5 ms·

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's ethical. The french government has a long history of very legal genocides and working camps, for example. Tho

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's ethical. The french government has a long history of very legal genocides and working camps, for example. Those pension reforms were not "needed", unless you can argue it with a proper source. There was no present or foreseeable deficit for decades ; you say 2050 yourself. Moreover there's plenty of money around: Macron could just reinstate the ISF tax on wealth he removed, or he could fight corporate tax fraud which is in the dozens/hundreds of billions of euros every year. No, he just wants to tax the poor and redistribute to the rich. > We could have had a better reform, but I'll take a poor one over none at all You either say this because you are very young and not yet tired with work, or because you have very comfortable work that does not break your entire body. If you know some people working in factories, in trash collection, or in construction business, ask them what they think about working 2 years more before retiring, while white collars have pre-retirement champagne in the Bahamas built on their backs. Many blue collar workers do not even make it to the retirement age, and work injuries/death have increased dramatically in the past decade. Since the 19th century, human productivity has increased a hundred-fold. Scientists and politicians across the spectrum back then predicted we would soon have a 4-hour working day. How can you humanely justify taking all this productivity increase and giving all the benefits to the already-rich, even taking away some of the few scraps poor people have?

Dalewyn 3y ago
>Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's ethical. As long as a country is governed by rule of law, the only form of justice that should have any standing is legal justice. Ethical justice, more commonly known as social justice, has no place because that flavor of justice is going to vary wildly depending on the individual passing judgment. None of this is to say legal justice is inherently "right", laws can absolutely be malformed or otherwise unsuitable for purpose. But so long as the laws say something is "right", that is legal justice.
- southerntofu 3y ago
  > As long as a country is governed by rule of law, the only form of justice that should have any standing is legal justice. I don't disagree, but by this standard i don't know any country that is governed by rule of law. France and USA are very famous for high-profile corruption and criminal cases in which politicians/cops/CEOs are either not found guilty (of proven crimes) or somehow never end up in jail despite being convicted (such as in the Balkany case). As the cynical saying goes, make one crime for a million dollars, end up in jail. Setup a corporation that does thousands of crimes for billions of dollars, get rich.
thecopy 3y ago
Pensions schemes as invented in the 20th century are essentially ponzi schemes which are fundamentally unfundable. If you are born in the West after 1980 do no expect your government pension to provide any sort of significant income after retirement. Especially considering the demographical changes in the western world - there will not be enough workers paying for the retired population.
- southerntofu 3y ago
  I don't expect to have a retirement, but not due to demographic factors. I don't expect to have a retirement because Sarkozy then Macron have reformed the pension system despite quasi-unanimous opposition across the political spectrum. They are taking it away from us, and short of an actual revolution there's nothing we can do about it. However, it's important to note that the equation cannot be equated to euros and jobs. As i previously mentioned, due to the increase in productivity in the past centuries, it's now possible to feed and house the entire population with lesser people working these fields. If a government wanted to find a solution, they would at least study the emergence of bullshit jobs, what jobs are actually "essential" (as they said during COVID lockdowns) and how to better share the actual workload and benefits across society.
sofixa 3y ago
> Those pension reforms were not "needed", unless you can argue it with a proper source. There was no present or foreseeable deficit for decades ; you say 2050 yourself https://www.cor-retraites.fr/node/595 https://www.cor-retraites.fr/node/595 (research organisation composed of employers and unions). Again, their optimistic projections, which count on economic growth which isn't a given, project a bleak situation by 2050; that doesn't mean in 2040 it will be perfect. Even 2050 is merely 27 years away, and as was seen, a pension reform isn't easy nor fast to do. Regarding blue collar manual labour, that's why there's adjustments for such work (it counts more enabling faster retirement). And that's where the real discussions should have been had, IMO, on adjusting for a better scenario for blue collar and similar work, instead of unions and populist political parties flat out rejecting a reform and calling for bringing down the age of retirement. It made compromise impossible. > Since the 19th century, human productivity has increased a hundred-fold. Scientists and politicians across the spectrum back then predicted we would soon have a 4-hour working day. ? And in the 19th century they couldn't even dream of the things we have today. The amount and quality of labour that goes into providing all needs and amenities of modern life is much higher than before. > How can you humanely justify taking all this productivity increase and giving all the benefits to the already-rich, even taking away some of the few scraps poor people have Where am I doing that, and what does a pension reform have to do with that? France is already one of the countries with the highest tax burdens for the well-off.
- southerntofu 3y ago
  That's funny because the report is really not as pessimistic as you say. First, because the part of pensions in the GDP stays more or less the same across their projections, and they say (p.3 synthesis) « the results of this report do not validate the idea that pension spendings are growing uncontrolled ». Second, because as they say, the government is supposed to bring the pension funds to balance... The same austerity government, who by destroying public service is defunding the pension system (p.5 synthesis): « It is a paradox that the austerity measures on public servants will negatively affect the balance of the pension system ». > Regarding blue collar manual labour, that's why there's adjustments for such work (it counts more enabling faster retirement) This is close to non-existent lately. Macron in his working law reform (2016) and pension reform (2023) made it much harder for work hardship to be recognized. > unions and populist political parties flat out rejecting a reform and calling for bringing down the age of retirement. It made compromise impossible. Well of course they did just that. We need to work less, not more. The government makes compromise impossible by repeatedly fucking over the poor and giving to the rich (taking from housing aids APL the same month they remove ISF tax on the rich). Then they send riot cops, imprison many and maim countless others. In the early 20th century it was common for workers to be killed by the boss or the government during a strike, so the workers gathered guns and dynamite... we are slowly moving back to this era. > The amount and quality of labour that goes into providing all needs and amenities of modern life is much higher than before. This is a non-argument. The "amenities of modern life" are provided by slave labor, mostly from Africa and Asia. Half of people who work in Europe are producing nothing of value to anyone. And those who try to find meaning in their work are prevented by the bureaucrats. I recommend reading David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs, and watching his talk from CCC called Managerial feudalism and the revolt of the caring classes. > Where am I doing that, and what does a pension reform have to do with that? France is already one of the countries with the highest tax burdens for the well-off. Well you're doing it right here in the next sentence. The rich have it super easy around here. To quote a friend of mine, who's only middle class, « we should pay more taxes ». And she's not even super rich! There's so many ways for the super rich and the powerful to escape any justice in France... Most multinationals do not pay any taxes, while well-known fortunes pay a very small amount due to various montages (see LuxLeaks/BahamasLeaks & others). And that has to do with poor people breaking their backs producing the wealth of this country, making food and cleaning spaces and working the factories and building infrastructure... and the rich doing absolutely nothing but enjoying life. We french people have a tradition of chopping heads, the rich better start sharing soon or the guillotine will be put back up. Pensions are historically one part of the social contract that convinced people after WWII to stop hanging and chopping heads. EDIT: Sorry my message was very impersonal. You should ask yourself: are you a billionaire with dozens of empty villas? If not, why defend a fascist government who's only concerned about the rich? There's good chances you are on the side of those who have everything to win and little to lose, but have been convinced otherwise by school and the media.

