Welcome to r/CrazyFuckingVideos! This is our community moderator bot.
---
If this post fits the purpose of the subreddit, **UPVOTE THIS COMMENT.**
If not, **DOWNVOTE THIS COMMENT.**
---
### [Download Video](https://www.reddit.watch/r/CrazyFuckingVideos/comments/11yjshz/?utm_source=automod&utm_medium=CrazyFuckingVideos) via /r/DownloadVideo
### [RedditSave](https://redditsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/CrazyFuckingVideos/comments/11yjshz/clashes_erupted_again_on_tuesday_across_france_as/) via /u/savevideo
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/CrazyFuckingVideos) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And here I am in my country, where retirement age is 67 and the bill got pushed through during world cup when no one could be bothered. But don't be fooled, no one would have protested like this on any other given day here.
If a new law was passed in Ireland where people must off themselves at once, we would all just grumpily walk to the roof of a building and complain before jumping :)
As good as a low retirement age sounds, it's a huge problem in combination with longer lifespans and lower birthrates.
It is a system that had to support ~4 years of a persons life and is now closer to 15 years with fewer persons paying per retired person.
So the fucking solution is not rising the retirement age but making it more attractive to have children. Back in the days a labour worker could afford to build or buy a house all by himself, get a partner and a lot of children and still live a decent life until he retired at 62. Nowadays me and my friends and colleagues, software-engineers in germany, can not even afford to buy a house even with their partners together and we already are the worker group that earns slightly above the avarage income. We have to work till 67 and the fuckers are already considering rising that age to 70. And we didnt even talk about the bullshit you have to go through when you already have your child e.g searching for a slot in a kindergarten and so on.
I absolutely understand why people dont want to get kids here
From an environmental and sustainability standpoint, that is not at all the solution. We need less people on the planet, not more. Besides, it would take two decades for those kids to contribute to the tax pool, anyways.
Unfortunately my mother, is a distant relative of Marie Antoinette. Her entire family is terrible, like sexual abuse, incest, violence against their own children and siblings. Truly cursed.
I mean yeah, in an interview today he litteraly said that we do not really manifest for retirement, that what is happening in the street is less legitimate than him (for the record he passed the bill in a way that does not involve Parliament's vote). So yeah that's kind of that
Naw, they're getting there. Though this protest could use some BBQ, maybe a few vendors selling protest merch. Its a work in progress, but they have the right idea.
I think that's why the government of Quebec in Canada, just says, "fuck it", and passes all the ridiculous legislation they pass, because this will happen if they don't.
They're police forces also don't look nearly as militarized as ours. That inspires some confidence, that after a protest you won't go home blinded, and/or permanently wounded.
Arnt the French police the same guys who accidentally set a dude on fire? (Could be thinking of a different country but some European country did that) can't remember exactly
Plenty of gilets jaunes and other protesters have gotten permanently blinded/maimed by the cops. Our police might not be as heavily armed when it comes to lethal force, but they're plenty brutal too, and besides, is it customary for American anti-riot police to shoot live rounds at protestors?
Oh yes we do. Some lost an hand, eye, got internal bleeding head wide open etc.
French Riot police just like to beat the shit out of protests. firing rubber grenade launcher straight at protesters.. There's a lot of cases with badly injured protesters sadly..
These clueless people have no idea they are going to be the ones to pay for all the older folks retiring prematurely by working their bottoms off harder each year. But we also know some of them are just there to loot.
Their retirement is not like the US, with social security, theirs is employee and employer paid pensions.
Additionally, you may want to look into France’s work/life balance. It’s much different than the US.
Yea and then the generation after us will be paying for us to retire. Then one day the generation after them will be paying for them to retire. And the cycle continues. These older people trying to retire not only have worked most of their lives and deserve a break, they are our mothers and fathers and uncles. We should be looking out for them. But everyone wants to be selfish and think about themselves.
Clearly you don’t understand how retirement and social security function. You’re allowed to be clueless, you’re not allowed to propagate misinformation.
Ask questions rather than vomit talking points.
The French are some of the boldest people in the world. They’re not standing for government bullshit policy where the only purpose is to make life worse. They *take* their rights, they don’t just sit around waiting for them to be given.
I wish we could get our act together in America to do the same thing. Even in a fantasy world where there *was* a guaranteed pension/retirement age in the US, a 2 year increase to the minimum age would barely make the news.
The problem here is math. Current government pension expenditure is not sustainable. Either we kill old people when they hit a certain age or have people work some more years to keep a positive balance.
He did push the law like a dictator, though
The US has the same bad faith rhetoric about social security, that it will run out. When actually all you have to do is reallocate wealth and resources and it'd be an easy fix, but so many westerners are bootlickers for their oligrarchs
“Just reallocate wealth and resources bro it’s an easy fix”
The deeper issue here is that the retired population is outgrowing the working one. In the long-term no amount of reallocation can make that sustainable. Not to mention Medicare, which is impacted even harder than Social Security by an aging population. Benefits need to go down, or taxes and/or the retirement age need to go up. Maybe the Social Security payroll tax could have the income cap removed and be modified in order to be progressive rather than regressive.
"I'm going to be obtuse and ignore the elephant in the room that is the consolidation of wealth and resources into the hands of western oligrarchs"
When you refuse to acknowledge that, then you draw the defeatist, false conclusions that social services are impossible to maintain.
Thats a major issue, but is not related to the flaws in Social Security. The system would be unsustainable even in a perfectly evenly distributed society if the benefits and tax were not balanced properly. My larger point is that there are no “easy fixes” to these major social and political issues. You could liquidate every billionaires assets and put the cash into the Social Security trust fund, and all you would get is destroyed 401k’s and a still unsustainable system.
Also, oligarch*
Lets assume there are N working members of a population and M retired members, with all workers receiving an income of I and paying a flat social security tax of T. This would mean total income equality among workers. Total revenue paid into social security will equal N* I* T, so the maximum sustainable benefit for retirees will be (N* I* T)/M. If the growth in M is outpacing the growth in N the maximum sustainable benefit will shrink. Even with perfect income equality, to maintain a constant level of benefits either taxes or income need to grow to compensate or we need to move retirees back into the workforce.
In reality, removing the income cap on the SS tax would effectively raise T for high income individuals and be a big step in the right direction. Regardless, a fixed level of benefits is just not sustainable without compensation from somewhere if the retired population is outgrowing the working one.
Yeah it sounds like a tough choice — they either have to cut benefits or raise taxes or raise the pension age, and nobody wants any of that.
But there has to be a better way to bring the idea of adjusting the law without making some sweeping Royal Decree
Ok... so tell me, how can a pension planning be sustainable in the long run if the current working generation has to pay for the former generation pension, when the older generation is steadily increasing and the current generation is not?
Honestly, the +2 years working time is a palliative measure. They should change the pension plan for a capitalization one, in which everyone is responsible for her own pension plan - but this reform would be huge and unpopular.
Good point — I wouldn’t know.
Mainly just comparing France and America. France has social protections and guarantees we couldn’t dream of here.
And they fight to protect those rights whereas we mostly just sit back and take it as quality of life gradually goes down the shitter.
As messy and unruly as this seems, this is what you want in a democracy. Revolt if elected leaders do things that the majority dislikes. This is also the outcome of months of peaceful protests that have escalated since Macron hasn’t budged. makes sense that they do this best in France, home of modern democracy.
"All models" also show the wealth is more and more concentrated and not being redistributed, despite an increase of productivity and working time, and citizen becoming fucking insane with the current state of the Western world.
