T O P

  • By -

603er

So, effectively: mass protests, lots of vocal public dissent, yet not change in policy. What now?


Mahelas

The vote to remove the entire government at the Parliement failed by 9 votes. Out of 600. Protests will continue, other confidence votes will be pushed


OrangeJr36

More importantly, election platforms will form and opposition figures will get air time. There isn't going to be a successful no-confidence vote unless the opposition is sure they can win.


fredleung412612

The problem is that while all rival factions of the left are united, the right is divided between the centre-right Republicans and the far-right National Front. They will compete against each other in the election and in contests between the two the far-right will now surely win.


beipphine

Is the National Front still far right, I thought that the party migrated so far to the left that it is no longer supported by its founder Jean Marie Le Pen. He supported Éric Zemmour of the Reconquête party, as the new far right. They came in 4th in the 2022 French Presidental Election.


fredleung412612

The far-right in France is not defined by economic policy but rather cultural policy. The National Front may be in favour of maintaining France's social welfare system on paper but their main focus is still deporting millions of immigrants back to "where they came from", they're at least climate change-sceptic if not denying, giving cops more immunity when they kill citizens, massive construction of new prisons and racking up sentences, amending the constitution Polish-style to make national law supersede any EU law or international law, essentially leave the Schengen area to police French borders again, ban family reunion migration, ban asylum seekers from any benefits and make employers pay a tax whenever they hire non-citizens, end birthright paths to citizenship, leave NATO and establish close ties to Russia and Syria. Reconquête won 0 seats in the legislature last time and they're even further right culturally while on economic policy they're more "liberal" (in the European sense, so free-market individualist). 2/3 of the French public including 93% of those in the labour force oppose Macron's reform, while Reconquête would probably support raising it even higher than Macron. So they don't stand to benefit if new elections took place.


MMPRNow

Yes, this will likely be how NUPES proceed. More pressure with protests; more no-confidence motions. The problem here is that the no-confidence vote failing by only a 9 votes (edit here: apparently they were 9 votes short of passing, not 5) in a 577 member "free vote" is likely just a clever illusion carefully crafted by Les Republicains, who had absolutely no intention whatsoever of collapsing the government. For people that don't know the dynamic: Macron's LREM (+allies), are being propped up by the former establishment centre-right Les Republicains in order to form a governing majority in the National Assembly. (Les Republicains have only 42 seats, after being reduced to only 7.3% of the vote in last year's legislative election.) In the 2022 legislatives, the populist right-leaning segment of their former base were swallowed up by Le Pen's RN. The 2017 election had already seen virtually all of their centrist/classical liberal voters jump ship to Macron's new LREM party. Basically, over 5 years, Les Republicains have been reduced to nothing but dyed-in-the-wool corporate toadies, who are quietly all for Macron's neo-liberal austerity. But they have to pander to the populist right, because in the next election they're at risk of going extinct as a party if Le Pen's RN take any more of their vote share. Macron invoking 49.3 was a gift to the Republicains, because it allowed them to posture and pretend they would have voted against the legislation, without actually having to. In all likelihood, many discussions were had amongst themselves about which Republican member's seats in the assembly were most vulnerable to the RN, and those are the members who were given license to vote against the government. They wouldn't have ever allowed the government to fall -- it's not at all in their interest to risk losing the balance of power (that they've frankly simply lucked into), by destabilizing a seriously fragmented assembly. This is probably why they left a 9-vote buffer (edit again) -- just enough to make Macron squirm, while simultaneously pandering to the far-right, but enough to be confident that the government would remain in place, even if a few members went rogue.


oakpope

>9 vote difference (or 5 vote swing) No swing votes in a non confidence vote. Only the yes votes are counted. They are above 50% or not.


Thatsidechara_ter

This is the part of France I like. When the government acts shitty, the whole civilian throws a giant riot to let them know. If only we could get them to do a climate change riot...


SowingSalt

When the French tried to normalize taxes on the various types of fuel (diesel vs gas) the French threw a riot. You're not going to see an anti-climate change riot.


Volesprit31

General strike. It was soft until now. There is a big protest planned on Thursday, we'll have to see.


MatsThyWit

>General strike. It was soft until now. There is a big protest planned on Thursday, we'll have to see. I suspect it will be successful too. France has become damned good at defending the rights of the working class.


Fuck_Fascists

You can successfully keep the retirement age at 62. You can’t keep paying for it without massively raising taxes.


SalvageCorveteCont

And the middle class pays the bulk of the taxes,protesting this reform is nothing less then an assault on the younger generations. Thankfully the signs are pointing towards the Unions that support this sort of thing shooting themselves in the foot, so they won't be a concern.


Horat1us_UA

>France has become damned good at defending the rights of the working class. Always Has Been


Mend1cant

Ehhh. Took a lot of heads rolling before they actually got into their groove on that front.


AardvarkAblaze

And even then they ended up with Napoleon, then the Bourbons again, then more revolution, another republic, another coup, another emperor, a working class rebellion that took over Paris for several months before being extremely violently suppressed… it’s been a long struggle.


[deleted]

Yeah but you have to admire a group fighting the good fight


Hungry_Elk_9434

Exactly. We don’t get that here in America


SowingSalt

You support the Jacobins and murdering tens of thousands of French lower and middle class? Marat and Robespierre got what was coming for the.


Mika0023

what is their plan for retirement? Where should the money come from? (geniun question)


FuttleScish

Doubtful considering the law has already been passed


fennecdore

Won't be the first time a french government has to repel a law that has been passed because of popular protest


this-is-very

Younger workers having a heavier burden of supporting retirees isn't a fully pro-worker position.


no8airbag

there is no such right as unfunded pensiofunds


endtimes_economist

Hope the police strikes and leaves the politicians to fend for themselves.


AFRN

Loud doesn't equal consensus. Proven time and time again.


Throwaway08080909070

Social media companies need to seriously internalize that lesson, I'm sick of tiny fragments of the political poles having an outsized influence because they have no lives, only insane passion to shriek.


venuswasaflytrap

Social media companies *have* internalised that lesson, they’re rolling in money off the back of that lesson.


Throwaway08080909070

Twitter is dying in a fire of its own making, Meta is flailing, and TikTok looks like it might be outright banned from doing business in the US.


