The Forum > Article Comments > The French retirement revolt > Comments
The French retirement revolt : Comments
By Rodney Crisp, published 27/10/2010Resistance to Sarkozy's retirement reforms qualifies as the greatest French revolt since the student riots of May 1968.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by bitey, Wednesday, 27 October 2010 8:52:49 AM
| |
Dear Mr Crisp,
Thanks for that up close and personal view of the situation. Surely the socialist party will get in next time.. For me it's simply a matter of there being a minimum standard of living, welfare and infrastructure and its being maintained via increased taxes from the top down. The insane situation we have around the world--obscene wealth complemented by obscene poverty--has to come to an end. Of course what maintains this status quo is those in between these two extremes, who buy into the capitalist ideology and derive their self-worth from what they see as their relative "success". A better idea would of course be to impose a wealth cap of say a million dollars a head (plus some assets). After that point people would have to derive satisfaction and fulfilment otherwise than in accumulating superfluous wealth and gloating at those less well off. Going cold turkey like this will never get up though, so I say just keep hitting the wealthy to maintain that minimum standard---mind that I don't say people who don't contribute should enjoy the lap of luxury, just a minimum standard, including pensioners. Much as this is shocking to the fascists, capitalists and their hangers on, it's coming sooner or later. The benighted masses have to wake up one day...maybe as the middle classes retreat back towards the poverty line... Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 27 October 2010 9:45:24 AM
| |
*A better idea would of course be to impose a wealth cap of say a million dollars a head (plus some assets).*
So Squeers, your romantic notion would mean that we limit those few creative, innovative individuals, who create new industries, new wealth, new jobs. John Deere would have remained a backyard business. Hewlett Packard the same, so be it for Microsoft and all the rest. Somebody once claimed that socialism works great, until the money runs out. So true! If those innovators never create those ideas, never create that wealth in the first place, we can all be poor together and you would seemingly be much happier. How sad. Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 27 October 2010 12:10:33 PM
| |
The heck with new industries, Yabby...
>>*A better idea would of course be to impose a wealth cap of say a million dollars a head (plus some assets).* So Squeers,your romantic notion would mean that we limit those few creative, innovative individuals, who create new industries, new wealth, new jobs.<< A million bucks won't even go halfway to a new helicopter, let alone the downpayment on my next Gulfstream. Where do these people get such strange ideas from? Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 27 October 2010 12:22:03 PM
| |
Interesting article.
The fact is that the spending commitments of the welfare state are unsustainable and all of the western world will be faced with these kinds of choices over the coming decades. Of course the socialists dream that they can bring greater prosperity by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. But their economic illiteracy never seems to consider whether their own policies produce outcomes that are worse than the original problem even considered from their own standpoint. For example: "[The socialist party] has detailed an alternative reform project to finance the maintenance of the existing 60 year retirement age limit through fiscal reform [translation: taking more of other people's private property] including increased contributions from the financial sector, taxes on bonuses and stock options and revenue on capital" So in other words, the socialists' original complaint against the current reform is that it would cause higher unemployment (since they regard employment as intrinsically exploitative you'd wonder how they could consistently be in favour of it). But it never seems to occur to them to wonder whether taking more of other people's capital might itself have the effect of causing higher unemployment. They think that capital is just a gratuitous fountain that they can drain indefinitely without any corresponding downside for the people who, in their own view, are most dependent on it. Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 27 October 2010 1:12:09 PM
| |
Dear Yabby,
obviously the wealth cap wouldn't work unless it was agreed upon internationally because people would desert in droves. Obviously too there would need to be a great deal of thinking it through, but then I think it would begin to address a great many of the world's problems, number one being the sustainability issue. The cap would have to apply to everyone, without exception. Business would perhaps then be disincentivised to go corporate and global in search of new markets and greater profits to appease an insatiable dynamic. I don't believe it would disincentivise individuals; the creative types you mention are surely not driven only by the prospect of vast wealth? One could still lead a very nice existence with a million bucks in the bank, relatively speaking; and surely there would be as much satisfaction to be had in husbanding one's wealth as in abusing it? A million bucks still represents a considerable challenge (I've barely begun) and the competitive types could have a race to the top. Having attained your million you could reduce your working hours and pursue other interests, thus creating a vacancy for someone else, or be creative in business just for the hell of it. There are plenty who would do just that and feel damn good about themselves! Of course the range of commodities would diminish and we'd have to find other ways to amuse ourselves than consumption for its own sake, but it would make for a better, more humane and more conscionable world. Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 27 October 2010 1:44:35 PM
| |
Peter Hume: <The fact is that the spending commitments of the welfare state are unsustainable and all of the western world will be faced with these kinds of choices over the coming decades.>
Dear Peter Hume, I meant to add: it's interesting that you think welfare is not sustainable... but obscene wealth is... ? I also think welfare is unsustainable---as things currently stand. Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 27 October 2010 1:53:50 PM
| |
*number one being the sustainability issue*
Dear Squeers, If sustainability is your no one issue, how to you justify having six kids? *obviously the wealth cap wouldn't work unless it was agreed upon internationally* So you think people anywhere on earth would not cheat massively, to benefit themselves and their loved ones? How much do you know about human nature,Squeers? * Business would perhaps then be disincentivised to go corporate and global* So how would those innovative types earn the capital to build billion $ factories, required for so many things these days, like microprocessors, refineries, etc? The list is endless. Why should I not benefit, if an American has a great idea? *One could still lead a very nice existence with a million bucks in the bank* Squeers, a million bucks hardly buys a single machine in many modern production processes. The innovator would have no capital, to create his vision. *Having attained your million you could reduce your working hours and pursue other interests, thus creating a vacancy for someone else* So the most innovative and creative stop innovating and creating. I would never own a great machine, like a John Deere tractor, which produces cheaper food for people like you, or for the poor of this world, for that matter. Stuff the poor, let em pay extra, you imply. You really have not thought this through very well, apart from being a romantic at heart, I suspect. Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 27 October 2010 2:14:01 PM
| |
The need to increase the retirement age is because of the 'aging populations' in the western world.