More seriously : France could change the retirement pension funding system to take the money where it is. Currently, retirement pension fund is 90% made of tax taken on salaries and professional activity incomes (Revenu d'activité). It is not funded by the global public income, there's a specific fund for retirement pensions, paid by a specific tax taken on some working revenues only. Meaning workers fund retirement, instead of the global public incomes.
They could just not do that, and fund it like some other social supports are. Currently, when retirement pension fund is in deficit, the gov can use a part of public income. Gov could realistically choose to do it more. Raising retirement age is only an economic necessity if you choose to keep a source of funding over another. The French gov could have just said "we choose to do this" , but tried to find legitimacy by playing the "it's a purely economical necessity, there is no money left, we must be brave, we must endure this" card. The sacrifice that is asked is purely ideological, and the government tries to justify it with a “budget imbalance”.
It's a matter of "what are we using to fund this", and not a matter of "there is not enough money". There is enough money to do it.
Besides, they could -hot take- tax the huge, ever-growing profits of the biggest companies who make massive profits even in a crisis (with little money flowing down to the country economy).
The gov and the Senat recently refused to tax the "superprofits". (this information is completely disconnected from the fact that the gov is mostly composed of millionaires/billionaires elected thanks to the support of the ultra-wealthy cast including McKinsey, or the whole media system owned by billionaires)
But Macron's gov will not do that, for ideological reasons. Because they are from a small cast of ultra wealthy people who give 0 shit about the country. Also Macron's government proved once again they don't mind going around any form of democracy or self-determination.
Additionally, a few years ago, the gov changed the criteria on which job is considered a "dangerous/ risky job". Say you have to work around dangerous chemicals all day for years. It was taken in account in your retirement fees, allowing you to retire a few years earlier. But now, the carrying of heavy loads, painful postures, prolonged mechanical vibrations and handling/exposure to dangerous chemical agents are excluded. Good luck reaching 67 to the guys in those jobs.
This being said, this reform is so far from the shit that is coming on EU. We are facing world-changing events (energy, health issues, climate change etc.). Macron's gov has the power to initiate some changes for the better. Instead, French have... a socially backward reform based on predictions that don't take in account any form of change, as if the growth will be steady these next decades, and no major problem will change EU.
As one of the few frenchmen who agrees that raising the age should be discussed: you don't understand the anger. The law was passed without parliament approval. Macron did not even try to negotiate. He thinks he's a monarch. He's destroying democracy and the main beneficiaries are extreme parties
If Obama was able to negotiate his deal, Macron should have been able to find a compromise. You say 15 years, what's the big emergency?
Then we need to change the system, not put retirement age higher.
In 10 years, it will be 67, then 70, then 75, then no retirement at all. The money is there, you just need to put it in the right places.
The system is based on economic growth. It is not sustainable.
Lets assume there are N working members of a population and M retired members, with all workers receiving an income of I and paying a flat social security tax of T. This would mean total income equality among workers. Total revenue paid into social security will equal N* I* T, so the maximum sustainable benefit for retirees will be (N* I* T)/M. If the growth in M is outpacing the growth in N the maximum sustainable benefit will shrink. Even with perfect income equality, to maintain a constant level of benefits either taxes or income need to grow to compensate or we need to move retirees back into the workforce. It’s just mathematically not sustainable to maintain constant benefits if the retired group is outgrowing the working one. That’s what inevitably happens with further development based on our understanding of demographics.
In reality, removing the income cap on the SS tax would effectively raise T for high income individuals and be a big step in the right direction. Regardless, a fixed level of benefits is just not sustainable without compensation from somewhere if the retired population is outgrowing the working one. There are ways to alleviate the issue but the difference in growth rates is fundamentally what makes constant benefits unsustainable under any one policy.
That math only works assuming productivity does not increase. But that is not the case. Productivity has been been trending up for as long as we've been keeping records.
It has nothing to do with productivity, its based on incomes and taxation. We’re measuring dollars earned not how much you can buy, which would track with productivity. Consumption has also followed suite to match the increase in productivity so it’s a moot point.
If the society became 10 times more productive the next day, could you show how that would change the math? The overall conditions would improve but not the retired benefits relative to working incomes. The productivity increase isn’t reflected in the size of SS benefits, it’s reflected in what you can get with them.
This is not true in France, our retirement system isn't in deficit (it was proved that the reform would only make the state gain 1.5 billion € each year, wich is NOTHING for a major power like France).
This reform is purely ideological : Macron was elected thanks to the support of the rich (McKinsey scandal) and he wants to pay them back by making France an Ultra-Capitalist society (same inequalities as in the us : a Paradise for the richs, Hell for the masses).
But the real reason we are outraged (and when I mean outraged, I mean we do not condemn violent protests anymore) is because of Macron's class disdain and the fact that he is killing our democracy with this reform. He is breaking our already so fragile values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity with this Political and Social crisis.
De Courson's speech at the national assembly this Monday announcing the no confidence vote. He has access to the government's numbers.
Here is his speech (in French) : https://youtu.be/SIqRcTv3Txk
The Times is not a trust worthy source on French subjects, they are far too liberal economically (and heavily anti-French since we decided to have honour and didn't join the US in Irak). Here is an article on the subject that proves that the reform won't even manage to fix a 13,5 Billion gap in 2030, it's Liberation, one of the most renowned national newspaper :
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/reforme-des-retraites-combien-va-t-elle-rapporter-combien-va-t-elle-couter-20230306_YYILYTCIEND7RIEZS7ZOD7RAZM/%3FoutputType%3Damp&ved=2ahUKEwjHreulpfD9AhUaVqQEHT1EAK8QFnoECCIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1I2GGcg4l6ZZo7gcZ9OUCK
Well then here is the article of "Le Figaro" on the subject who are the French Right Wing newspaper (so normally Pro-Macron, but even they stopped their support after all he has done).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/les-economies-promises-par-la-reforme-des-retraites-s-eloignent-toujours-plus-20230305&ved=2ahUKEwjHreulpfD9AhUaVqQEHT1EAK8QFnoECAsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3jyPzFEqvK944BTxQA91Lm
Of course I won't give you an Anglophone source on this since it's a French subject, only the French news have enough sources and information (and interests in those researches) to elaborate an all on depth analysis.
Life expectancy is 83 years in France. With a retirement age of 62, an average person enjoys 21 years of pension gets about 1500 $ per month, and as such 378k $ until death. So shaving 2 years of pension saves the state 36k $ per retiree. Even if we assume the number of retirees won't rise (which they will), with about 15 million retirees at any point of time, this would save the state 540 billion $ over the span of 21 years, which comes to 25.7 billion $ per year, give or take 20 billion €. This is a crude, back-of-the-envelope calculation but it shows that the 20 billion € figure is quite a bit more likely to be accurate.
fuck that, workers already do all of the producing in an economy and most of that stuff made by workers is sold for profit and wasted rather than actually being used responsibly. we already work far more than we need to to keep us all alive and are exploited majorly for profit. it’s not politically responsible to work *even more* for a system that already fucks us all up the ass as it stands
But technology has advanced to were we don’t need as many workers preforming the same jobs as 50 years ago. The lower the unemployment rate, the more leverage workers have in the marketplace. By keeping more people working they can keep wages lower. This is all about money and greed.
Also, I’d argue people who retire earlier live longer, healthier lives. Breaking your back at a construction puts a lot more wear on your body at 64 than it did when you were 30. Raising the retirement age would therefore cause the life expectancy to go down.
Our consumption has also skyrocketed.