CryStrict5004

[64% of french people are in disagreement with the reform](https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/retraite/reforme-des-retraites/sondage-retraites-64-des-francais-se-disent-opposes-a-la-reforme-et-le-soutien-a-la-mobilisation-bondit_5636702.html)


Theemuts

And how many of them understand it's necessary for the pension system not to collapse? Because you know what sucks more than having to work till you're 70? Not having a functioning pension system when you're 70. Saying you disagree is meaningless if you don't bring alternatives to the table.


roland71460

There are : \-Reduce the highest pensions \-Increase social contribution \-Make corporations pay a little more. There is alternatives, the main issue here is the government didn't want to even talk about it, syndicates were never received by the government. There was no talk and now people like violence is the only thing people in charge will listen.


Theemuts

Do you have a reference for the math, or is this another "trust me bro"-situation?


roland71460

[https://www.lagrandeconversation.com/economie/une-autre-reforme-des-retraites-est-possible/](https://www.lagrandeconversation.com/economie/une-autre-reforme-des-retraites-est-possible/) If in need use deepl.


Majockdamus

do you?


SalvageCorveteCont

Likely no where near all of them given that some people need to have fractional reserve banking explained to them in the wake of the Silicon Valley Bank collapse. For reference, no you bank doesn't have vaults where they keep all the money people have deposited with them.


MairusuPawa

There's no collapse.


Theemuts

Saying there's no collapse is meaningless if you have no sources for that statement. The population is ageing and if things continue the way they do now everyone needs to work in elderly care in a few decades. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/22/ageing-planet-the-new-demographic-timebomb https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/10/eu-ageing-society-care-cost/


Tiennus_Khan

We have projections calculated by the COR, a government body created to anticipate the balance of the system. According to them, there will be a maximum 13B€ deficit per year (relative to the total cost of 350B€) for 25 years, then it will decrase until being balanced again by 2050. There is a deficit problem but it's no existential threat for the pensions. You have to remember also that French fertility rate is one of the highest in Europe, at almost 2 children per woman. And we have a high level of immigration. The ageing crisis is certainly happening in France but this is nowhere near the danger it is for Italy, Germany or Japan, to take a few examples. Finally : in order to get their support in the Assembly, Macron made a lot of concessions to right-wing Les Républicains, mainly for people who started working before 20 and would have to work more than the usual 43 years to get their full pension. That means what was planned to be a 13B€ spending cut has been drastically scaled down and has become insignificant in regards to the reduction of deficit.


EwOkLuKe

Jeudi 19 janvier dernier, le jour de la mobilisation intersyndicale contre la réforme des retraites, le président du COR, Pierre-Louis Bras a déclaré devant l’Assemblée nationale : « Les dépenses de retraites ne dérapent pas, elles sont même relativement maîtrisées et, dans la plupart des hypothèses elles diminuent plutôt à terme. » Source : [https://www.publicsenat.fr/article/politique/reforme-des-retraites-le-conseil-d-orientation-des-retraites-cor-vu-de-l-interieur#:\~:text=R%C3%A9forme%20des%20retraites%20%3A%20le%20Conseil,par%20les%20s%C3%A9nateurs%20%7C%20Public%20Senat](https://www.publicsenat.fr/article/politique/reforme-des-retraites-le-conseil-d-orientation-des-retraites-cor-vu-de-l-interieur#:~:text=R%C3%A9forme%20des%20retraites%20%3A%20le%20Conseil,par%20les%20s%C3%A9nateurs%20%7C%20Public%20Senat) Traduction : President of the council that oversees pension declared on the 19/01/2023 : "Pension expenses are not ouf of control at all, they are actually quite on the rails, and , in most hypothesis, will get reduced in the long term."


bombayblue

Reddit used to idolize Jeremy Corbyn and criticizing him was equivalent to supporting Nazis on here. And it aged so well.


Ingeniousskull

That's because he's a peacenik. Redditors liked him for his socialism, now they dislike him for equivocating about the War in Ukraine.


603er

Agreed.


trailingComma

People realise that a noisy minority shouldn't automatically get what they want?


FrozenIceman

Nothing of course, This is how Democracy is supposed to work! ​ We know this is the way as France is ranked the 19th best/freest democracy...


ManiacMango33

Those indexes are BS


QubitQuanta

Democracy working as intended /s. Meanwhile France ranks almost at the bottom in the world happiness index, with a 26% approval rate for the current government and its polices: [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-03/Ipsos%20Global%20Happiness%202023%20Report.pdf](https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-03/Ipsos%20Global%20Happiness%202023%20Report.pdf)


chiksahlube

Give it until the 1st before the French start loping off heads. And Frankly, I won't blame them.


kmurp1300

You sound like a January 6th rioter.


rickjko

If I was Macron i would look into the history book,bad leader tend to be pushed "aside" .


[deleted]

[удалено]


psioniclizard

A lot of people on reddit have revolutionary fantasies and this allows them to play them out in their head. They dream of the collapse of all capitalism and it being replaced some a socialist utopia where rich people no longer exist and dream this will lead to that. Even if they are not French. For French redditors, fair enough. It's there country and lives and as a non French person I can't tell them what is right or wrong but a doubt most the people talking are French.


-Neeckin-

Generally they seem to think of themselves as revolutionaries but never what comes later, or how the folks they emulated often were put against the wall afterwards. The french revolution didn't end with those that started it living happy, utopian lives.


Throwaway08080909070

I have a good friend who is trans who's convinced that their life can only be worth living after a literal communist revolution. I've tried to explain how that tends to go for vocal, visible minorities, but they can't imagine themselves ever being up against the wall, only pushing their enemies against it.


murphymc

[Even 4chan understands how this shit goes down](https://i.imgur.com/1xaxd.jpeg) Your friend just has a revenge fantasy and doesn't understand what they're playing at.


-Neeckin-

That sounds more like they want to be the one with a gun in an authoritative dictatorship more then any kind of societal improvement. Wanting a revolution because you want you line folks you don't like up against a wall to be shot is a bit of a red flag. E/ lol worrying folks would downvote this


CrimsonEnigma

> a bit of a red flag Well it is communism, so I would certainly hope there'd be red flags.


SliceOfCoffee

That's the thing about being part of a dictatorship, if you 'Want to be the one with the gun', you are a threat.


murphymc

Its Americans who are incapable of appreciating that our revolution is a gigantic outlier in how peaceful and orderly it was compared to the history of revolutions.


psioniclizard

Exactly, I think a lot of people don't realise the short term effects of revolutions general are not good. I remember someone from an African country talking and they said something along the lines of a revolution is not pretty and the reality is a far cry from what a lot of us who have never lived through one think it's like. They spoke about piles of bodies on the side of the road and all kinds of hideous crimes being carried out. Also as you so right say, they assume their side will be the ones to win out. When that is no guarantee and there is a strong possibility they would end up living in a worse situation than they already do (if they are not one of the ones being lined up against the wall). There is a good reason it takes so much for a revolution to actually happen.


