French President confronts mob, Wins.

[TimothyC]

22 October 2010 Last updated at 15:53 ET
French Senate passes pension bill

The French Senate has passed a controversial pension reform bill, which has caused a series of strikes and protests around France.

The senators approved President Nicolas Sarkozy's plan to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62, and it could become law as early as next week.

Mr Sarkozy says the measure is necessary to reduce the deficit.

But hundreds of thousands have protested against what they see as an attack on their rights.

Senators passed the motion to raise the retirement age by 177 votes to 153, after the government used a special measure known as a guillotine to cut short the debate on the bill.

Fuel shortage

The changes would raise the minimum retirement age from 60 to 62 and the full state pension age from 65 to 67.

The government says the reform is needed to save the indebted pension system from collapse.

Unions say retirement at 60 is a hard-earned right and say the reform is unfair to workers.

"It is not by hanging on symbols of the past that we will remain a great nation," labour minister Eric Woerth told the Senate shortly before the vote.

The protest movement has been spearheaded by the trade unions, although all sections of society have been represented - including schoolchildren.

The unions have called two further days of protests on top of the rolling strikes, on 28 October and 6 November.

The union representing students, Unef, has called a separate day of protest for Tuesday 26 October, urging students to demonstrate and hold sit-ins.

However, the school half-term holidays begin on Friday night and run until 4 November, raising concerns among union members that the protests could lose momentum.

Most of the rallies have been peaceful, but on Friday clashes broke out at an oil refinery blockaded by workers after Mr Sarkozy ordered riot police to get control of the facility.

Two people were hurt outside the Grandpuits refinery east of Paris, which has been embargoed for the past 10 days.

The unions have been blockading all 12 refineries in France in a bid to change the government's mind.

Police also removed protesters from two fuel depots, in Toulouse and Grand Quevilly.

Prime Minister Francois Fillon said it would take several days for fuel supplies to return to normal.

More than 2,000 filling stations around the country have run dry.

There are no plans yet for national fuel rationing, said transport minister Jean-Louis Borloo, but state representatives in two northern districts are already limiting how much petrol each motorist may buy.

Opponents of the bill will now have a chance to take their objections to the constitutional court, before the bill becomes law.


Analysis
Hugh Schofield BBC News, Paris

President Sarkozy hopes the pension bill's passage through the Senate marks the beginning of the end of the crisis.

What happens next is that first thing on Monday, a joint committee of Senate and National Assembly members will meet to agree on a common text.

This final version will then be put to a simultaneous vote in both houses of parliament Tuesday or Wednesday.

At that point, the law will have been definitively adopted - and the government's calculation is that much of the steam will immediately be taken out of the protests. After all, why demonstrate against something you can no longer change?

But for the unions and the left, it is still not the end of the story. They say that until the law is actually promulgated - written into the statute books - they can still force it to be dropped.

That process normally takes two or three more weeks. In the meantime - and starting on Thursday - they will be keeping up the pressure.

First time in decades. Go Sarkozy.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Senators passed the motion to raise the retirement age by 177 votes to 153, after the government used a special measure known as a guillotine to cut short the debate on the bill.

Meanwhile, in America...

This probably was the tonic France needed, and possibly it needs more just like it. I hope Sarkozy enjoyed his term though, because he's definitely not getting another one.

[Ryan Thunder]

Well, the unions are being imbeciles as usual, even if they have a point. Is there something about the French system that precludes raising taxes to address the issue?

[weemadando]

Well, the unions are being imbeciles as usual, even if they have a point. Is there something about the French system that precludes raising taxes to address the issue?

It's a problem many first world nations are currently facing, you've got a population that's soon going to be top heavy, with more people claiming for social security benefits than there are tax payers to support them.

Raising taxes only gets you so far in that scenario. Altering the pension structure so it accurately reflects it's original intent.

For example when the pension was introduced in Australia it was for men over 65 and women over 60. At a time when life expectancy for both was below 60 years. Now we have life expectancy for both sexes at above 80 years, but the pension is still for both sexes from 65. So instead of it being something that only a few longlived folks got to assist them, it's now something that nearly everyone gets for an average of 15 years.

And increasing the pension age is just about the most politically unpopular move you can make in any of these privileged first world societies, short of flat out bending over and spraying shit straight from your arse into their faces, and even then, that would only be a temporary problem so it wouldn't really count. Australia is scaling up to 67, but only for people born after 1957. But any savings there will be lost in the fact that those people will probably be getting an extra two years of life expectancy anyhow.

This is without going into the additional problems that you get from long-term aged care having to be funded due to the fact that people are living well beyond their warranty periods.

[Bakustra]

That's not really correct. In the US at least, the Social Security system has been adjusted regularly to deal with shifting demographics, and I would be surprised if other First World nations hadn't done the same. I don't know if this is necessary for solvency for France so much as necessary for belt-tightening.