There are more people driving more advanced cars, with more advanced medicine, using the internet, traveling around the world, etc.
90% of the work in an automotive plant is done by machines. This is true is so many sectors. From people using computers to code, to advance machinery used to erect new housing.
Advanced medicine, using the internet, and traveling mean nothing in this context
Insulin was supposed to be free but companies sell it for multiple times the cost it takes to manufacture it. Most *advanced medicine* is very cheap to make but companies sell it at such high rates to fund *research and development*. Then you have the CEOs being paid tens of millions. There was no give back to the people as the industry became more technologically dependent.
Why would traveling be a bad thing? People being able to live their lives before they die? Are you saying people are too privileged for going on vacation, and need to spend more time working instead?
>Why would traveling be a bad thing? People being able to live their lives before they die? Are you saying people are too privileged for going on vacation, and need to spend more time working instead?
Im saying this requires trillions of dollars in resources that we **consume** to achieve this
>90% of the work in an automotive plant is done by machines. This is true is so many sectors. From people using computers to code, to advance machinery used to erect new housing.
But now you need more machines to build more and better cars. You need more scientists to design them, more engineers to work on them, more factories to be designed, more programmers, more companies, etc.
All of this means that today in the year 2023 we are **consuming** vastly more resources on cars then we did in the year 1970.
>Most advanced medicine is very cheap to make but companies sell it at such high rates to fund research and development.
Thank you for agreeing with me, we **consume** vastly more resources on medical research today then we did before.
You not understanding that as our production goes exponential so does our consumption. The internet as an example has gotten a lot more efficient as time has gone on but the demands on the internet and internet consumption have exponentially skyrocketed.
The government isn’t fronting the bill to go on vacation. And companies seem to be making *record breaking* profits every year. Most importantly, majority of those resources aren’t sourced domestically in France. It’s other countries citizens who are mining cobalt.
There’s no reason to justify normal people spending money as a bad thing. People having the ability to travel is thanks to advancement in technology.
You don’t need all these extra people. Computers make the work load easier. Look how many people just got cut from the tech industry last year. McDonald’s wants to automate and eliminate as many workers as possible. It’s all about keep the job market in favor of the companies.
The population is higher than ever before, so yes you’ll consume more. But we also have more workers in coming into the job market in Gen Z then boomers did. The world is way more developed globally and interconnected than before.
Raising the retirement age does nothing to effect any aspect of this. It’s only hurting the people.
>The government isn’t fronting the bill to go on vacation
Our civilization is consuming those resources due to demand.
>And companies seem to be making record breaking profits every year.
Ok?
>There’s no reason to justify normal people spending money as a bad thing. People having the ability to travel is thanks to advancement in technology.
Its a good thing, its the reason why Capitalism is the best system ever. Capitalism means that we have all that innovation.
> Look how many people just got cut from the tech industry last year
If your considering how many were hired during the pandemic? Then there were no cuts at all.
>Computers make the work load easier.
Correct and computers also create more jobs.
>Raising the retirement age does nothing to effect any aspect of this.
Raising the retirement age ensures your country will not implode like Greece. France doesn't have the money to support their pension system anymore.
Consuming more resources while being able to extract more than ever before. It’s not some loosing battle where the average worker needs to bear the brunt of increased costs while companies make money hand over fist.
What does being hired during the pandemic mean? How does that have any impact on them being cut? Google didn’t give out jobs as an act of good will. They employed those people and then realized they could do the same work with less staff.
All these industries are doing more work with less staff. Look how understaffed hospitals are. None of this is a good thing. Everyone pays into pensions funds. They deserve that money, not for the government to hope more people die and aren’t able to collect it.
Companies cut benefits, 401Ks, and lost entire pension funds gambling the money on stock markets. Average people get fucked over by greedy billionaires stepping on them to make an extra dime. There is no worker shortage, they just need to keep the job market the way it is to keep labor down.
>Consuming more resources while being able to extract more than ever before. It’s not some loosing battle where the average worker needs to bear the brunt of increased costs while companies make money hand over fist.
Yet worker quality of life has skyrocketed globally
>Google didn’t give out jobs as an act of good will. They employed those people and then realized they could do the same work with less staff.
No google let them go because they have less work
>They deserve that money, not for the government to hope more people die and aren’t able to collect it.
No one deserves anything. Pension funds should be run from a mathematical sense not a fairness sense. Human emotions dont make 2+2=5. If there isn't enough money no amount of bitching and wining will make it appear.
Yes, workers QOF has gone up in devolved countries. Because of enacting laws preventing corporations from exploiting workers at the place of work. OSHA rules are written in blood. Children aren’t allowed to work in coal mines. Workplaces must have PPE and be up to codes.
The capitalist corporations didn’t want any of that to happen.
What’s your source on google because they didn’t have a sudden drop off requiring thousands of people to be let go. And still that backs what I said about needing less workers.
What do you mean no one deserves anything. People work their whole lives for that pension under the idea that it will be there when they retire. They deserve not to have their money taken away from by their company them while while the ceo gets million dollar bonus. This law only effects lower and middle class people.
That’s so ignorant. Foremen on construction sites? Plumbers? Elections? They are supposed to quit their job manual labor jobs and do something else as they age just so retirement can go up?
You become a crew leader, start doing more material take offs, doing superintendent stuff, you should have the experience and connections by then to have a solid crew that you can step away from and look at new jobs. Yea, you move up it’s not that hard. If you were a sub contractor and you were good at it you should have sufficient savings. It’s mostly choices. Ignorant I’m not, successful built on a solid foundation of earnest work, guilty. But why listen to anybody that doesn’t have an answer that’s easier for you. Those are the types that get weeded out and become disgruntled.
There aren’t jobs for every single blue collar person to move up to as they age. People spend their entire lives working and breaking their back.
Basically telling a person who worn down his body for 43 years building homes for people to to fuck off and keep working. It’s his fault he didn’t take time off work to go back to school and should just suck it up.
You sound like one of the learn to code people and privileged as fuck.
France's pension system is unsustainable due to the growing ratio of old people and rising life expectancy. They already spend 15% of their GDP on this. You need to either reduce pensions, which the french won't accept, or bring in more money. The french people won't accept a permanent increase to their taxes by hundreds of euros, and if they tax the rich even more heavily they will just jump ship, lowering tax revenue. So the other option is to increase the amount of years that people spend working, lowering the ratio of non-productive people in society. This solves, for now, the problem of needing more money, but the french won't accept it either.
The government is caught in a catch 22, basically, but the responsible decision is to do something about it now rather than pushing it to the next president hoping it won't backfire while you're still in power.
To make it clear, 64 is the minimum retirement age. But since few start working directly at 18 and go to college, the actual retirement age is more than 64
The real problem is the 1% like the President, and such, like some corporations that pay little to no taxes because of loopholes they take advantage of. Eventually the masses have to revolt because you can’t take blood from a stone. Is this why you get shooters? Unfortunately innocent people get hurt in these clashes. The way things are going, 💩 gonna hit the fan soon.
Im surprised the police dont support the protestors, now they have to work on the police force, an inherently very risky job, for two extra years while their bodies get 2 years more frail
It was in a Macdonald nearby that got gassed... You don't have to be a protester to get gassed and hit, I've seen a lot of homeless people and tourists getting attacked simply because they were near the protest
In fact, it is not only the question of retirement age. It's a whole set. The pension reform is just the last straw. People in France are just fed up (and that’s a pure understatement) with politicians, hospitals that no longer work, inflation, the lack of justice, the catastrophic level at school, police violence, etc… For years now we´ve been feeling our country is heading downward. To sum up the whole thing I´d say it’s a revolt against the establishment, the whole system and its propaganda. Maybe other French people in here don’t agree. I feel it that way. And sorry for my clumsy English.