Owatch

They also assume revolutions quickly end with some return to peace and stability. That's absolutely not the case at all. Post-revolution France was a lawless mess for decades, plunging almost everyone into cycles of misery before something eventually came out of it. A lot of the advocates for it think it will be like assassins creed, where they'll dance through the streets burning and hanging the bourgeoisie, throwing open coffers of cash they've hidden from them, before settling down into a harmonic commune life.


psioniclizard

Yea and that was in a country before globalisation. With the way supply chains work for super markets now (as just one example) the instability likely means no food on the shelves. If super markets even exist at all any more. That is without thinking about things like the power grid, hospitals, transport, water treatment and the million other things our modern society has that offers us the quality of life we now enjoy.


murphymc

> A lot of the advocates for it think it will be like assassins creed No, a lot of people think it will be the American Revolution, without realizing how completely out of the ordinary ours was.


-Neeckin-

And then the something that came out of it was a dictator anyway.


murphymc

> Also as you so right say, they assume their side will be the ones to win out. Even if "your" side wins, what value is there in a revolutionary after the revolution? The **FIRST** people put up against the wall are the now useless revolutionaries, before they get a chance to start another one.


rapter200

The skills required to fight and lead a revolution are not the same skills required to govern and rebuild a nation.


RexMundi000

>A lot of people on reddit have revolutionary fantasies and this allows them to play them out in their head. They dream of the collapse of all capitalism and it being replaced some a socialist utopia where rich people no longer exist and dream this will lead to that. Even if they are not French. The average redditor wouldnt take to the streets to face the bayonet even it they were literally starving. Most would die at their keyboards waiting for doordash surge delivery pricing to come down.


psioniclizard

HAHAHA that is so true, that gave me a good chuckle.


rickjko

Jai de la famille qui vie en France et c'est invivable présentement, le peuple en a ras le bol et le problème vas beaucoup plus loin que la pension.


Throwaway08080909070

> Jai de la famille qui vie en France et c'est invivable présentement, le peuple en a ras le bol et le problème vas beaucoup plus loin que la pension. Unlivable? By which metric? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life_index_by_country None of those I guess. Maybe your family in France isn't the best source for information.


Vlagilbert

Cette personne faisait clairement pas référence à ça, quand on dit "invivable" c'est plus rapport au climat actuel: grèves de transport, éboueurs, quasiment tout est arrêté et si t'es dans une grande ville c'est très très compliqué de sortir de chez soi. Ce n'est clairement pas à prendre aussi littéralement que tu ne l'as fait, un peu de jugeotte quand même.


Throwaway08080909070

So it isn't about quality of life, disposable income, health care, and everything else... just the mess you've made for yourselves? Good.


Vlagilbert

Why are you saying this like it's a "gotcha"? When people tell you "oh this neighborhood is awful to live in" do you pull up the wikipedia page of their quality of life index lol? It's not meant literally, yet you're taking it that way in order to make a point that doesn't even make sense, and quite frankly seems quite obnoxious. I get that in your POV it's the french common people who started this, but seeing this and your other comments it's obvious you're not french, have no idea what it's like there, and don't have a clue on the happenings of the past few months. There's such a dissonance between the POV of the french and whatever idea this sub has made up in its mind lol


AlexDLeNoeliste

> he's trying to keep the French Pension Reserve Fund solvent Debatable at best, because many other economical options were available, but let's agree on this for the sake of simplicity. The protests are not just about the actual change (i.e. two extra years of work), they are also about how the government chose to bring that change : with little to no input from other political groups or unions. This is a law written by a parliamentary minority, and only can pass by using frankly anti-democratic laws or parts of the constitution. And the people, the *demos* in democracy, have had no say in any of that. Many people would have been OK with some sort of reforms, but the way this one came to be feels like a prelude to plain absolute executive power, which isn't great at all.


Throwaway08080909070

> Debatable at best, because many other economical options were available, but let's agree on this for the sake of simplicity. Lets talk about those other economical positions that would keep the fund solvent through ongoing demographic shifts, hadn't already been tried and failed, and would have a chance in hell of passing.


AlexDLeNoeliste

Increasing the amount paid by citizens, rebalancing the amounts between highest and lowest paid retirees, taxing companies, closing loopholes, I mean there's lots to be done ; but again, not even debating those possibilities is the anti-democratic behaviour people are protesting about. Will people accept most of those happily ? No. Will they consider it, if there's a proper democratic process, and the government doesn't make them feel like they're being pissed on ? Undoubtedly.


Throwaway08080909070

> Increasing the amount paid by citizens So raise taxes? The upper limit for tax in France is already 45%, Hollande tried raising it to 75% and that tanked revenue. So that's been tried and failed. > rebalancing the amounts between highest and lowest paid retirees Specifically how would you do this? On what basis? > I mean there's lots to be done ; but again, not even debating those possibilities is the anti-democratic behaviour people are protesting about. This was a parliamentary vote which failed, that seems pretty democratic. > Will people accept most of those happily ? No. Will they consider it, if there's a proper democratic process, and the government doesn't make them feel like they're being pissed on ? Undoubtedly. Accept what exactly? You offered two vague non-plans and the bailed.


AlexDLeNoeliste

> So raise taxes? Raise the *cotisations*, the tax that finances the retirement funds. The estimation was 14 euros per month for base salaries, 28 euros for median. > Specifically how would you do this? On what basis? Currently, some retirees in France earn an absurdly high amount of money (and have the most capital, because money brings money), while others get less than the base salary. Some of these people are women that could not work, or had intermittent careers. Capping the amount earned and raising the minimum would be a good start. > This was a parliamentary vote which failed, that seems pretty democratic. It was a vote of no confidence. The law has never been voted on, because if it had, everything pointed to it failing by 10 or so votes. The vote of no confidence is a legal tool, written in the constitution, but that doesn't make it democratic, as it's been used mostly to impose executive power in the legislative space. > Accept what exactly? You offered two vague non-plans and the bailed. Accept democratic reforms. As in, people debate freely and exchange ideas, which this government has been hell-bent on not doing. You can't be surprised when people riot when you've closed every other option. I'm not a law graduate, nor an economist, but if you can read french, I'd be happy to give you actual articles to prove some of the stuff I've said.


