Emmanuel Macron wants to raise the retirement age in France from 62 to 64, and the French people are not happy about it. Rokhaya Diallo explains why:
If it is adopted, Macron’s reform would disproportionately hurt more vulnerable populations: low-income workers, women and citizens from the French overseas territories, who are overwhelmingly people of color. This is what has outraged the French public.
Uh huh. Sure it is.
Now, now....
Come on Kevin, this is shameful click bait on your part by taking one sentence out of context, and then trying to mock it.
The entire article tries to highlight that the issue with Macron's proposal, and the massive pushback against it, is that it would hurt the poorest among the French the most, and that the whole reason any reform may be needed is the result of a big tax break Macron gave to corporations.
So caring for the needs of the poor is now considered woke from your point of view?
No the whole reason it is needed is the French retirement system is under stress from rising life expectancy, and France being in non-respect of EU estalished debt norms.
Of course oh the horror to have the same retirement age as those abusive and medieval systems such as Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Luxembourg (or perish the thought of anti-social backwardness of those knuckledragging hellholes of Norway and Denmark at 67...)
The sheer gullibility or blind knee-jerking of the Leftie...
It is possible that the problem is not so much that they are raising the age but why they are raising the age.
+1
I’m currently generating over $35,100 a month thanks to one small internet job, therefore I really like your work! I am aware that with a beginning cdx05 capital of $28,800, you are cdx02 presently making a sizeable quantity of money online.
.
.
Just open the link————->>> http://Www.Coins71.Com
If you could refrain from insults you might actually reach a few people with your message, but I can see that's clearly not what you're here for.
You're neither British nor educated. If you believe anyone here thinks otherwise you're even dumber than I thought.
Lounsbury
Did you know that the population growth in France has been NEGATIVE since 2003? Yes, you are correct - life expectancy DOES play into this as fewer and fewer WORKERS are supporting more and more retirees. - but the main reason for the stress on the system is lowered birthrates which is just now morphing into less workers paying into the system
I guess France is no longer the land of the lovers? That was snark of course.
"Caring for the needs of the poor" is the very definition of "woke." According to Today's Republican Party, a True American is selfish, greedy, racist, and xenophobic. Since this is a worldwide movement, I assume these principals can be transferred, at least in some ways, to France also.
(Of course, the French may already believe that True Americans are selfish, greedy, racist, and xenophobic....)
Google paid 99 dollars an hour on the internet. Everything I did was basic Οnline w0rk from comfort at hΟme for 5-7 hours per day that I g0t from this office I f0und over the web and they paid me 100 dollars each hour. For more details
visit this article... https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com
If it was asserted that the American people opposed an increase in retirement age because it would disproportionately hurt poor people, cynicism would be in order. Americans generally are selfish. The French are NOT Americans; they may well actually care about poor people.
It's a matter of degree. Most people watch our for their self-interest first, including in the US and France. That's normal politics.
Interesting side not. Scroll down on Wikipedia page for "List of countries by social welfare spending" to the section for "Total net social spending". France ranks first in the world and the US second. Would not have guessed that.
Total net social spending on that wiki page includes tax breaks (which generally go to the already comfortable and/or rich who itemize on their tax returns and/or can afford to shelter money in various tax schemes: 401ks, HSAs, etc) and also government-paid medical care (in which the US - having the highest medical prices for every possible procedure, test, drug, etc - outspends every other system on earth to achieve middling results for most).
Not a surprise that our high social spending is both inefficient and ineffective at achieving any discernible social goal.
"Most people watch our for their self-interest first, including in the US and France. That's normal politics."
Not any more. I had a prof who'd been GOP county chair back in the days when that was a rational post. He told us quite frankly that if people voted their self-interests, the Democrats would always win.
So the GOP convinces them that trans kids are history's greatest monsters, and they swallow that line.
Sad and true. The thing is, why are conservatives to ready to believe that these kids are monsters? They're just kids. Maybe not the same as their kids, but still, kids. This feels like some pretty sick thinking.
I'm not so sure. Status considerations are also part of self-interest. The working class needs the poor & working poor because it elevates them. LBJ was very clever in noting this dynamic.
A mechanic from Shaker Heights, Ohio is never going to be an investment partner in a restaurant venture. But the idea of the guy at Krusty Burger making $19/hr drives him nuts.
It's interesting that the US is 21st in public social spending but second in net social spending. A quick first cut suggests that Americans contribute more to charity than most countries, but that doesn't sound plausible. I suspect, as Austin implies, that the answer lies in "tax breaks for social purposes", although the categorization "for social purposes" sounds arbitrary and probably has a large margin of error. Those tax breaks for social purposes are mostly going to come out as "social spending for rich people".
and religious psychotics.