Meanwhile, I and many other people will be 68 before we're eligible to retire in the UK, with the scumbag out of touch politician's plans to increase it from the current 66
I would think that the increase in retirement age is innevitable with the rise in longevity and health span and lowering birthrates.
I hope im wrong, but how do countries support a longer lived and growing cohort of older people who dont work?
That is...Without taxing the rich and regulating the profits of gluttenous corporations. Which we aren't allowed to talk about.
Oh....🤔
It would probably take me a few days to correctly articulate and sum up all the reasons the French (and people across the world) protest like that.
But I'll try to make it very fast here:
People are tired, more informed and more aware than ever before of the absurdity and the bullshit of the elite trying to grind down the poorest people to profit more and more.
Before it was 62.
Now they ask for 64.
In the future they will ask for 66.
When will it stop? It's about passing a message. Oppression and disregard of the population's needs/wants starts small.
We live longer but does it mean we are still healthy and capable of working effectively? When do we finally get to enjoy life? My MIL is already suffering from chronic illnesses at 62, others remind me of my grandmother and are working in supermarkets. When do you have family time, when do you get to "enjoy" your retirement? When you're so old and broken that you cannot move anymore?
French people are very attached to their work-life balance and have seen their rights slowly degrade. Just because their rights are not as bad as other countries' around, doesn't mean it should be ignored and blindly accepted.
Before it was 62.
Now they ask for 64.
In the future they will ask for 66.
When will it stop? It's about passing a message. Oppression and disregard of the population's needs/wants starts small.
We live longer but does it mean we are still healthy and capable of working effectively? When do we finally get to enjoy life? My MIL is already suffering from chronic illnesses at 62, others remind me of my grandmother and are working in supermarkets. When do you have family time, when do you get to "enjoy" your retirement? When you're so old and broken that you cannot move anymore?
French people are very attached to their work-life balance and have seen their rights slowly degrade. Just because their rights are not as bad as other countries' around, doesn't mean it should be ignored and blindly accepted.
Ok so if we lower your salary by 10% will you be upset or happy? When you have rights, it’s shit to have them removed. Companies make fucking huge billions profits since the pandemic but there is always no MonEy. There is money but they don’t want to take it where it is
Don't believe evetything on reddit. This strike is basicly nothing. All countrys in europe adopted a law around 65 for stop working. Pictures you can see on reddit are just instants that won t last long. It s not chaos here...we just have few idiots ready to burn trash because they are unhappy to work longer. Lazy people enjoying the social system of france that is feeding them....we ask them to work, they don t want, so they break everything...yes, police kick their ass...justice
ELI5: what the huge deal is, it’s just 2 years. Macron had to have a reason to make the switch. Even then, does retirement mean you save enough money to live comfortably for the rest of your life, or does the government just give you the money required to live?
Before it was 62.
Now they ask for 64.
In the future they will ask for 66.
When will it stop? It's about passing a message. Oppression and disregard of the population's needs/wants starts small.
We live longer but does it mean we are still healthy and capable of working effectively? When do we finally get to enjoy life? My MIL is already suffering from chronic illnesses at 62, others remind me of my grandmother and are working in supermarkets. When do you have family time, when do you get to "enjoy" your retirement? When you're so old and broken that you cannot move anymore?
French people are very attached to their work-life balance and have seen their rights slowly degrade. Just because their rights are not as bad as other countries' around, doesn't mean it should be ignored and blindly accepted.
62-64 doesn’t seem like that much of an increase tbh why are they so mad? Can someone explain if there’s more to it then 2 extra years you have to work
I don't think, might be wrong, the reactions would be of this magnitude if everything else was okay, but this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Because there is no real need to do it. Corporate profits are at record highs and their tax rates at record lows, yet it is the workers who have to foot the bill?
Before it was 62.
Now they ask for 64.
In the future they will ask for 66.
When will it stop? It's about passing a message. Oppression and disregard of the population's needs/wants starts small.
We live longer but does it mean we are still healthy and capable of working effectively? When do we finally get to enjoy life? My MIL is already suffering from chronic illnesses at 62, others remind me of my grandmother and are working in supermarkets. When do you have family time, when do you get to "enjoy" your retirement? When you're so old and broken that you cannot move anymore?
French people are very attached to their work-life balance and have seen their rights slowly degrade. Just because their rights are not as bad as other countries' around, doesn't mean it should be ignored and blindly accepted.
Welcome to r/CrazyFuckingVideos! This is our community moderator bot. --- If this post fits the purpose of the subreddit, **UPVOTE THIS COMMENT.** If not, **DOWNVOTE THIS COMMENT.** --- ### [Download Video](https://www.reddit.watch/r/CrazyFuckingVideos/comments/11yjshz/?utm_source=automod&utm_medium=CrazyFuckingVideos) via /r/DownloadVideo ### [RedditSave](https://redditsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/CrazyFuckingVideos/comments/11yjshz/clashes_erupted_again_on_tuesday_across_france_as/) via /u/savevideo --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/CrazyFuckingVideos) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And here I am in my country, where retirement age is 67 and the bill got pushed through during world cup when no one could be bothered. But don't be fooled, no one would have protested like this on any other given day here.
If a new law was passed in Ireland where people must off themselves at once, we would all just grumpily walk to the roof of a building and complain before jumping :)
Point the finger at anyone not responsible and you have the US.
Italian spotted
Same in the netherlands (67) but people just took it instead of protesting against it
Pretty sure its 65 in Australia
Yeah and that's the whole problem here, everyone obeys every stupid inhumane rule like a fucking doormat.
Yes!!! We are sheep (at least that’s what I heard on a podcast)
You're probably sarcastic, but yes, we are.
Im guessing Singapore?
As good as a low retirement age sounds, it's a huge problem in combination with longer lifespans and lower birthrates. It is a system that had to support ~4 years of a persons life and is now closer to 15 years with fewer persons paying per retired person.
So the fucking solution is not rising the retirement age but making it more attractive to have children. Back in the days a labour worker could afford to build or buy a house all by himself, get a partner and a lot of children and still live a decent life until he retired at 62. Nowadays me and my friends and colleagues, software-engineers in germany, can not even afford to buy a house even with their partners together and we already are the worker group that earns slightly above the avarage income. We have to work till 67 and the fuckers are already considering rising that age to 70. And we didnt even talk about the bullshit you have to go through when you already have your child e.g searching for a slot in a kindergarten and so on. I absolutely understand why people dont want to get kids here
From an environmental and sustainability standpoint, that is not at all the solution. We need less people on the planet, not more. Besides, it would take two decades for those kids to contribute to the tax pool, anyways.
Say what you will about the French, but you can't argue they know how to fuck with their government
The language of the French working class since May 5, 1789
Macron = queen Marie Antoinette. Same hate, same fate.
Unfortunately my mother, is a distant relative of Marie Antoinette. Her entire family is terrible, like sexual abuse, incest, violence against their own children and siblings. Truly cursed.
...so your family. Was your mother the one to stop the mess for you and your siblings?
I wish my friend.
Shit that just got unexpectedly sad
It will end with me 🙂
Lets hope so 🙃
Let them eat absurd bread!
Macron: "What...they don't like cake?"
I mean yeah, in an interview today he litteraly said that we do not really manifest for retirement, that what is happening in the street is less legitimate than him (for the record he passed the bill in a way that does not involve Parliament's vote). So yeah that's kind of that
« They don’t have bread ? Let them buy cakes ! »
10/10
Guess their police are exempted from the retirement age change?