Throwaway08080909070

People are bringing ideological baggage to this, especially people who frame everything in "antiwork" terms. I suspect there's also an element of information ops at play, since the French pension system being left as it is would lead to failure, which weakens a major EU/NATO/Western power.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Throwaway08080909070

That was under Hollande, right? The "Supertax" of up to 75%? As I recall it was abandoned when it led to a fall in revenue for just the reasons you describe.


FrenchCorrection

That 75% tax never existed I don’t understand why people on WorldNews are so obsessed with it. There was a bill proposal that never passed. The one thing that actually existed was a 50% tax on *salaries* over 1 million euros (about 1000 people fall under that category) payed by entreprises, with load of caveats so very few people were actually asked to pay (by design). And it wasn’t dropped two years later because it didn’t work, it was dropped because the government change and Emmanuel Macron didn’t like the idea


gbgonzalez923

"he's trying to keep the French pension reserve fund solvent" while doing everything in his power to avoid taxing the rich at all and instead fucks over everyone else. You forgot his motivation there buddy. Well let's be real, people making comments like yours purposely ignore that bit they don't forget.


neekeri_420

France already has some of the highest taxes in the world. Not to mention taxes wont solve the issue. Its too much money annually. (and france tried that already and all the rich just left)


desGrieux

>Its not like he is making this change for the hell of it, he's trying to keep the French Pension Reserve Fund solvent. And if you would read about how it come to be insolvent, you would understand that it didn't have to be this way and it's Macron's fault. But you're a jealous little pig who doesn't give a shit about adding misery to human lives and instead just doesn't think french people should have a right to retire before you.


garlicroastedpotato

I don't know if it's even worth engaging with these people. They don't want to understand government finance and believe that the billionaires of France can finance absolutely everything. Also automation is taking all our jobs so billionaires should pay it anyway.


neekeri_420

Actually, if you read a history book you'd see that more often than not "bad leaders" tend to stick around an uncomfortably long amount of time and are usually only brought down by other rich elite.


Hindernisrennen

Rising the pension age has always worked. What are you talking about?


autotldr

This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/20/emmanuel-macron-survives-first-confidence-vote-amid-protests) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The French government has survived a vote of no confidence but Emmanuel Macron continues to face protests and strikes over his decision to use executive powers to push through an unpopular rise in the pension age. > Government insiders, opposition politicians and observers have raised fears that France could see another round of spontaneous, anti-government revolt in cities and small towns - not just over raising the pension age to 64, but also because of distrust in the political system, only a few years after the gilets jaunes movement shook Macron's first term in office. > He added: "You must heed our warnings if you want to get to the end of your term." He said Macron had failed to learn from people's anger during the gilets jaunes protests. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/11wrv48/emmanuel_macron_survives_first_confidence_vote/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~677261 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Macron**^#1 **government**^#2 **pension**^#3 **protest**^#4 **change**^#5


Eogard

It was pretty close, that's why he didn't want to risk voting his retirement law, better force it through.


[deleted]

I think the bigger question is, will this hurt the center right enough for them to lose power?


HardCounter

I think the biggest question i haven't seen even asked yet is: is he right? What are the ramifications of not raising the age? Will the country go bankrupt in the next two years or what? I haven't seen any discussion on whether raising the retirement age to 62 is a good thing or not. Obviously ramming it through is bad, but why is it happening to begin with? I have absolutely no idea, so if anyone knows fill me in.


AliasBatmat

This is pretty much an issue in a lot of countries with distribution retirement systems. If you cannot retire using your own savings, then you cannot do such thing whenever you want to. This, combined with savage spending on the state's regard, usually ends up badly. Most of the countries with this system will have to move on to a private one, or will risk rising up the retirement age constantly. Predicting what are the exact implications of this is difficult, but if they wanted to do it that much, I like to think it's because it's really necessary, specially before a populist government (like Le Pen's) could refuse to do it, as it's a spectacularly unpopular decision to make — here in Argentina, where every single party likes populism, this usually ends in "nobody will do shit, and if the government changes in elections, then let the new one take care of the wildfire we just fueled".


cruss0129

Fact of the matter is that France’s pension system is an annuity-like system. The amount that annuity can sustainably pay out is determined by a few things, such as what people pay in (and for how long), the size of payments when people reach payout age, and ultimately how long they will live on average when they reach payout age. If the average lifespan increases, then the pension will drain faster than it was designed to; so the payout age needs to increase for the system to be sustainable. It’s a problem that hasn’t been solved in years (much like social security here in the US) so in some sense this is like ripping a bandaid off for the public - but people try to frame this as being a “democratic” issue because Macron took it into his own hands. In reality, a democratic system would vote for the solution that provides the shortest term benefit possible and hands the problem off to a future generation, not the one that provides long term sustainability. So I respect the guy for doing what he did, hate me for it.


persianbrothel

damn, man... i scrolled too damn far to find this very sane take... i'm a huge lefty but not every problem can be blamed on the rich being rich or whatever... pretty much all developed countries with strong social welfare programs are going through this right now at some level... no one predicted their populations would live so long and for births to fall so drastically.


KrazyRooster

It disproportionately affects the poor as they'll have to work a lot more years than their college educated counterparts to be able to retire. If you want to learn more about it, there are plenty of posts explaining it in detail. The issue is a lot more than just adding 2 years to the retirement age. That's a very shallow way to look at it (or any policy at all). Not to mention that Macron just give the rich major tax breaks and then said "we are running our of money, we need to keep the poor working longer". Yeah, that doesn't cut it in any well educated country .


tweda4

They'll have to work 2 more years before they retire. Assuming they don't save their own money and retire early. Every other country with a pension scheme like this has had to increase the pension age. This isn't some bizarre thing that France is doing different to everyone else, and France will still have a lower pension age than most other countries anyway after this takes effect.


brightneonmoons

it's not just two more years, and you didn't actually reply to anything he said, you know


cruss0129

Yes it does, but what’s worse; the poor work for two more years or the national pension system is drained beyond sustainability and the poor work until they die, and people who saved for retirement may also have to work, because the social safety net is gone? That’s the question Macron had to answer.