Dalewyn 3y ago

>Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's ethical. As long as a country is governed by rule of law, the only form of justice that should have any standing is legal justice. Ethical justice, more commonly known as social justice, has no place because that flavor of justice is going to vary wildly depending on the individual passing judgment. None of this is to say legal justice is inherently "right", laws can absolutely be malformed or otherwise unsuitable for purpose. But so long as the laws say something is "right", that is legal justice.

southerntofu 3y ago
> As long as a country is governed by rule of law, the only form of justice that should have any standing is legal justice. I don't disagree, but by this standard i don't know any country that is governed by rule of law. France and USA are very famous for high-profile corruption and criminal cases in which politicians/cops/CEOs are either not found guilty (of proven crimes) or somehow never end up in jail despite being convicted (such as in the Balkany case). As the cynical saying goes, make one crime for a million dollars, end up in jail. Setup a corporation that does thousands of crimes for billions of dollars, get rich.

thecopy 3y ago

Pensions schemes as invented in the 20th century are essentially ponzi schemes which are fundamentally unfundable. If you are born in the West after 1980 do no expect your government pension to provide any sort of significant income after retirement. Especially considering the demographical changes in the western world - there will not be enough workers paying for the retired population.

southerntofu 3y ago
I don't expect to have a retirement, but not due to demographic factors. I don't expect to have a retirement because Sarkozy then Macron have reformed the pension system despite quasi-unanimous opposition across the political spectrum. They are taking it away from us, and short of an actual revolution there's nothing we can do about it. However, it's important to note that the equation cannot be equated to euros and jobs. As i previously mentioned, due to the increase in productivity in the past centuries, it's now possible to feed and house the entire population with lesser people working these fields. If a government wanted to find a solution, they would at least study the emergence of bullshit jobs, what jobs are actually "essential" (as they said during COVID lockdowns) and how to better share the actual workload and benefits across society.