[weemadando]

Yeah, but the US has never had the kind of social security, medical benefits and general socialism that every other first world nation does.

[Bakustra]

Yeah, but the US has never had the kind of social security, medical benefits and general socialism that every other first world nation does.

But you shouldn't expect the US bureaucrats running said systems to be much more competent than Australian, Canadian, or German ones, so they should have also adjusted like the US did.

[weemadando]

You're missing the point. Negative adjustments to social security in these nations are political suicide. Negative adjustments to social security is how you get two terms as President and control of both houses in the US.

[Bakustra]

You're missing the point. Negative adjustments to social security in these nations are political suicide. Negative adjustments to social security is how you get two terms as President and control of both houses in the US.

What? These adjustments were carried out by bureaucrats and the public at large is unaware of them. They're not cuts or privatization. US Social Security will remain in the black with no changes for the next 40 years or so, and would require a 3.5% increase to be sustainable indefinitely. Merely remaining sustainable for the foreseeable future (75 years) would require a 1.8% increase in SS taxes. I'd bet that other countries are in similar situations.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, "go Sarkozy". Let the people pay for the First World crisis. And of course, labour rights advocates are a "mob". Hooray, let the stormtroopers in.

I'm almost tempted to use my ability to change the title to "Fucktard confronts people, wins", but I wouldn't. I want everyone to take a good hard look at the words used to describe the protests in France, which were supported by what, 70% of French population? Truly, just an unruly mob. The parliament knows better.

[HarrionGreyjoy]

Only a little side issue here, but for the benefit of anyone like me who double-took when they saw that there was a legislative procedure in the French Parliament called the guillotine : it's buried a couple pages deep in google, but is apparently just a hilariously named way to put a limit on the time you can debate a bill.

I too think tax adjustments would probably be an easier and less reviled way to go about this, but I'm not at all familiar with the numbers surrounding the French economy. How dire are their present straits, if at all?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The problem is that retirement benefits which are not tied to life expectancy are as retarded as retirement benefits which are not tied to inflation, Stas. The point of retirement benefits is to care for people who can no longer work due to age. With first-world health care, that figure does not include people in their 60's on average, and for those it does apply for, France has disability support. There is no ethical system under which humans are obliged to give each other money just for reaching a certain age.... The point is to care for people who can no longer care for themselves. THAT is the ethical obligation. The ages should have been raised to 70 and 75 respectively, not 62 and 67. The French have a 35 hour work week and more than a month of paid vacation a year (indeed, frequently two months), as well as a solid social safety net for the working population, and universal healthcare. In exchange for that, the obligation to work until an age where the average person is no longer physically able to work is perfectly reasonable.

[Master_Baerne]

I'm on an exchange programme in France ATM, and from what I've gathered the problem is not the retirement age going up, it's that the time-working also went up; one must now work for at least fourty-something years before retiring, no matter how old you happen to be. This is something of a problem, as you might imagine, and a very broad one: a farmer who starts work at 16, has worked his fourty years at 56, but can't retire comfortably for another ten years, dislikes the new bill just as much as an engineer who will finish school in his mid to late twenties and not be able to retire at the minimum age becuse he hasn't worked the minimum time yet. This explains why nex tto nobody supports the bill.

Also, it is awesome that the French Parliament has a prcedure called a guillotine.

[Serafina]

The point of retirement benefits is to care for people who can no longer work due to age.

This.
Retirement benefits are not a luxury - those who can't sustain themselves have right to be sustained by society.
But if you can still work, then it's just like with every other citizen - society has a right to expect you to do just that, work and contribute towards your own sustainment.
Stopping to work just because you are old while you are still fit IS a luxury - if we can support that luxury, that's great. Unfortunately, we can't, at least not with such an insanely low retirement age like in France.

Personally, i think that it is at least as important to create jobs for elderly people, jobs that respect their reduced capability to work. Simply offering jobs at reduced hours is an obvious step, but i think that's not enough. Maybe older people could assist in retirement homes or daycares, as well as in offices. Those are just ideas - but we should re-integrate older people into both society and the workforce, and those are possible ways.
Of course, that is a massive challenge towards society - but if we don't go for it, then we'll stuck with just increasing retirement age - which doesn't solve the problem for older people whose ability to work is reduced, or that those people are often not needed on the job market.

[Drooling Iguana]

I think this is a great move. After all, the biggest problem we're facing right now is that there's just too many damn jobs going vacant. Lowering their supply by increasing the workforce is just what we need.

[Elfdart]

The problem is that retirement benefits which are not tied to life expectancy are as retarded as retirement benefits which are not tied to inflation, Stas. The point of retirement benefits is to care for people who can no longer work due to age. With first-world health care, that figure does not include people in their 60's on average, and for those it does apply for, France has disability support. There is no ethical system under which humans are obliged to give each other money just for reaching a certain age.... The point is to care for people who can no longer care for themselves. THAT is the ethical obligation. The ages should have been raised to 70 and 75 respectively, not 62 and 67. The French have a 35 hour work week and more than a month of paid vacation a year (indeed, frequently two months), as well as a solid social safety net for the working population, and universal healthcare. In exchange for that, the obligation to work until an age where the average person is no longer physically able to work is perfectly reasonable.