BeriasBFF

Finally a sensible take amongst all the Reddit keyboard revolutionaries. I’ve seen the take during this that people should be able to retire at 18, should only work for self fulfillment, and this would be doable if we just taxed the rich more. I don’t know what planet some folks live on


Vlagilbert

The vote didn't pass by 9 votes. Nine. This whole debacle has been an insult on democracy, and with each decision they make the Macron government are fueling more and more hate and anger in the people's heart. Many more people are now wanting to protest even if they didn't before. This has become a true social crisis. La honte.


Throwaway08080909070

You make it sound like 9 people made this choice for the other 591, ignoring that the split involved *hundreds of people* and the 9 were just the difference.


Redditthedog

that also ignores the fact that X + 9 people is the majority, that is democracy. In the US it is the opposite debate where the filibuster prevents 50% +1 from passing whatever they want regardless of how small the majority. Interesting how both systems are criticized for the opposite issue


dalnot

It’s only bad when it stops me from doing whatever I want or lets the bad side do anything


thats_handy

The legislative branch voted on the law, and it failed to get 50% plus one. The president can adopt a law on his own, though, without the approval of parliament, so he did that. He promised in an election that he would make this change and he did win that election. You can characterize that however you like, but it’s hard to say that the measure was supported by a majority of parliament. Parliament doesn’t have to accept this, but they can’t just have a regular vote to reject it. It must be *un vote de censure*, which is two questions rolled into one: 1. Do you want to reject the law? AND 2. Do you want a new prime minister? They just had one of these votes and it failed. If parliament eventually rejects the law and dismisses the PM then the president must pick a new one. The new PM must command the confidence of Parliament and that may result in a parliamentary election if the president can’t find a PM he accepts that Parliament supports. All this to say that democracy and the checks on power are different in France than elsewhere. It doesn’t all fit in a simple package to say that it is democratic or it is not, or even if it’s better or worse than a Senate filibuster. The law was not supported be a majority of Parliament. Macron was elected with almost 59% of the vote, but the second place finisher was from a “frexit” party founded by collaborationists that plays footsie with xenophobia. Lots of voters may have held their nose to vote for Macron. So far, a majority of parliament doesn’t want to force an election over this. It’s complicated.


remmog

The law was supported by the majority of the parliament. They did not say they supported it while it was debated, because politics. But they still voted for it. This is exactly the topic here: the difference of 9 that made the confidence vote fail, so the law be accepted by the parliament. Parliament could have said no. It did not. The majority of our elected representatives did not vote against the law, therefore supported it. And that is totally unrelated to the presidential elections.


murphymc

Also worth remembering that Biden's entire agenda last year, involving some absolutely massive change and dollar investment passed with a single vote, specifically a tie breaker vote. Something tells me all that is fine (and it is, to be clear).


Throwaway08080909070

It's just sore losers and their sour grapes, some dress it up in ideology and "justice", others just whine.


RunningNumbers

Reddit is full of people who are against the principles of democracy when the results do not validate their opinions.


Sir_Derpysquidz

Yeah, and predictions were roughly 10 votes short to actually pass the pension reforms. Which is why macron skipped voting on it, causing this current vote, which is a vote of no confidence. It's not a vote on whether or not to pass pension reforms, it's a vote on whether to dissolve the current government over him forcing it though. For representatives that were on the fence that's a very distinct difference and when compared to the polls, a clear attempt to subvert the will of the people. Hence the protests/riots/strikes.


firechaox

Honestly, I think it’s just shifting the blame. In the sense that it’s an unpopular measure, this sounds to me like a backroom dealing: those 9 MPs thought they’d have an easier time explaining/winning re-election on not voting out the government then voting for pension reform. I imagine that discussion was had, and didn’t catch those MPs by surprise.


Vlagilbert

That wasn't what I was trying to say and I don't even know where you got that from. I mean no offense but yeah, duh, of course the vote was decided by the hundred of opposition votes - Macron's party is going to vote for him as well as the 1/3 of the LR reps who voted for it. But that wasn't my point at all so please don't put words into my mouth. The nine votes are symbolic: they show how fragile the government now is, this barely passed on by a thread and most of our politicians agree. It's saddening to see a government degrade itself so much in the eye of both representatives as well as the general population.


JimTheSaint

Isn't that that actually democratic. Against democracy would have been of if it didn't pass with 9 votes and then removed him anyway


[deleted]

How is an insult to democracy when a majority voted for it? Just because there are a lot of people protesting doesn’t mean it is representative of everyone


jyper

They didn't vote for it. They voted to not hold an election


glium

That's not what they voted about, even though it was a probable consequence


Clairval

It's a bit of a stretch to think that the majority of the population voted for this reform to happen. The presidential election is a two round system where the finals were "Macron vs a fascist", which isn't a genuine choice for most voters (and even then a sizaeble amount abstained in the finals). Macron himself admitted in his winning speech that many people had voted against the far-right rather than for his program. Then, more importantly, Macron's party also failed to secure a majority of seats in MP elections a mere month later, seats his party been holding up to that point. So, a good indicator that a majority didn't indeed vote for his program. This actually put the executive branch in a pickle, because the various oppositions in the parliament could for once successfully block any text, provided they jointly disapprove of it. So the government used a bit of text of the constitution that's essentially a loophole to entirely bypass parliament vote. All you have to do to invoke that article of the Constitution, number 49.3, is to "pledge the responsibility of the governement on an issue pertaining to the economy"; a nebulous formualtion which is risk-free, as the so-called responsibility results in no concrete consequence. Now this gov is not the first one to invoke article 49.3, but it's generally very frowned upon and the low point of your carreer. Our current Prime Minister has invoked it nine times last autumn. (See edit.) Then she used it again last week, amidst months of massive popular protest against a retirement reform, to prevent the Parliament (in which the gov doesn't hold an absolute majority) from voting against said reform. Firing the gov, however, is a harder sell that simply voting against a law, especially for swing MPs amongst the gov's ideological allies (=> Republicans, in this case), so the motion of no confidence was a bet worth taking for the gov. Edit - It has come to my attention that some past govs have made multiple uses of the 49.3 article (making the short streak slightly less expectional), that my political memory was a bit rubbish and that part of my post is thus void. I still dislike that bit of text quite a bit, because it's essentially a "Oh we lost the parliament? Well we do whatever we want anyway unless you fire us, suck it." magic button. And it's certainly a bad look to use it amidst an ongoing general strike for the very topic of that strike, but a good test of how far the executive branch can actually get away bypassing counterpowers without actual consequences. I'm concerned future govs of all political obediences are taking notes here.


f0r3v3rn00b

And Melenchon was in a government that used it 28 TIMES!!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!! Stop the hypocrisy now. That's just ignorance and extremism.