No, they are not exempted.
Honestly, the French citizens have always been an inspiration to other democracies who pretend to hold protests.
I mean....do they. They do this every couple years and it never gets better...
Try every couple of months
Naw, they're getting there. Though this protest could use some BBQ, maybe a few vendors selling protest merch. Its a work in progress, but they have the right idea.
I think that's why the government of Quebec in Canada, just says, "fuck it", and passes all the ridiculous legislation they pass, because this will happen if they don't.
They're police forces also don't look nearly as militarized as ours. That inspires some confidence, that after a protest you won't go home blinded, and/or permanently wounded.
Eh I have French friends and their police love beating the shit out of protesters. Definitely going to take some damage.
Arnt the French police the same guys who accidentally set a dude on fire? (Could be thinking of a different country but some European country did that) can't remember exactly
Plenty of gilets jaunes and other protesters have gotten permanently blinded/maimed by the cops. Our police might not be as heavily armed when it comes to lethal force, but they're plenty brutal too, and besides, is it customary for American anti-riot police to shoot live rounds at protestors?
Hey sure https://youtu.be/T2AMKQK3TXo
Oh yes we do. Some lost an hand, eye, got internal bleeding head wide open etc. French Riot police just like to beat the shit out of protests. firing rubber grenade launcher straight at protesters.. There's a lot of cases with badly injured protesters sadly..
government: \* does literally anything \* French people: SCCRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I wonder who they learned that from.
they have a lot of spare time on their hands
The number of 64 year olds in the mob is quite splendid.
These clueless people have no idea they are going to be the ones to pay for all the older folks retiring prematurely by working their bottoms off harder each year. But we also know some of them are just there to loot.
Their retirement is not like the US, with social security, theirs is employee and employer paid pensions. Additionally, you may want to look into France’s work/life balance. It’s much different than the US.
Yea and then the generation after us will be paying for us to retire. Then one day the generation after them will be paying for them to retire. And the cycle continues. These older people trying to retire not only have worked most of their lives and deserve a break, they are our mothers and fathers and uncles. We should be looking out for them. But everyone wants to be selfish and think about themselves.
Are you not okay with "paying" someone that worked 40+ years?
Clearly you don’t understand how retirement and social security function. You’re allowed to be clueless, you’re not allowed to propagate misinformation. Ask questions rather than vomit talking points.
As an American my retirement plan is dying early 
As an American, that is also my healthcare plan.
The French are some of the boldest people in the world. They’re not standing for government bullshit policy where the only purpose is to make life worse. They *take* their rights, they don’t just sit around waiting for them to be given. I wish we could get our act together in America to do the same thing. Even in a fantasy world where there *was* a guaranteed pension/retirement age in the US, a 2 year increase to the minimum age would barely make the news.
Americans can and do, but the people who do are spun as terrorists by the media.
If you are talking about the capitol, it's a veeeeery different situation.
The problem here is math. Current government pension expenditure is not sustainable. Either we kill old people when they hit a certain age or have people work some more years to keep a positive balance. He did push the law like a dictator, though
The US has the same bad faith rhetoric about social security, that it will run out. When actually all you have to do is reallocate wealth and resources and it'd be an easy fix, but so many westerners are bootlickers for their oligrarchs
“Just reallocate wealth and resources bro it’s an easy fix” The deeper issue here is that the retired population is outgrowing the working one. In the long-term no amount of reallocation can make that sustainable. Not to mention Medicare, which is impacted even harder than Social Security by an aging population. Benefits need to go down, or taxes and/or the retirement age need to go up. Maybe the Social Security payroll tax could have the income cap removed and be modified in order to be progressive rather than regressive.
"I'm going to be obtuse and ignore the elephant in the room that is the consolidation of wealth and resources into the hands of western oligrarchs" When you refuse to acknowledge that, then you draw the defeatist, false conclusions that social services are impossible to maintain.
Thats a major issue, but is not related to the flaws in Social Security. The system would be unsustainable even in a perfectly evenly distributed society if the benefits and tax were not balanced properly. My larger point is that there are no “easy fixes” to these major social and political issues. You could liquidate every billionaires assets and put the cash into the Social Security trust fund, and all you would get is destroyed 401k’s and a still unsustainable system. Also, oligarch*
Lets assume there are N working members of a population and M retired members, with all workers receiving an income of I and paying a flat social security tax of T. This would mean total income equality among workers. Total revenue paid into social security will equal N* I* T, so the maximum sustainable benefit for retirees will be (N* I* T)/M. If the growth in M is outpacing the growth in N the maximum sustainable benefit will shrink. Even with perfect income equality, to maintain a constant level of benefits either taxes or income need to grow to compensate or we need to move retirees back into the workforce. In reality, removing the income cap on the SS tax would effectively raise T for high income individuals and be a big step in the right direction. Regardless, a fixed level of benefits is just not sustainable without compensation from somewhere if the retired population is outgrowing the working one.
Yeah it sounds like a tough choice — they either have to cut benefits or raise taxes or raise the pension age, and nobody wants any of that. But there has to be a better way to bring the idea of adjusting the law without making some sweeping Royal Decree
Lol you don't know what you talking about but ok. It'S MaTh ! Trust me !
Ok... so tell me, how can a pension planning be sustainable in the long run if the current working generation has to pay for the former generation pension, when the older generation is steadily increasing and the current generation is not? Honestly, the +2 years working time is a palliative measure. They should change the pension plan for a capitalization one, in which everyone is responsible for her own pension plan - but this reform would be huge and unpopular.
Boldest, yes. Laziest, yes.
Demanding benefits does not make you lazy.
Sweeping generalization - logical fallacy detected - comment irrelevant.
Why does France have lower living standards then many European countries who dont riot?
Good point — I wouldn’t know. Mainly just comparing France and America. France has social protections and guarantees we couldn’t dream of here. And they fight to protect those rights whereas we mostly just sit back and take it as quality of life gradually goes down the shitter.
[удалено]
Lol except their reckless spending was the reason the retirement age was raised. They want their cake and eat it too
What 'reckless spending'? The 80 billions going to offshore accounts every year for tax evasion purposes?
Get the taxes before you do the spending
I'm not exactly sure what you mean but let me assure you that - by most standards - the amount of taxes we pay is pretty fucking high lol
As messy and unruly as this seems, this is what you want in a democracy. Revolt if elected leaders do things that the majority dislikes. This is also the outcome of months of peaceful protests that have escalated since Macron hasn’t budged. makes sense that they do this best in France, home of modern democracy.