sofixa 3y ago

> Those pension reforms were not "needed", unless you can argue it with a proper source. There was no present or foreseeable deficit for decades ; you say 2050 yourself https://www.cor-retraites.fr/node/595 https://www.cor-retraites.fr/node/595 (research organisation composed of employers and unions). Again, their optimistic projections, which count on economic growth which isn't a given, project a bleak situation by 2050; that doesn't mean in 2040 it will be perfect. Even 2050 is merely 27 years away, and as was seen, a pension reform isn't easy nor fast to do. Regarding blue collar manual labour, that's why there's adjustments for such work (it counts more enabling faster retirement). And that's where the real discussions should have been had, IMO, on adjusting for a better scenario for blue collar and similar work, instead of unions and populist political parties flat out rejecting a reform and calling for bringing down the age of retirement. It made compromise impossible. > Since the 19th century, human productivity has increased a hundred-fold. Scientists and politicians across the spectrum back then predicted we would soon have a 4-hour working day. ? And in the 19th century they couldn't even dream of the things we have today. The amount and quality of labour that goes into providing all needs and amenities of modern life is much higher than before. > How can you humanely justify taking all this productivity increase and giving all the benefits to the already-rich, even taking away some of the few scraps poor people have Where am I doing that, and what does a pension reform have to do with that? France is already one of the countries with the highest tax burdens for the well-off.

southerntofu 3y ago
That's funny because the report is really not as pessimistic as you say. First, because the part of pensions in the GDP stays more or less the same across their projections, and they say (p.3 synthesis) « the results of this report do not validate the idea that pension spendings are growing uncontrolled ». Second, because as they say, the government is supposed to bring the pension funds to balance... The same austerity government, who by destroying public service is defunding the pension system (p.5 synthesis): « It is a paradox that the austerity measures on public servants will negatively affect the balance of the pension system ». > Regarding blue collar manual labour, that's why there's adjustments for such work (it counts more enabling faster retirement) This is close to non-existent lately. Macron in his working law reform (2016) and pension reform (2023) made it much harder for work hardship to be recognized. > unions and populist political parties flat out rejecting a reform and calling for bringing down the age of retirement. It made compromise impossible. Well of course they did just that. We need to work less, not more. The government makes compromise impossible by repeatedly fucking over the poor and giving to the rich (taking from housing aids APL the same month they remove ISF tax on the rich). Then they send riot cops, imprison many and maim countless others. In the early 20th century it was common for workers to be killed by the boss or the government during a strike, so the workers gathered guns and dynamite... we are slowly moving back to this era. > The amount and quality of labour that goes into providing all needs and amenities of modern life is much higher than before. This is a non-argument. The "amenities of modern life" are provided by slave labor, mostly from Africa and Asia. Half of people who work in Europe are producing nothing of value to anyone. And those who try to find meaning in their work are prevented by the bureaucrats. I recommend reading David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs, and watching his talk from CCC called Managerial feudalism and the revolt of the caring classes. > Where am I doing that, and what does a pension reform have to do with that? France is already one of the countries with the highest tax burdens for the well-off. Well you're doing it right here in the next sentence. The rich have it super easy around here. To quote a friend of mine, who's only middle class, « we should pay more taxes ». And she's not even super rich! There's so many ways for the super rich and the powerful to escape any justice in France... Most multinationals do not pay any taxes, while well-known fortunes pay a very small amount due to various montages (see LuxLeaks/BahamasLeaks & others). And that has to do with poor people breaking their backs producing the wealth of this country, making food and cleaning spaces and working the factories and building infrastructure... and the rich doing absolutely nothing but enjoying life. We french people have a tradition of chopping heads, the rich better start sharing soon or the guillotine will be put back up. Pensions are historically one part of the social contract that convinced people after WWII to stop hanging and chopping heads. EDIT: Sorry my message was very impersonal. You should ask yourself: are you a billionaire with dozens of empty villas? If not, why defend a fascist government who's only concerned about the rich? There's good chances you are on the side of those who have everything to win and little to lose, but have been convinced otherwise by school and the media.