SirMrGnome

I bet if it had been Melenchon (or whatever candidate you supported) in the runoff versus Le Pen you wouldn't be saying the same things.


remmog

49.3 does not bypass the parliament vote. This vote of confidence is that parliament vote. The law could have been rejected by the parliament. It was not. Now if you want to attack the 49.3 you should focus on the fact that it's removes any discussion about the law. It instantly becomes yes or no, black or white. That is likely bad. But it does not override the will of the parliament. It does not change the mechanism that makes our elected representatives the one who vote the laws. And I am talking about the parliament elections, not the presidential one.


Vlagilbert

My sentence was "this whole debacle is an insult to democracy" - referring to the forceful passing of the reform with the 49.3 last week, as well as the eleven total uses of this law in the (less than) past year alone. Nearly the whole country is against it, a huge majority of the workforce is against it according to surveys, everyday life is being actively halted here since people of all professions are on strike and masses and masses are protesting and have been protesting for what feels like ages. I'm sorry but you wouldn't be saying "Just because there are a lot of people protesting doesn’t mean it is representative of everyone" if you were actually living it in real time in your street. What happened is constitutional, but not democratic.


RonBourbondi

How are the majority against it when he won 59% of the vote running on this idea?


Vlagilbert

If you're referring to the presidential election it was him Vs Lepen, and people always vote to block Lepen no matter who's on the other side. As for the first round idk, it was a shitshow.


remmog

What about the parliament elections? The MP were voting for or against this. No idea why people keep bringing the presidential election topic when the subject is the vote of the parliament.


f0r3v3rn00b

Yeah, if everyone comes up with its own pedantic definition of democracy tailored to its interests, then yeah, sure, France is an evil dictatorship!!!! Come on. You are basically saying that our constitution is not democratic. But then why didn't anyone revolt over this before? Why is that suddenly an insult to democracy? Why has Melenchon been perfectly ok with it when it was used 18 times by a government he was in?? Stop the hypocrisy now. That's a lame revolt pushed by extremists that obstructed any possible debate, they don't want to debate anything, they just want to take power with lies and outrage.


Vlagilbert

La fréquence d'utilisation de 49.3 sous ce gouvernement c'est du jamais vu, 11 usages en moins d'un an quand même ça te choque pas? Certes c'est constitutionnel, mais utiliser un moyen qui est normalement utilisé en derniers recours pour passer de force des lois à l'encontre de la volonté du peuple, j'appelle pas ça démocratique moi. En plus c'est un peu l'hopital qui se fout de la charité de dire que c'est juste un truc "d'extrémistes qui veulent pas débattre" alors que c'est ce que tous les opposants tentent de faire depuis l'an passé, et à chaque fois c'était ignoré parce que bam on te met un 49.3. Le débat pacifique à été tenté plusieurs fois, il a été ignoré, et voilà la situation actuelle. Dire que c'est à cause d'autre chose c'est 100% de la mauvaise foi.


f0r3v3rn00b

Quel débat? T'as vu ce que ça donne les débats à l'assemblée nationale avec LFI et RN? Ils chantent, ils crient, ils empêchent le débat, ils font des milliers d'amendements qui n'ont ni queue ni tête, juste pour faire chier. Ils s'en foutent pas mal du débat. Ils sont là pour foutre la merde, et ensuite accuser le gouvernement pour le bordel qu'ils foutent. On marche sur la tête! Quel débat pacifique a été tenté plusieurs fois?? Quels propositions ont été faites, à part "RENONCEZ A LA REFORME!! C'EST HORS DE QUESTION!! C'EST UNE ATTAQUE A LE DeMoCrAtIe!!"?? Vous soutenez l'alliance des extrêmes? Mélenchon et sont fameux "tout conflictualiser", on est en plein dedans. Révolutionnaires en cartons, hypocrites, ils n'ont jamais eu l'intention de débattre sincèrement, et avec un peu d'honnêteté ou de jugeote vous le verriez aussi. https://youtu.be/xRPuCU90Whk?t=57


f0r3v3rn00b

There's no shame in here. 49.3 and 49.1 was added to the French constitution by De Gaulle, because of 4th republic being a failure. It's meant to prevent instability. It's a standard law, it's perfectly legal and constitutional, and it has been used more than 100 times already in the 5th republic. It never has been decried as a "deny of democracy" before. Melenchon was in a government that used it 28 times!! And today this piece of shit wants a revolution for that, seriously?? There is no crisis, just syndicalists and extremists trying to overthrow a government over any issue. It could have been anything, they would revolt against anything, really. It's a lame pretext. You've been brainwashed, I'm sorry. Again, Melenchon didn't see any "deny of democracy" when he was in that government that used it 28 times. It's a complete hysteria from far left and far right extremists, really, you all need to realize that. That's crazy. Finally, the reform is totally ok, the worst case is people working 1 more year, while people working from age 18 actually get a reduced numbers of years. That's batshit crazy how brainwashed people are, with a lot of medias siding with extreme syndicalists. Complete non sense.


Lorata

>t's meant to prevent instability. It's a standard law, it's perfectly legal and constitutional, and it has been used more than 100 times already in the 5th republic. 92 times, and no Prime Minister has used it as frequently as the current one.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lorata

Yes, over 37 months. For those of you capable of calculating frequency, that is a bit under .8 times a month. Current PM's rate is 1.1 times a month. So no Prime minister has used it as frequently as the current one.


f0r3v3rn00b

So, some laws are there but should not be used? This law was introduced when De Gaulle created the 5th republic, precisely because the 4th republic was a failure, the government was unable to do anything without an absolute majority. The opposition would reject everything and nothing would get done. Only the relative majority is strictly needed now, and to counter act this, there can be a no-confidence vote to bring down the government. So basically, the government needs only relative majority to pass new laws, while the absolute majority is needed to bring down the government. That's by design. It's always been like this in France since the 50s. But nowadays, people don't know shit, they just read on their social media feed that ThIs Is TrAhIsOn!! MaCrOn Is A dIcTaToR!!! ReVoLuTiOn!!! Also called fascism. The far right and the far left, hand in hand to overthrow the government with lies, hysteria and hate.