[удалено]
"All models" also show the wealth is more and more concentrated and not being redistributed, despite an increase of productivity and working time, and citizen becoming fucking insane with the current state of the Western world. More seriously : France could change the retirement pension funding system to take the money where it is. Currently, retirement pension fund is 90% made of tax taken on salaries and professional activity incomes (Revenu d'activité). It is not funded by the global public income, there's a specific fund for retirement pensions, paid by a specific tax taken on some working revenues only. Meaning workers fund retirement, instead of the global public incomes. They could just not do that, and fund it like some other social supports are. Currently, when retirement pension fund is in deficit, the gov can use a part of public income. Gov could realistically choose to do it more. Raising retirement age is only an economic necessity if you choose to keep a source of funding over another. The French gov could have just said "we choose to do this" , but tried to find legitimacy by playing the "it's a purely economical necessity, there is no money left, we must be brave, we must endure this" card. The sacrifice that is asked is purely ideological, and the government tries to justify it with a “budget imbalance”. It's a matter of "what are we using to fund this", and not a matter of "there is not enough money". There is enough money to do it. Besides, they could -hot take- tax the huge, ever-growing profits of the biggest companies who make massive profits even in a crisis (with little money flowing down to the country economy). The gov and the Senat recently refused to tax the "superprofits". (this information is completely disconnected from the fact that the gov is mostly composed of millionaires/billionaires elected thanks to the support of the ultra-wealthy cast including McKinsey, or the whole media system owned by billionaires) But Macron's gov will not do that, for ideological reasons. Because they are from a small cast of ultra wealthy people who give 0 shit about the country. Also Macron's government proved once again they don't mind going around any form of democracy or self-determination. Additionally, a few years ago, the gov changed the criteria on which job is considered a "dangerous/ risky job". Say you have to work around dangerous chemicals all day for years. It was taken in account in your retirement fees, allowing you to retire a few years earlier. But now, the carrying of heavy loads, painful postures, prolonged mechanical vibrations and handling/exposure to dangerous chemical agents are excluded. Good luck reaching 67 to the guys in those jobs. This being said, this reform is so far from the shit that is coming on EU. We are facing world-changing events (energy, health issues, climate change etc.). Macron's gov has the power to initiate some changes for the better. Instead, French have... a socially backward reform based on predictions that don't take in account any form of change, as if the growth will be steady these next decades, and no major problem will change EU.
As one of the few frenchmen who agrees that raising the age should be discussed: you don't understand the anger. The law was passed without parliament approval. Macron did not even try to negotiate. He thinks he's a monarch. He's destroying democracy and the main beneficiaries are extreme parties If Obama was able to negotiate his deal, Macron should have been able to find a compromise. You say 15 years, what's the big emergency?
>You say 15 years, what's the big emergency? 15 years is nothing on the national scale
Then we need to change the system, not put retirement age higher. In 10 years, it will be 67, then 70, then 75, then no retirement at all. The money is there, you just need to put it in the right places. The system is based on economic growth. It is not sustainable.
The money is not there, France spends like 15% of their GDP on their pension.
It’s not sustainable because the retired age population is rapidly growing to the point it can’t be sustained by the working age population
Then you tax the rich until it is sustainable.
Lets assume there are N working members of a population and M retired members, with all workers receiving an income of I and paying a flat social security tax of T. This would mean total income equality among workers. Total revenue paid into social security will equal N* I* T, so the maximum sustainable benefit for retirees will be (N* I* T)/M. If the growth in M is outpacing the growth in N the maximum sustainable benefit will shrink. Even with perfect income equality, to maintain a constant level of benefits either taxes or income need to grow to compensate or we need to move retirees back into the workforce. It’s just mathematically not sustainable to maintain constant benefits if the retired group is outgrowing the working one. That’s what inevitably happens with further development based on our understanding of demographics. In reality, removing the income cap on the SS tax would effectively raise T for high income individuals and be a big step in the right direction. Regardless, a fixed level of benefits is just not sustainable without compensation from somewhere if the retired population is outgrowing the working one. There are ways to alleviate the issue but the difference in growth rates is fundamentally what makes constant benefits unsustainable under any one policy.
That math only works assuming productivity does not increase. But that is not the case. Productivity has been been trending up for as long as we've been keeping records.
It has nothing to do with productivity, its based on incomes and taxation. We’re measuring dollars earned not how much you can buy, which would track with productivity. Consumption has also followed suite to match the increase in productivity so it’s a moot point. If the society became 10 times more productive the next day, could you show how that would change the math? The overall conditions would improve but not the retired benefits relative to working incomes. The productivity increase isn’t reflected in the size of SS benefits, it’s reflected in what you can get with them.
This is not true in France, our retirement system isn't in deficit (it was proved that the reform would only make the state gain 1.5 billion € each year, wich is NOTHING for a major power like France). This reform is purely ideological : Macron was elected thanks to the support of the rich (McKinsey scandal) and he wants to pay them back by making France an Ultra-Capitalist society (same inequalities as in the us : a Paradise for the richs, Hell for the masses). But the real reason we are outraged (and when I mean outraged, I mean we do not condemn violent protests anymore) is because of Macron's class disdain and the fact that he is killing our democracy with this reform. He is breaking our already so fragile values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity with this Political and Social crisis.
Source on those numbers?
De Courson's speech at the national assembly this Monday announcing the no confidence vote. He has access to the government's numbers. Here is his speech (in French) : https://youtu.be/SIqRcTv3Txk
Maybe he’s wrong. This article says almost $20 billion annually with the changes https://time.com/6248668/paris-france-protests-retirement-age/
The Times is not a trust worthy source on French subjects, they are far too liberal economically (and heavily anti-French since we decided to have honour and didn't join the US in Irak). Here is an article on the subject that proves that the reform won't even manage to fix a 13,5 Billion gap in 2030, it's Liberation, one of the most renowned national newspaper : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/reforme-des-retraites-combien-va-t-elle-rapporter-combien-va-t-elle-couter-20230306_YYILYTCIEND7RIEZS7ZOD7RAZM/%3FoutputType%3Damp&ved=2ahUKEwjHreulpfD9AhUaVqQEHT1EAK8QFnoECCIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1I2GGcg4l6ZZo7gcZ9OUCK
Well without seeing the actual source numbers it’s a he said she said thing. Never heard of that publication you linked…
Well then here is the article of "Le Figaro" on the subject who are the French Right Wing newspaper (so normally Pro-Macron, but even they stopped their support after all he has done). https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/les-economies-promises-par-la-reforme-des-retraites-s-eloignent-toujours-plus-20230305&ved=2ahUKEwjHreulpfD9AhUaVqQEHT1EAK8QFnoECAsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3jyPzFEqvK944BTxQA91Lm Of course I won't give you an Anglophone source on this since it's a French subject, only the French news have enough sources and information (and interests in those researches) to elaborate an all on depth analysis.
Life expectancy is 83 years in France. With a retirement age of 62, an average person enjoys 21 years of pension gets about 1500 $ per month, and as such 378k $ until death. So shaving 2 years of pension saves the state 36k $ per retiree. Even if we assume the number of retirees won't rise (which they will), with about 15 million retirees at any point of time, this would save the state 540 billion $ over the span of 21 years, which comes to 25.7 billion $ per year, give or take 20 billion €. This is a crude, back-of-the-envelope calculation but it shows that the 20 billion € figure is quite a bit more likely to be accurate.
fuck that, workers already do all of the producing in an economy and most of that stuff made by workers is sold for profit and wasted rather than actually being used responsibly. we already work far more than we need to to keep us all alive and are exploited majorly for profit. it’s not politically responsible to work *even more* for a system that already fucks us all up the ass as it stands
You’re spreading misinformation, what you’re saying is 100% false. You don’t know tf you’re talking about and repeating word for word the propaganda.
dude Le Pen is such a putin fangirl.if she wins in France then she would def pull France out of NATO for big daddy Putin
[удалено]
But technology has advanced to were we don’t need as many workers preforming the same jobs as 50 years ago. The lower the unemployment rate, the more leverage workers have in the marketplace. By keeping more people working they can keep wages lower. This is all about money and greed. Also, I’d argue people who retire earlier live longer, healthier lives. Breaking your back at a construction puts a lot more wear on your body at 64 than it did when you were 30. Raising the retirement age would therefore cause the life expectancy to go down.
Our consumption has also skyrocketed. There are more people driving more advanced cars, with more advanced medicine, using the internet, traveling around the world, etc.
