The pension is clearly one of the most important social conquests of modern society and it would be unthinkable for anyone to question it as a right, whatever their ideas, whatever political space they belong to.
…
What exactly is going on in France in the last few weeks where unions are united (a rather rare phenomenon) to strike and demonstrate against pension reform?
Who is right, and what is the truth?
Everyone is right, and the truths are many, conflicting and often incompatible, which is exactly why the problem is created.
I will attempt a brief description of the situation.
The current pension system of France was established immediately after the end of the Second World War, by de Gaulle within the framework of a wider social policy and with the consent of all political trends.
It is based on a basic idea of social solidarity, of redistribution (répartition) which means in practice that the social contributions of the workers who are in professional activity, finance the pensions (the pensioners).
Immediately after the war the ratio of workers to pensioners was 3-1. Gradually this ratio started to change and in the last decades it became 2-1, with a perspective of 1.7-1 in the next decade.
The number of pensioners is constantly increasing and so is the length of time that one is in retirement, because quite simply we are living longer; every decade life expectancy increases, which logically changes the balance and puts the sustainability of the system at risk. This is the official view of political power and this is what Macron wants to prevent. (It was one of the main problems that occupied all the presidents, Chirac, Sarkozy, Hollande, in the last 25 years; they all avoided launching it because it was politically damaging and destructive to their re-election).
What alternatives are there in the event that the funds do not have the money to pay the pensions, as the government says will happen in the next few years?
1 lending to the state and funds or
2 increase in employee contributions (resulting in a reduction in wages) or
3 reduction of pensions or
4 increase in the duration of contributions
This last alternative is proposed by Macron and the government, raising the retirement age from 62 to 64. In short 2 years of extra work to save the system.
The majority of the French are against it; this is what the latest polls show.
Unions demonstrate and strike; 2.5 million protesters across the country according to the union estimate 1 million according to the Home Office - these discrepancies in estimates are always striking - considering the bill unpopular, undemocratic and even deprived political legitimacy.
The government responds that it was in its programmatic announcements, and it is true. Since his first term, Macron has had this reform in his program that was not launched in his first five years due to the Covid crisis.
-"I am implementing what I had clearly announced", says the French President. "Elections were held a few months ago, I was elected according to the constitutional procedures."
- "No", says the opposition, "you do not have an absolute majority in the Parliament".
-"We have a relative majority" replies Prime Minister Elizabeth Borne, "besides, parliamentary democracy requires consents, alliances and not necessarily an absolute majority and a sterile opposition".
-"Yes, but in the last presidential elections there was a lot of abstention, so Mr. Macron you are not a majority of the total population" answer Le Pen and Melanchon.
In my opinion, the fact that citizens do not go to vote is really sad; whatever the reasons, it is first and foremost the responsibility of the citizens themselves if they did not vote. In retrospect, those who did not vote cannot question the legitimacy of the government and the impossibility of political power to function; otherwise, we will constantly end up in dead ends.
-"The people express themselves in the street" says Melanchon, (knowingly forgetting of course that even 2 million protesters do not create a social majority in a country of 67 million)
-"The people express themselves at the polls" says Macron. "We have a parliamentary democracy and not a street democracy."
-"You're making politics for the monopolies and the rich" say Melanchon and Le Pen.
-"I'm trying to save the system" says the President, "if we don't do something there will be a big problem pretty quickly. It is the competence and responsibility of a political leader to prevent problems before they appear."
- "Lies" the opposition replies. "There is nothing urgent. The change is imposed by Brussels and aims to reduce corporate taxation. It is a purely class reform, where the middle class will have to work even harder for the benefit of capital."
-"If we want a healthy and independent pension system, there is no other solution" says the government.
-"Money is there" says Melanchon, "you just have to look in the right pockets. It's a sign of progress and quality of life to work less."
-"We are not stupid to create a problem for the citizens" replies the government. "Some reforms are required; longevity is a fact, advances in medicine, biology, chemistry will further extend life expectancy, we just have to adapt. 50 years ago someone enjoyed their pension for 10-15 years. Now he is over 25 and soon 30-35. We have to do something. It is our political responsibility."
…
Beyond petty political differences, everyone is right somewhere.
But there are other deeper, more philosophical and less tangible aspects that create questions that do not have easy and comprehensive answers.
What exactly does work represent today beyond securing resources for survival? On a social, psychological, cultural and personal level?
In the new ways of production of the technological revolution, is it just as hard to work after 60 than it was 50 years ago?
At 65 is someone considered productive and capable or tired and incompetent?
All jobs are not the same, is working at 64 good or bad?
Acceptable or unacceptable, socially, morally, culturally?
How can the experience gained be used for the benefit of society?
Is it better to lose yourself on a sofa or to continue to channel this energy and experience into the social environment?
Why not provide something à la carte? With conditions, ways, salaries, methods, approaches and hours adapted to the age and work of each one? An elasticity in relation to everyone's wants and abilities?
There are people who dream of retirement, some get it at 45 (in Greece, not in France). There are many who don't even want to think about it as a prospect because they love their work and never want to stop. I belong to this category.
There are many who love their work but can no longer continue in it; some professions are indeed heavy.
There are many who never loved their work and retirement is a real release and there are many and they are right.
There are jobs that are not physically difficult but especially mentally draining. And in these cases it is better to stop early.
All of this is completely respected and understood.
But what life shows us is that people who continue to be active, do not age quickly, have a better psychological mood, feel alive and useful, create and continue to have dreams; on the contrary, most people who retire after a first small period of euphoria, they fall into inactivity, depression, unable to manage their infinite free time. (In Greece, a solution has been found, dealing with the grandchildren...)
People who stay active live longer, more creatively, more happily, more optimistically, get sick less and stay young in mind and body.
It's the best botox! The most effective psychotherapy!
Paraphrasing Gabriel García Márquez in One Hundred Years of Solitude…
"I would tell everyone how wrong they are when they think they stop falling in love when they get old, not knowing they get old when they stop falling in love..."
Just where it says "falling in love", put "working"…
Υ.Γ.: Πολλές οργανώσεις φοιτητών και νεολαίας συμμετείχαν στις διαδηλώσεις, φαντάζομαι σε ένδειξη αλληλεγγύης για τους γονείς τους. Καλό και συμπαθητικό φαίνεται. Βέβαια δεν μπορώ να δω και μια άλλη πλευρά, μάλλον αρνητική. Όταν στα 20, με όλη τη ζωή μπροστά σου, με τις άπειρες δυνατότητες και τα όνειρα που πρέπει να έχεις, προβληματίζεσαι, και σε απασχολεί για το αν αν θα βγεις στη σύνταξη στα 62 η στα 64 μάλλον λυπηρό και απογοητευτικό ακούγεται…