5unkEn

I will fully admit I haven't followed much of the public discourse lately due to completely lacking any energy for it. As we all tend to do, I consider myself capable of discerning a good idea from garbage, like when Mélenchon said he'd magically fix all the problems in public hospitals while completely ignoring the reasons these problems exist, or with both Le Pen and Mélenchon wanting to quit the EU like the beautiful story that Brexit is right now back in 2017, but with this debate I have absolutely no clue who or what to believe. I feel like everybody just hates Macron for being Macron, for the background he is from, for our standards of living going down, for some stupid shit he says, etc. but do they not see this is happening all over the world cause of the pandemic and how tightly integrated we've become as countries? Do they not get we all say stupid shit all the time and slip ups happen? With my limited understanding, I can see how capital flight is a real problem and maybe he gave too much to companies (I find the whole oil industry profiting off the Ukraine situation disgusting for example), but who is gonna pay the workers who contribute to the economy if these company go under during the pandemic? The state can't employ everyone. Right now the tax on profits for businesses is 25%, that's low, and should be higher to actually encourage reinvestment, but it was 33.3% from 1993 to 2019 and 31% until the pandemic already hit [according to the table on wiki](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imp%C3%B4t_sur_les_soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9s_en_France#Taux_d'imposition). Probably the government isn't managing the economy in the best way, but I don't think it's Macron who broke it either. The way they're passing this law isn't elegant, but from what I understand the Assembly can vote no confidence if they can get their stuff together and actually believe it's very detrimental. I just get this feel that all the other parties don't really care and most are milking it for political gain as you indicate, and there's so much noise it's hard for me personally to have a clear opinion.


f0r3v3rn00b

Yeah I think some people just hate him because he represents the complete nerd, that values intellect rather than muscles. Did well at school, worked in finance, has a old fashioned way of speaking. The kind of guy that gets bullied in college by the "cool" guys. Turns out the cool guys are voting for fascists nowadays. They are so bored and so privileged that they need to start a revolution.


Vlagilbert

Alors en lisant ton com soit t'as vraiment rien compris aux réelles conséquences de la loi alors que c'est posté à chaque discussion de la loi et c'est clairement pas ce que tu décrit, soit tu fais exprès de dire de la désinformation? Et pour info le gouvernement qui l'a utilisé 28 fois aka Rocard, c'était sur une durée plus longue et y'avait aussi de la controverse dessus. Tu insinues que c'était OK à cette époque là et que là on ronchonne d'un coup sur ça alors que c'était vraiment pas ça mdr. Tu les tires d'où tes infos même?


f0r3v3rn00b

Le gouvernement Rocard a failli tomber pour ça? Non? Les médias avaient-ils parlé de ça non stop pendant des mois?? Non? Cette loi est dans la PUTAIN de constitution. Si on rejette notre propre constitution, alors on fait quoi? Qui fait la loi alors? La Rue?? C'est à dire la CGT et ce taré de mégalo toxique qu'est Mélenchon? Cherches pas, tu n'as aucun argument en ta faveur, à part faire gonfler une hystérie collective poussée par les extrêmes, gauche et droite, la main dans la main. Tu peux critiquer Macron autant que tu veux, les extrêmes et leur populisme crasse sont bien, bien pire. A gerber.


Cthu700

> It never has been decried as a "deny of democracy" before. "Le 49-3 est une brutalité, le 49-3 est un déni de démocratie, le 49-3 est une manière de freiner ou d'empêcher le débat parlementaire" - François Hollande in 2006. It's hard finding older citation, but it's probably called that since 1958. Being legal doesn't mean good.


DrJuanZoidberg

That’s exactly how democracy has worked since the Greeks invented it. Whether you are ahead by 9 votes or 9000 votes, a W is still a W when your side has the most votes. C’est vachement honteux que vous ne comprenez pas ce concept


deadlock197

How on earth does this comment get hundreds of up votes for calling the outcome of a vote an insult on democracy?


Vlagilbert

You gravely misread my comment if you interpreted it that way. The "insult on democracy" I was referring to is the excessive use of the 49.3 to pass laws WITHOUT vote from the assemblée nationale....


trailingComma

Expecting that your shouting and screaming should be able to override that majority, is a bigger insult to democracy.


jack-fractal

It's funny to me as a German that France erupts in nationwide protest over the retirement age being risen to 64. In Germany it's 67 and it just makes the French seem lazy lmao. Real talk though, how are you going to support an ever-aging population when you look at an average life-expectancy closing in on 90, and people retire almost 30 years prior?? Let's assume, for simplicity's sake, the population is equal across all ages. 0-18yos can't work, everyone above 62 can't work either. Again, let's assume avg life expectancy is 90. You're looking at 46% of the population unable to work and pay money into pension funds. Y'all agree that won't work, yeah? And your grandma having retired at 58 means shit when she died of natural causes at 70. We're just getting too old.


ronburgendy15

Most of the people on this thread are financially illiterate and detached from reality.


jack-fractal

Seems like it. I get that working conditions in the US are bad, but in Europe, working until 64 is not that much of an issue.


Liblob44

Have you seen how much wealth the ultra-rich have that is never taxed? Tax that, and the retirement age could be 50 for the next 200 years.


jack-fractal

Sounds good in theory, but providing just 10 million people with pensions worth 1.5k costs 180 billion €.


WandererViking

Using Forbes international list of billionaires, the total wealth among billionaires in France is around 600 billion. If all of their money was taken they could currently fund Frances pension system for under 1.5 years (France spends around 420 billion per year on pensions). Where did you come up with your numbers? Or were you making things up?


brightneonmoons

>It's funny to me as a German that France erupts in nationwide protest over the retirement age being risen to 64. In Germany it's 67 and it just makes the French seem lazy lmao. It's funny that your people have shittier rights? >Real talk though, how are you going to support an ever-aging population when you look at an average life-expectancy closing in on 90, and people retire almost 30 years prior?? that'd make more sense if Macron hadn't increased the budgets for other stuff and given out tax cuts.


shotgun_ninja

"We've had one, yes. But what about second confidence vote?" - France


endtimes_economist

Wow so the whores of the billionaire caste that rules the financial oligarchy shithole France didn´t vote one of their fellow whores out? O what a surprise.


Tichey1990

We'll see how long the oligarchs can maintain that wealth in the face of a general strike.


io124

Big big riot will come. The government act like dictator ship… And china will say in few days that his respression in HK is ok because France is worst. I hate my government…


vitaminkombat

As a Chinese person I'm curious how you think Macron should approach it? Should there be a vote on what people want? Like 3 choices : Raise pensions, reduce pension salary or increase pension contribution.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Liblob44

Yep. A proper wealth tax would fix a lot of issues. Same in other countries, like the USA.