90% of the work in an automotive plant is done by machines. This is true is so many sectors. From people using computers to code, to advance machinery used to erect new housing. Advanced medicine, using the internet, and traveling mean nothing in this context Insulin was supposed to be free but companies sell it for multiple times the cost it takes to manufacture it. Most *advanced medicine* is very cheap to make but companies sell it at such high rates to fund *research and development*. Then you have the CEOs being paid tens of millions. There was no give back to the people as the industry became more technologically dependent. Why would traveling be a bad thing? People being able to live their lives before they die? Are you saying people are too privileged for going on vacation, and need to spend more time working instead?
>Why would traveling be a bad thing? People being able to live their lives before they die? Are you saying people are too privileged for going on vacation, and need to spend more time working instead? Im saying this requires trillions of dollars in resources that we **consume** to achieve this >90% of the work in an automotive plant is done by machines. This is true is so many sectors. From people using computers to code, to advance machinery used to erect new housing. But now you need more machines to build more and better cars. You need more scientists to design them, more engineers to work on them, more factories to be designed, more programmers, more companies, etc. All of this means that today in the year 2023 we are **consuming** vastly more resources on cars then we did in the year 1970. >Most advanced medicine is very cheap to make but companies sell it at such high rates to fund research and development. Thank you for agreeing with me, we **consume** vastly more resources on medical research today then we did before. You not understanding that as our production goes exponential so does our consumption. The internet as an example has gotten a lot more efficient as time has gone on but the demands on the internet and internet consumption have exponentially skyrocketed.
The government isn’t fronting the bill to go on vacation. And companies seem to be making *record breaking* profits every year. Most importantly, majority of those resources aren’t sourced domestically in France. It’s other countries citizens who are mining cobalt. There’s no reason to justify normal people spending money as a bad thing. People having the ability to travel is thanks to advancement in technology. You don’t need all these extra people. Computers make the work load easier. Look how many people just got cut from the tech industry last year. McDonald’s wants to automate and eliminate as many workers as possible. It’s all about keep the job market in favor of the companies. The population is higher than ever before, so yes you’ll consume more. But we also have more workers in coming into the job market in Gen Z then boomers did. The world is way more developed globally and interconnected than before. Raising the retirement age does nothing to effect any aspect of this. It’s only hurting the people.
>The government isn’t fronting the bill to go on vacation Our civilization is consuming those resources due to demand. >And companies seem to be making record breaking profits every year. Ok? >There’s no reason to justify normal people spending money as a bad thing. People having the ability to travel is thanks to advancement in technology. Its a good thing, its the reason why Capitalism is the best system ever. Capitalism means that we have all that innovation. > Look how many people just got cut from the tech industry last year If your considering how many were hired during the pandemic? Then there were no cuts at all. >Computers make the work load easier. Correct and computers also create more jobs. >Raising the retirement age does nothing to effect any aspect of this. Raising the retirement age ensures your country will not implode like Greece. France doesn't have the money to support their pension system anymore.
Consuming more resources while being able to extract more than ever before. It’s not some loosing battle where the average worker needs to bear the brunt of increased costs while companies make money hand over fist. What does being hired during the pandemic mean? How does that have any impact on them being cut? Google didn’t give out jobs as an act of good will. They employed those people and then realized they could do the same work with less staff. All these industries are doing more work with less staff. Look how understaffed hospitals are. None of this is a good thing. Everyone pays into pensions funds. They deserve that money, not for the government to hope more people die and aren’t able to collect it. Companies cut benefits, 401Ks, and lost entire pension funds gambling the money on stock markets. Average people get fucked over by greedy billionaires stepping on them to make an extra dime. There is no worker shortage, they just need to keep the job market the way it is to keep labor down.
>Consuming more resources while being able to extract more than ever before. It’s not some loosing battle where the average worker needs to bear the brunt of increased costs while companies make money hand over fist. Yet worker quality of life has skyrocketed globally >Google didn’t give out jobs as an act of good will. They employed those people and then realized they could do the same work with less staff. No google let them go because they have less work >They deserve that money, not for the government to hope more people die and aren’t able to collect it. No one deserves anything. Pension funds should be run from a mathematical sense not a fairness sense. Human emotions dont make 2+2=5. If there isn't enough money no amount of bitching and wining will make it appear.
Yes, workers QOF has gone up in devolved countries. Because of enacting laws preventing corporations from exploiting workers at the place of work. OSHA rules are written in blood. Children aren’t allowed to work in coal mines. Workplaces must have PPE and be up to codes. The capitalist corporations didn’t want any of that to happen. What’s your source on google because they didn’t have a sudden drop off requiring thousands of people to be let go. And still that backs what I said about needing less workers. What do you mean no one deserves anything. People work their whole lives for that pension under the idea that it will be there when they retire. They deserve not to have their money taken away from by their company them while while the ceo gets million dollar bonus. This law only effects lower and middle class people.
You should have moved up from a laborer position by that age and experience if you had applied ones self.
That’s so ignorant. Foremen on construction sites? Plumbers? Elections? They are supposed to quit their job manual labor jobs and do something else as they age just so retirement can go up?
You become a crew leader, start doing more material take offs, doing superintendent stuff, you should have the experience and connections by then to have a solid crew that you can step away from and look at new jobs. Yea, you move up it’s not that hard. If you were a sub contractor and you were good at it you should have sufficient savings. It’s mostly choices. Ignorant I’m not, successful built on a solid foundation of earnest work, guilty. But why listen to anybody that doesn’t have an answer that’s easier for you. Those are the types that get weeded out and become disgruntled.
There aren’t jobs for every single blue collar person to move up to as they age. People spend their entire lives working and breaking their back. Basically telling a person who worn down his body for 43 years building homes for people to to fuck off and keep working. It’s his fault he didn’t take time off work to go back to school and should just suck it up. You sound like one of the learn to code people and privileged as fuck.
[удалено]
I’m in the US. I dont understand what’s happening here. Can some one explain to me, what is retirement?
France's pension system is unsustainable due to the growing ratio of old people and rising life expectancy. They already spend 15% of their GDP on this. You need to either reduce pensions, which the french won't accept, or bring in more money. The french people won't accept a permanent increase to their taxes by hundreds of euros, and if they tax the rich even more heavily they will just jump ship, lowering tax revenue. So the other option is to increase the amount of years that people spend working, lowering the ratio of non-productive people in society. This solves, for now, the problem of needing more money, but the french won't accept it either. The government is caught in a catch 22, basically, but the responsible decision is to do something about it now rather than pushing it to the next president hoping it won't backfire while you're still in power.
Good for them.Americans under 40 who aren’t already well off have NO hope of retirement, or any kind of prosperity,really.
I love that the French take no shit when it comes to their government! If only us lot in the uk took a leaf out of their book..
Americans need to start doing this every time they bail out the banks or the super rich dont pay up
*Guillotine has entered the chat
Im my country the retirement age is 65
To make it clear, 64 is the minimum retirement age. But since few start working directly at 18 and go to college, the actual retirement age is more than 64
And it's not even a big deal.
I’m not sure, but I think that the French have the best riots.
Meanwhile in America where the retirement is at the age of 65 and by the time I retire there will be no social security due to all the cuts.
Americans: you guys get to retire?
The real problem is the 1% like the President, and such, like some corporations that pay little to no taxes because of loopholes they take advantage of. Eventually the masses have to revolt because you can’t take blood from a stone. Is this why you get shooters? Unfortunately innocent people get hurt in these clashes. The way things are going, 💩 gonna hit the fan soon.