But why is the 'aging population' such a bad thing here in Australia? Surely it means we are living longer, and isn't that a good thing? The problem is not an 'aging' population, it is that we are failing to produce enough kids to replace ourselves. We are suiciding, self genocide. Here we need to give tax reductions for kids so middle class parents can afford the kids we want. Those on welfare are pumping out kids like there is no tomorrow because of the welfare bribes to have lots of kids. Meaning that single mums are pressured into having more kids than they can look after. And the incentives make sure that few get married, as this reduces their welfare paynments. Also making divorce fairer, because Australian men don't want to become dads... because they are afraid of having their kids stolen by divorce lawyers. Have a look at this map of world poverty... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate Basically the more red, the more poverty... But the surprise is that it is a map of FERTILITY - how many children are being born. You know how our government seems unable to fund hospitals, schools and roads, and this is with our population failing to produce enough children to replace ourselves... imagine the problems of fundiong these essential services if the population was not declining, but trippling every twenty years... no wonder they are poor. Worse than schools and hospitals, they somehow they also need to find more farmland too! 50 years ago, perhaps we could have ended poverty by donating 30% of outr income to the poor. But now there are so many more poor that the problem is so much bigger. There are 60 million shanty-town dwellers in India alone, and only 20million Australians... Why is China becomming so rich and powerfull? The one-child policy. It means they can finally afford to catch up with the infastructire and education that nations need to get ahead and build wealth Posted by partTimeParent, Wednesday, 27 October 2010 5:20:28 PM
| |
The French seem to be living in a socialist twighlight zone.
Some dill has convinced them that no matter how much money you drag out of the national piggy bank... it will be never allowed to be empty by some act of Marxist 'divine' intervention. They can scream, yell, demonstrate, howl, gnash their collective teeth and rage against reality..but it will still bite them in the bum when the money has actually run out. Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 28 October 2010 5:33:05 AM
| |
AGiR,
You might be onto something. We're not talking about just miners who spend forty years down the mine, but public servants in AC offices, with generous vacation conditions and super. And the yall want to finish work at sixty ? What a bunch of pussies. Why not a staggered system across a range of situations, under which people who clock up forty years of hard, physical, dangerous, dirty, boring work get to retire at 55, while those in relatively interesting, clean, jobs, in pleasant environments, with all sorts of perks, get to retire at 70 ? Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 28 October 2010 3:34:02 PM
| |
Dear Squeers......you said:
"Going cold turkey like this will never get up though, so I say just keep hitting the wealthy to maintain that minimum standard---mind that I don't say people who don't contribute should enjoy the lap of luxury, just a minimum standard, including pensioners." I don't think you live in the real world old son. HERE is the 'real' world. Maryland USA "We'll tax the RICH and raise $220,000,000" Hmmmmmmm ooooo----k...... OUTCOME a) Rich get sick of over taxation b) Rich MOVE to Florida c) Maryland state government LOSES $100,000,000 But of course Squeersy... 'you' are looking to that utopian day when ALL the world is controlled by your mob ..right ? :) so mr rich businessman CAN'T race off to Florida.... OUTCOME Mr Rich businessman shuts down his business and all the workers are laid off. RICH businessman "PAYCHEX" founder has a number of homes. He is a BILLionaire.... but he also created something like 12,200 jobs, benefits etc. Do you REALLY begrudge him a bit of luxury ? What if he gives away 50% of his wealth to charity ? hmmmm ? Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 28 October 2010 7:15:41 PM
| |
Yabby: <Dear Squeers,
If sustainability is your no one issue, how to you justify having six kids?> Dear Yabby, well, I am a little embarrassed about that.. Circumstances, old chap; ..I'm a victim of circumstances? Never had my first kid till I was 36, but then.. Go figure? Maybe I can breed enough socialists to take over.. ? Dear ALGOREisRICH, you certainly are 'rich', There was a guy on the radio today, (Joe Bageant) I reckon you could relate to, well, in everything but his politics. I suggest you have a listen: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/ He makes a lot of sense to me; but I doubt you'll get it.. But seriously, people like me have hitherto been in the minority, allowing people like you to set the agenda and crow about your unspeakable mentality ... as if it actually made sense... ! Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 28 October 2010 7:55:22 PM
| |
*Maybe I can breed enough socialists to take over.. ?*