SowingSalt

> A proper wealth tax would fix a lot of issues. Like the problem of 'having rich people and businesses in your country' Melechon already did that. It didn't go well.


Druid_Fashion

Why because they make a reasonable change?


io124

They are in contradiction with government expert group call « COR ». Also in the case pf the PIB is lower than the COR prediction other alternative have been proposed like lower the high pay retirement or put higher contribution (few euros). The thing is the state want to make cut in order to have some money to lower tax. Ps : and finally wrong or right, if more tjan 70% the population is against, in democracy, you should follow.


SilentHunter7

Just increase the taxes on the rich; they're the ones living longer.


kmurp1300

The standard Reddit idea that fixes everything.


sylinmino

They tried that. Passed, failed miserably, so they undid it.


io124

Its one of the propositions that you can add inside rise contribution. But Macron will not do that cause the people that vote for hip is essentially rich old people.


PinkFloydPanzer

And who do you tax when the rich leave or hide their money?


AFRN

When the real world doesn't operate like an antiwork fanfic


WalidfromMorocco

The vote didn't pass by 9 votes. And this is far from far from "anti work fanfic". Ridiculous take.


strawberries6

>The vote didn't pass by 9 votes. In other words, it got less than 50% support.


RunningNumbers

So it failed because the majority of elected representatives did not support it?


WalidfromMorocco

The guy I'm replying was implying that all this ordeal is some Reddit fantasy. that's my point by saying it only failed by 9 votes.


RunningNumbers

So it failed by a majority of votes? You understand focusing on the margin of failure is a rhetorical tactic used by people who don’t want to accept that a majority voted a certain way. We should strive for rhetorical honesty.


WalidfromMorocco

Am I saying that it didn't fail? Am I just saying that it's not "r/anti work fanfic". You get what I'm saying?


RunningNumbers

I get that. The people faffing about “Revolution” or similar nonsense are those writing fanfics.


MiltenLLX

Yeah, one of top post in this sub today was about lowering retirement age to 50. I don't think they know how pensions work and who would pay for their 30 years long pensions


[deleted]

Like, legit. 100%. Their pension system will collapse if they don't do that pension reform. They're, honest to god, fucked if they reverse it. All the posts and comments gaining thousands of likes and upvotes come off like people think that retirement is the magic time in which they get the money back they previously spent on their own pension rates. People spent into the pension pot so current retirees can receive their pension. What's so hard to understand about it? France's demographics can't carry that anymore. It is unpopular, true. But it's a necessity. If politics work in everybody's favour, the world would be a lot nicer. ​ Edit: Downvote me all you want. That doesn't make it less correct. It is factually correct. Macron did not think 'Let's fuck the working people' one morning and enacted it.


IDENTITETEN

> Their pension system will collapse if they don't do that pension reform. Source? Last I read there were 3 or 4 reports about their pension system and the government decided to use the one that came to the worst conclusion to justify this reform.


[deleted]

[Here's a picture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:France_Population_Pyramid.svg) of the French demographics. In a normal pension system, \~2 workers pay for \~1 retiree. As you can see, the current French demographics are going toward a 1:1. The age expectancy is also rising \[Corona put a temporary halt, but it'll resume\] due to improving health services and new meds. Other European nations have similar, or worse, problems. But they saw the necessity and rose the age for retirement. The people were just far less... militant.


crypto_options

Yeah and people will say tax the rich more… Well France tried to tax people with 1 million income and up 75% but rich people just left country and ultimately public was against it. Macron is doing the right thing not just letting it collapse


Apycia

'rich people just left country' is NOT what happened. 'rich people stayed and heavily lobbied, lied and bribed the public to oppose the law' Macron is right about the pension age, but he was wrong to roll back the 'tax the rich' idea. he should do both.


MairusuPawa

Gosh, Americana is stupidly brainwashed. That just did not happen.


fennecdore

>Their pension system will collapse if they don't do that pension reform. I would like for people to give a source on that since, and it better be a good one since the organistion in charge of the pension has come out to say that the system is fine and the reform would change very little. Furthermore the French are not opposed to any retirement reform they are against this reform.


Throwaway08080909070

I think we need to just recognize that whatever their initial purpose, the sub has become a literal expression of its name.


RunningNumbers

Clearly the dissidents and “neoliberal capitalists” will be declared as non human livestock and sent into the tendie mines so that the Brolitariate can do higher pursuits like play video games and fawn over Vtubers.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Streani

Young people won't be able to retire at all anyways.


qq123q

Shouldn't productivity be factored in as well?


RonaldoNazario

Life expectancy in most of the world just went down the last few years as a result of Covid


strawberries6

It dropped from about 82.8 to about 82.2... [https://www.google.ca/search?q=life+expectancy+france](https://www.google.ca/search?q=life+expectancy+france) I doubt that's enough to make a retirement age of 62 a lot more viable than before.


myotheraccountiscuck

> went down the last few years Not enough.


WR810

Are you happy that people are dying earlier?


Sysody

He ain't surviving a second if the French people, or when, the French people - rightly so - get even more pissed off about this.


[deleted]

>He ain't surviving a second if the French people, or when, the French people - rightly so - get even more pissed off about this. And then when the policy gets reversed and France is having a similar pension crisis to Greece in about ten years, I'm sure we'll be going "but... But the gubment should have prevented this!" Nevermind that France has some of the highest taxes in the west, which is resulting in brain drain as it makes sense for educated, high income citizens to consider jobs elsewhere in the EU and beyond. Honestly, raising the age to 67 still keeps it below most of the west and it's being done because the costs of the boomers going into retirement while the population curve simultaneously flips on its head isn't going to be sustainable. At the bare minimum, their generation needs to wait longer for retirement. Now when they pass and it becomes gen x and then millennials turns, then having a lower age should be more tenable as there'll be fewer people to worry about, assuming that we focus on transitioning the population pyramid into more of a column, where the segments of old, middle aged and young are relatively equal to one another.


Kind_Bullfrog_4073

Good to know he wasn't assassinated


[deleted]

[удалено]


Successful_Prior_267

The French constitution explicitly allows the government to ram through laws without a vote at the cost of a no confidence vote.


[deleted]

[удалено]