👍👍👍👍
Les Slackers.
I’m 58. I’m a professional engineer so it’s not a physical job. I spent the last week at a company watching guys weld and assemble equipment my employer was buying. My feet hurt… my back hurt… standing on a concrete floor for hours.
I can’t imagine that folks my age or older can do much really physically challenging work. If you want someone to put a new roof on your house, old farts like Mr. Drum can’t do it. What are the roofers supposed to do when they age out? Write a blog? 😂
So many people your age and mine (I have a few years on you) *have* to do that kind of work, whether they *can* or not. This in particular makes my blood boil whenever I see politicians and others who *don't* have to bend and stoop and stand and delve and carry things for a living, talking so blithely about how all we need to do is raise full retirement age to 70, just tweak it by a few months. It's already tough enough for people who do that kind of work to have the age at 67. If you ask me, it should be going in the other direction, at least for them.
Roofers (and other physical laborers) generally don’t work until 67. They overwhelmingly tend to take early SS (and suffer the lifetime penalty) at 62, with the poorest among them maybe holding on to 65 when Medicare kicks in. Raising the age of “full” retirement to 70 or 75 or 80 isn’t going to change that.
Still, your bigger point remains true: all these politicians - and let’s not kid ourselves, journalists who gush over their “innovative ideas” as well as the millions of voters who already have theirs and thus are voting for them to keep taxes low - are just stealing from physical laborers when they raise the age of full SS benefits. We really need to be lowering the age, at least for people in those kinds of hard jobs.
Your first graf is right, I think-- most will end up taking the lifetime hit and start drawing SS at the earliest possible age. But it wouldn't surprise me if that age gets bumped up too, the next time full retirement age is raised.
That means stealing from physical laborers in two ways, I think. First, in the lower monthly and lifetime SS payments they'll get, and second, because I'm willing to bet good money that in aggregate they don't live as long as white-collar earners-- they'll draw those smaller benefits for a shorter time. But that will help maintain the program's ability to pay for us others so a lot of "reformers" will think (but probably not say) it's a Good Thing.
“I’m 58. I’m a professional engineer…”
Completely shocked to find out that our resident nihilist concern troll is a living breathing Dilbert. Definitely explains the “I’ve got mine, FU and F everyone else” sociopathy Justin exhibits everywhere else on Kevin’s blog.
Color me cynical, but I doubt he really has a professional engineering degree.
I live in France and won't get retirement before age 67, unless I accept a reduced pension which I refuse to do and couldn't afford anyway. And I'm low-income (minimum wage). So all this talk of poor people having to work until they're 64 is BS. They have to work until they're 67 as things stand right now.
So what are all the protests about? The biggest losers are those who benefit from special pension regimes which will be suppressed. Those are not the lowest salaries. The protests are led by the trade unions. All hail to them but in France their members do not have the lowest salaries. You know what? I've lived in France since 1989 and what gets people into the street is the word "reform". Lovely people but boy are they allergic to change.
Maybe cause whenever a politician said the word “reform” in the past, regular people didn’t actually see any noticeable improvement in their lives… and often saw declines in their living standards? At least in English speaking countries, this is what many (most?) voters experience whenever “reform” is imposed by a political party. Eventually, any word that sounds positive but always results in something bad or lackluster will result in regular people becoming leery of it: “reorganization” as another word that people have become leery of.
People in first world countries expect progress; things are supposed to get better. When politicians start talking about "reform" they almost always mean regress; nobody ever reformed a social program by increasing the benefits it provides. When improvement is intended, it's described as improvement, not as reform. Because the operational meaning of "reform" is "regress", it's only natural that the greater bulk of the voting public will react negatively to talk of reform without bothering to learn details.
Wow, China has really upped it's game in tomatoes,
https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11izm08/oc_biggest_tomato_producers_in_the_world/
US crashing and burning.
Is China using all those tomatoes or is it exporting them? If they’re using them, damn, that a lot of tomato sauce! Wonder what’s up with that?
As Trump said he is 'very worried about being hit by tomatoes and other very dangerous fruits.'
So there's at least one daily intelligence briefing we know he paid attention to.
🙂
That's somewhere near 100 lbs. of tomatoes per capita per year. That is A LOT of tomatoes. Ketchup on everything, and plenty of it.
click
Are you "cherry picking" the data?
Or are you "plum" crazy?
Stewed the stats into a lovely sauce.