Sheesh Squeers, I have heard the fanatically religious make similar claims. I think they will beat you in the race. I also have bad news for you. I watched a programme on ABC tonight, about a fungus/worm harvested in Tibet, for Chinese medicine and worth serious money. Those Tibetans were digging away furiously and I doubt if you will convince them of your ideology. Population is of course the elephant in the room. It has been my prediction for a long time, that eventually it will sink the human race. But I now understand why you never mention it, but focus on those of us who might buy an extra ipod or whatever. Mind you Squeers, I do respect your honesty for admitting that you are not consistant. It cannot be denied however, that your actions will result in a far larger drain of the planet's resources, then even a capitalist like me would dream of. Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 28 October 2010 11:37:58 PM
| |
.
Dear ALGOREisRICH, Yabby, . As anybody who has had to do business in a number of different countries over a long period of time will understand, it is no simple matter to correctly interpret people and circumstances in different cultures with different historical backgrounds and customs, symbolical references and sets of values. I have learned from observation that very young children understand much faster and far better than adults in this type of situation. Children are less inclined than adults to simply paste their "world view" on everything and everyone they encounter. They have a more open-minded approach and are far more observant and receptive. They learn quickly, are more critical, make fewer mistakes, are more pertinent and better equipped to develop sound judgement on people and events than adults. The learning curve, nevertheless, even for children, stretches out over several years of exposure to foreign cultures and environments. I think we should keep this in mind before making rash judgements about nearly fifty million French people (70% of the population), including Nobel prize winners in literature, physics, medicine ... as well as several Field's medallists for outstanding discoveries in mathematics ... For a country that is only 6.5% the size of Australia with three times the population (and three times the competition), there is not much room for bludgers, particularly during the long hard winters without adequate food and shelter from the freezing cold. The € 32 billion current deficit of the French retirement fund can hardly be attributed to any "welfare state" policy instigated and maintained over the past fifteen years since the liberal conservative political parties have been in power. On the contrary, the liberal conservatives have slashed mercilessly into the country’s national social security scheme creating additional hardship for the poor who no longer have access to proper medical and dental care. Their only resort is assistance from the Salvation Army or similar humanitarian organisations. The present revolt is a clear sign from the home of Human Rights that social and economic injustice is dangerously close to what the it considers the ultimate limit. . Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 29 October 2010 12:30:56 AM
| |
Dear Yabby,
I started a thread asking the question, does capitalism drive population growth? So I don't know how you can say "I never mention population". I'm acutely aware it's a big problem. I think capitalism does drive unsustainable population growth (in order to drive economic growth), but I have to do some research on the matter before I would make the assertion outright. I've also quoted Emerson before, who said that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" Posted by Squeers, Friday, 29 October 2010 6:38:01 AM
| |
*So I don't know how you can say "I never mention population". I'm acutely aware it's a big problem*
Squeers, I stand corrected, you did indeed start that thread. You just perhaps did not explain how a good socialist like yourself, aware of population issues, had 6 children. Perhaps its not capitalism after all, but our social welfare system, which gives people huge amounts of money to feed the many offspring. Had it been real capitalism, you have em, you feed em. We offer you family planning if you wish. Choose and live by the consequences of your actions. My solution. Assist people with the first two kids if you wish, after that, they are on their own. But our social welfare state would never accept that kind of logic. Posted by Yabby, Friday, 29 October 2010 12:50:47 PM
|
They estimate that it will mechanically increase the effective retirement age for a large number of employees, particularly those having suffered a broken career due to periods of unemployment, to a much higher age bracket of 65 to 67 years, thus putting off for a further three to four years the age at which young people will have room to enter the work market.
implies that the workforce is a static size and that younger workers are waiting for older folks to retire so they can take their jobs. This doesn't make much sense to me given the obvious productivity gains technology does and will no doubt continue to deliver, as well as the innovations it will drive and the knock on impacts this will have to tradition ideas of employment.
Perhaps Sarkozy just thinks these measures need to be legislated NOW rather than in 20 years. He is duly elected to deliver good government and so should be permitted to do so until he is voted out, don't you think?