You do realize that the main reason life expectancy has increased is the drop in infant mortality, right?

[Elfdart]

Yeah, "go Sarkozy". Let the people pay for the First World crisis. And of course, labour rights advocates are a "mob". Hooray, let the stormtroopers in.

I'm almost tempted to use my ability to change the title to "Fucktard confronts people, wins", but I wouldn't. I want everyone to take a good hard look at the words used to describe the protests in France, which were supported by what, 70% of French population? Truly, just an unruly mob. The parliament knows better.

Shit always flows downhill.

[Phantasee]

Is there a separate measure for people who make it past, say... age 5? An adjusted life expectancy of some sort?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, Elfdart, I do. So it's not a perfect metric, and we could certainly use age-adjusted figures alternatively, but the only real effective way to set the limit is by determining either an age beyond which the average person cannot effectively work, or simply using life expectancy because we should expect the two to be close enough to provide a reasonable social outcome.

[Thanas]

Keep in mind that the French have the most lavish of benefits that exist in the first world, far better ones than I will be getting. And they afford these with a much smaller economy. I am pretty sure they can take a cut.

[Kane Starkiller]

In 1990 ratio of 15-64 age group to 65+ age group was 4.76:1. In 2000 it was 4.14:1, 2010 3.93:1. Basically every working person in France received one additional mouth to feed in the last 20 years. Something had to give and this is a problem that pretty much all countries that passed through demographic transition will have to face sooner or later.

[Rabid]

« French Retirement Culture for Dummies », by a Frenchman


First of all, let’s talk about the assumption that we, people of the French Republic, must now contribute longer into our redistributive system to be allowed to take a full retirement.

Some facts: We are easily one of the most productive nation on earth per hour of work done. The wealth produced by our average worker as doubled since 1990 to today, and in the foreseeable future will at least be the double of what it is now in 2040. At the very least. If not, it will be because the shit as hit the fan and we will then have far more serious concern that worrying about our retirement pension.

Today, the annual wealth produced by work, on which is taken the contribution, is of something like 2000 billion euros. The contribution is 13% of that, it amount to 260 billion euros. This leave 1740 billion euro to the corporation to pay salaries, investment, the dividend of the share holders, etc.
In 2040, the wealth produced will be of roughly 4000 billion euro. The amount of money necessary to pay off pension will be 800 billion (I personally took a conservative approach; in fact the government is saying something more like 740 billion). 800 billion of 4000 billion is… 20%. If the government is to be trusted in its estimation, it is then only 18-19%. Big augmentation, you think? Not so fast, because that mean there is still, in the conservative estimate, 3200 billion euro to invest, pay salaries with and redistribute to share holders.

And I will not go about how the whole “redistribute wealth” thingy induce the so badly needed growth…

So, why don’t the government just raise the level of the contribution and everything goes smoothly?
Because our government today, our president and its clique, are backed by a very conservative set of employer’s association (like the MEDEF, for example), who are of neo-liberal leaning, and who seek to destroy what we call the “French Model”, to replace it with a degraded version of the “US Model”, in where only the rich have rights, and the rest can screw themselves.
Believe it or not, this is what is happening right now in our country. And this is WHY people are protesting. Not only because of the pension reform, but because of all these little things that add up on each others, finally to reach a breaking point where it ‘smells’ like ’68 and the great waves of civil unrest of these days.

Why do you think we have done the 1789 Revolution in the first place? And the Commune, and all these various movement of protest we are famous for worldwide? Not because there is something ‘special’ with us wanting to go on the streets and waving flag and putting our enemy’s head spikes. No. It’s because we have ideals about what is just, what isn’t, and because when a government spit in our face, we don’t bow like pussies: we kick it in the balls.

Today, our government knows that it has next to no chance of being re-elected in the 2012’s elections. So, it goes ‘en force’, and shit on democracy to make its own little agenda pass.
We fight against this.
That’s all.

[Big Orange]

I don't think the disappointing ConDems over in the UK are going to last very long for similar reasons and here's footage showing Paul O'Grady (a TV host) ranting about the very wealthy George Osborne's controversial slashing of public funding for the middle and lower classes, then mentioning how the French don't take the crap that Americans and British generally do:

[Thanas]

*snip*

Rabid, thanks for elaborating.

I do have a question though with regards to productivity - have you got any statistics about the economy of France in relation to other EU countries per capita?

[K. A. Pital]

Nice to see someone from France.

It's interesting to see the perspective of someone living in France and going through all these reforms that demolish the social support of the people. Perhaps I can truly have empathy because I've seen the same many times.

Interesting on the share of product used for pensions. Could folks team up and find something that would show pension shares in other First World nations?