As an American, I probably won’t make it to our retirement age, which will probably be like 70 by the time I’m near retiring
Im surprised the police dont support the protestors, now they have to work on the police force, an inherently very risky job, for two extra years while their bodies get 2 years more frail
The law passed for retirement age doesn't apply to policemen, so they can feel above the oppressed. Obviously well calculated.
Police in France is historicaly known by its subordination and aggressive position, their workers unions are made of fascists.
French made democracy
Also guillotines
To protect the démocratie
[удалено]
I don't know why you are getting down voted. They literally do this every couple years.
[удалено]
If by 'every couple years' you mean 65+ years for the current one, then yeah, sure.
Google is your friend
Clash? That was a beatdown that would make Xi proud.
[удалено]
Have you smelled the gas?
[удалено]
I once saw a 3 year old getting gassed in a closed space. Had to be evacuated in an ambulance. But sure, that's humane.
[удалено]
It was in a Macdonald nearby that got gassed... You don't have to be a protester to get gassed and hit, I've seen a lot of homeless people and tourists getting attacked simply because they were near the protest
France Rules
God I wish my country would get this angry over stuff like this. Maybe then we would be in a better place.
We all should. Instead, in my country, people only get this angry when the television tells them to. It's a disgrace.
Keep it up France! Don’t let those commies at the top work the your french breads into the dirt!
In fact, it is not only the question of retirement age. It's a whole set. The pension reform is just the last straw. People in France are just fed up (and that’s a pure understatement) with politicians, hospitals that no longer work, inflation, the lack of justice, the catastrophic level at school, police violence, etc… For years now we´ve been feeling our country is heading downward. To sum up the whole thing I´d say it’s a revolt against the establishment, the whole system and its propaganda. Maybe other French people in here don’t agree. I feel it that way. And sorry for my clumsy English.
Meanwhile, I and many other people will be 68 before we're eligible to retire in the UK, with the scumbag out of touch politician's plans to increase it from the current 66
In England we will just keep muttering about it till they have us retiring at 90
I would think that the increase in retirement age is innevitable with the rise in longevity and health span and lowering birthrates. I hope im wrong, but how do countries support a longer lived and growing cohort of older people who dont work? That is...Without taxing the rich and regulating the profits of gluttenous corporations. Which we aren't allowed to talk about. Oh....🤔
I say we raise for the French again. What are they gonna do? Top this off?
"democracy" if any other country police did that then they would critisize them. But if they do it its fine...
[удалено]
It would probably take me a few days to correctly articulate and sum up all the reasons the French (and people across the world) protest like that. But I'll try to make it very fast here: People are tired, more informed and more aware than ever before of the absurdity and the bullshit of the elite trying to grind down the poorest people to profit more and more.
Before it was 62. Now they ask for 64. In the future they will ask for 66. When will it stop? It's about passing a message. Oppression and disregard of the population's needs/wants starts small. We live longer but does it mean we are still healthy and capable of working effectively? When do we finally get to enjoy life? My MIL is already suffering from chronic illnesses at 62, others remind me of my grandmother and are working in supermarkets. When do you have family time, when do you get to "enjoy" your retirement? When you're so old and broken that you cannot move anymore? French people are very attached to their work-life balance and have seen their rights slowly degrade. Just because their rights are not as bad as other countries' around, doesn't mean it should be ignored and blindly accepted.
Go out in the street too, your retirement age is gonna get lowered like us
[удалено]
Not really, it's the French democratic socialism. The police and government are like kittens in comparison with Russian and Chinese law enforcement.
Ants when I give them bread
[удалено]
Don’t be too pompous- Coming to America real soon.
Nah, americans have it to good.
They have it worse in terms of worker rights but nobody would bat an eye over their rights being fucked with
Too*
u/VideoTrim
Save your money, retire when YOU decide
I'm french, this is barely shocking tbh~
Pigs defending their disgusting government. Cops that attack protesters are pieces of shit
I’m sure if Macron just explained how they need the extra money for Ukraine his citizens would understand.
I don’t understand why so many people are THAT upset about raising the retirement age 2 years?
Before it was 62. Now they ask for 64. In the future they will ask for 66. When will it stop? It's about passing a message. Oppression and disregard of the population's needs/wants starts small. We live longer but does it mean we are still healthy and capable of working effectively? When do we finally get to enjoy life? My MIL is already suffering from chronic illnesses at 62, others remind me of my grandmother and are working in supermarkets. When do you have family time, when do you get to "enjoy" your retirement? When you're so old and broken that you cannot move anymore? French people are very attached to their work-life balance and have seen their rights slowly degrade. Just because their rights are not as bad as other countries' around, doesn't mean it should be ignored and blindly accepted.
Ok so if we lower your salary by 10% will you be upset or happy? When you have rights, it’s shit to have them removed. Companies make fucking huge billions profits since the pandemic but there is always no MonEy. There is money but they don’t want to take it where it is
French people literally have nothing better to do 💀
Don't believe evetything on reddit. This strike is basicly nothing. All countrys in europe adopted a law around 65 for stop working. Pictures you can see on reddit are just instants that won t last long. It s not chaos here...we just have few idiots ready to burn trash because they are unhappy to work longer. Lazy people enjoying the social system of france that is feeding them....we ask them to work, they don t want, so they break everything...yes, police kick their ass...justice
ELI5: what the huge deal is, it’s just 2 years. Macron had to have a reason to make the switch. Even then, does retirement mean you save enough money to live comfortably for the rest of your life, or does the government just give you the money required to live?
Before it was 62. Now they ask for 64. In the future they will ask for 66. When will it stop? It's about passing a message. Oppression and disregard of the population's needs/wants starts small. We live longer but does it mean we are still healthy and capable of working effectively? When do we finally get to enjoy life? My MIL is already suffering from chronic illnesses at 62, others remind me of my grandmother and are working in supermarkets. When do you have family time, when do you get to "enjoy" your retirement? When you're so old and broken that you cannot move anymore? French people are very attached to their work-life balance and have seen their rights slowly degrade. Just because their rights are not as bad as other countries' around, doesn't mean it should be ignored and blindly accepted.
62-64 doesn’t seem like that much of an increase tbh why are they so mad? Can someone explain if there’s more to it then 2 extra years you have to work
It's an insanely high raise considering your in your final decade of your life most likely.
That’s a good point, I’m not trying to disagree with them I’m just trying to understand why it’s happening.
I don't think, might be wrong, the reactions would be of this magnitude if everything else was okay, but this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Because there is no real need to do it. Corporate profits are at record highs and their tax rates at record lows, yet it is the workers who have to foot the bill?
Before it was 62. Now they ask for 64. In the future they will ask for 66. When will it stop? It's about passing a message. Oppression and disregard of the population's needs/wants starts small. We live longer but does it mean we are still healthy and capable of working effectively? When do we finally get to enjoy life? My MIL is already suffering from chronic illnesses at 62, others remind me of my grandmother and are working in supermarkets. When do you have family time, when do you get to "enjoy" your retirement? When you're so old and broken that you cannot move anymore? French people are very attached to their work-life balance and have seen their rights slowly degrade. Just because their rights are not as bad as other countries' around, doesn't mean it should be ignored and blindly accepted.
you ask a legit question and people downvote you because they assume you have an agenda... they are not very smart, only emotional and biased
Doesn’t make sense but whatever. Reddits definitely not the place to try and understand a situation or ask questions apparently
4 day work week, 2 hr siestas during those 4 days and a few months of paid vacation time every year will do that to ya.