• sycamore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because of all the advances over the past generation from email to AI have all combined to make the economy at least twice as productive as it was 30 years ago but we aren’t seeing any benefit.

    The years of leisure workers get at the end of their career should be increasing, not decreasing. Where are all the productivity gains going?

    “Oh, but people are living longer” OK, but we’re also generating twice as much wealth over our careers than the generation before us, and instead of more retirement years or shorter working weeks all we see is billionaire pricks buying up media conglomerates.

    Good luck to the French people. Keep it up. Get angry.

  • anonono@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So that they don’t have to work until 67.

    I mean if it were for the government they would put old people in an island and nuke it from time to time.

    Enjoying the fruits of your labor? How dare you.

    It’s also true that population is living longer and younger generations are not having kids. I mean there’s a little trick most don’t know is that those contributions in the form of taxes that you made all your life towards retirement, most of it gets spent immediately by the government. So if younger generations don’t have kids to keep the ponzi running the whole thing falls apart, and one of the symptoms is this, the need to raise retirement age.

  • daanzel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s good to know that in France, there is a required number of “working years” next to the retirement age. So for many people 64 is already not an option as they went to university for example. I often hear people argue that the French shouldn’t complain because in country X it’s age Y, but for a lot of French it’s already Y or >Y (I don’t know the exact details though as I’m not French, but have family there. So feel free to add or correct me)

    • sonovebitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      IIRC (haven’t looked into the details recently) in France you can have full pension from 64yo IF you’ve worked every year from 18yo. You can retire earlier, but your pension will be cut down for each month not “cotisé” up to 64.

      I think years of high school don’t typically count, but there are ways to “convert” or “buy” those years back for the calculation of your pension. Parental leave also can be converted.

      So yes, the less you work, the longer it takes to unlock 100% of your pension funds.

      EDIT: I just checked. To be eligible for full pension at 64 in France (full pension is 50% of the average of the best 25 years salaries) you need to have “cotisé” for 498 or 516 months (depending on your year of birth). Missing months can be bought back, or you can take a lower pension.

      • capnminus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Assumimg four weeks in a month, that’s 2,064 weeks/43 years. In Mexico, you “only” need 1,250 weeks, or 25 years or work (although the pension is locked until you’re 65 years old.

        That’s an insane number.

        • sonovebitch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Thanks for doing the math. With that, it means a french worker must work every single month without any gap from 21yo to 64yo to be eligible for full pension. Literally live to work.

          Fun fact: french policitians (and some other specific work fields) “cotisent” months faster. Our deputies can get the full pension unlocked after only 5 years of work (while it takes us plebs >40 years).

          Liberté, Égalité*, Fraternité, brothers…

          *Different terms may apply

    • OnRequest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Aussies aren’t big on protesting against anything. They just grumble and get on with it. Wouldn’t want to be called a whinger.

      • Smoogy@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        But yet they’ll throw stuff at the clerk if they take too long to ring them up or sneak in a tax at the register.

        Or tossing out their PM at the drop of a hat.

        Or someone trying to hijack a plane

        Or drunks on the bus.

        I think they are big on protesting. They don’t see it as whinging either. They see it as not putting up with shit.

        • BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, they’re right. Speaking as an Australian protester - we have a very conformist culture here. We haven’t been taught to imagine outside the status quo, it’s why Yank flavour and Neoliberal policies get pushed uncritically here. We’re sectioned off in the little castles of our homes - we have to seek out any form of community that isn’t our workplaces in the first place, let alone subversion, let alone (toothless and state captured) protest, let alone direct action and informed praxis.

          We might have once, but the majority of Australians don’t know shit about anything that isn’t themselves. We might want to look out for ours - but that circle is very small for mainstream Australia and you bet your ass that’s manipulable by wealthy interests.

          Not all of us, but the majority of us are spineless people terrified we’re not safe enough.

  • Blamemeta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because Australians don’t have any fight in them. They’re subjects, not citizens. Sane thing with guns and the hentai ban.