obsolesence for things like phones and washing machines and whatever else has guaranteed that there will always be a need to consume, therefore a need to produce - hence the working hours staying the same while productivity increases.
But, with increased production and consumption you stimulate the economy, so you get growth. In theory. The fact that that growth gets hoarded by the dragons you also mentioned is an unfortunate phenomenon.
But I digress. My point was that increased productivity is not the only variable at play here.
I still don't agree with the increased pension age, though.
And it's 70 for almost 10 years in Italy!
That's pretty f*cked up. Sure, there are some jobs where you can make a decent contribution at that age – historian? librarian? sure, why not. But please don't force bus drivers to keep working until that age
In Italy there are classes of jobs that still allow to go earlier. It's not flat.
hey no fair. you're comparing a fascist shit hole
It's way before this government. It's just that to pay pensions you need people. And there are few compared to the old ones.
So or get the pension or retire earlier without money 😒
73 for me in the US! I'll likely be dead before I get to see retirement...
I should note, that's tge projected date for my retirement plan. The "official" age is still 65...
cuz yall are cucked
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/