French Riots. Really? Really???

[sandinista]

I am 100% behind the French. Their workers, whether they consciously know it or not, are trying to protect something great about France and that is the notion that work is not life and life is not work. Life is and should be a balance. The world is being increasingly overtaken by international capitalism, which is driving down wages in its relentless pursuit of profit. In that process, as is easily evidenced the rich are getting richer and the poor even poorer. The French 'social culture' is naturally socialist (far more left as a whole than most other non French people realise!) and they rebel at this notion. Its in their DNA!

Tomorrow in the UK the so called comprehensive spending review is announced. Its main purpose is to get the UK back into 'credit worthiness'. The people who got us there in the first place? Workers? The average mortgage slave? No. The people who own most of stuff. Fucking wake up people.

[Coito ergo sum]

So what's the right? 60 hours? Or, is 60 hours too high and they really have a right to 55 hours? Do they have a right ONLY to have the hours go down, and never up? Circumstances can change to allow the hours to go down, but if circumstances change to where they need to go up, then tough shit? They never go up?

[RuleBritannia]

But why do they need to go up?

[thepill]

Peeps are living longer, the w(h)ealthfare state cost more and the current crisis.
The will have to pay for it some how.
a) higher taxes
b) longer working hours
c) increase the retirement age
or most likely a combination of all 3

[Clinton Huxley]

Huzzah for the French! The idea that the working chap should just meekly accept whatever diminution of his living standards the Govt proposes is bizarre. Good on 'em.

[Link]

I've always respected the French for this attitude, sure it may not be the smartest decision to riot over a governmental change that at the end of the day is inevitable what with the growth of the aging population, but you have to appreciate their spirit and the fact they refuse to just bend over and take it!

[Coito ergo sum]

But why do they need to go up?

Because rate of aging of the population is putting more and more pressure on government pension and other expenditures paid in relation to older people. Europe's pension systems have today's workers financing yesterday's workers' retirements. Today, that equals more than 7% of GDP, and that's projected to double by 2050. If pensions systems continue to be based on the assumption that workers hugely outnumber retirees, they are headed for collapse.

Someone, of course has to pay for it. In 2012, the population of working age people in Europe is expected to start shrinking as the number of retired people increases. What are the choices? One, spend less on pensioners. Two, make younger people pay higher pension contributions. Or, three, have more people working more and longer.

[normal]

But why do they need to go up?

Because rate of aging of the population is putting more and more pressure on government pension and other expenditures paid in relation to older people. Europe's pension systems have today's workers financing yesterday's workers' retirements. Today, that equals more than 7% of GDP, and that's projected to double by 2050. If pensions systems continue to be based on the assumption that workers hugely outnumber retirees, they are headed for collapse.

Someone, of course has to pay for it. In 2012, the population of working age people in Europe is expected to start shrinking as the number of retired people increases. What are the choices? One, spend less on pensioners. Two, make younger people pay higher pension contributions. Or, three, have more people working more and longer.

Why can't they just use oil money to pay for it?

[Coito ergo sum]

But why do they need to go up?

Because rate of aging of the population is putting more and more pressure on government pension and other expenditures paid in relation to older people. Europe's pension systems have today's workers financing yesterday's workers' retirements. Today, that equals more than 7% of GDP, and that's projected to double by 2050. If pensions systems continue to be based on the assumption that workers hugely outnumber retirees, they are headed for collapse.

Someone, of course has to pay for it. In 2012, the population of working age people in Europe is expected to start shrinking as the number of retired people increases. What are the choices? One, spend less on pensioners. Two, make younger people pay higher pension contributions. Or, three, have more people working more and longer.

Why can't they just use oil money to pay for it?

They could pluck it off the money tree.

[klr]

But why do they need to go up?

Because rate of aging of the population is putting more and more pressure on government pension and other expenditures paid in relation to older people. Europe's pension systems have today's workers financing yesterday's workers' retirements. Today, that equals more than 7% of GDP, and that's projected to double by 2050. If pensions systems continue to be based on the assumption that workers hugely outnumber retirees, they are headed for collapse.

Someone, of course has to pay for it. In 2012, the population of working age people in Europe is expected to start shrinking as the number of retired people increases. What are the choices? One, spend less on pensioners. Two, make younger people pay higher pension contributions. Or, three, have more people working more and longer.

And I am speaking as someone who is "supposed" to retire at 65, but who fully expects the retirement age to creep up by a year or two.

[Svartalf]

But why do they need to go up?

Because rate of aging of the population is putting more and more pressure on government pension and other expenditures paid in relation to older people. Europe's pension systems have today's workers financing yesterday's workers' retirements. Today, that equals more than 7% of GDP, and that's projected to double by 2050. If pensions systems continue to be based on the assumption that workers hugely outnumber retirees, they are headed for collapse.

Someone, of course has to pay for it. In 2012, the population of working age people in Europe is expected to start shrinking as the number of retired people increases. What are the choices? One, spend less on pensioners. Two, make younger people pay higher pension contributions. Or, three, have more people working more and longer.

Why can't they just use oil money to pay for it?

You know we DO have plans to send the charles de gaulle to seize the Lofotens... as soon as it's out of repairs, right?

[normal]

But why do they need to go up?

Because rate of aging of the population is putting more and more pressure on government pension and other expenditures paid in relation to older people. Europe's pension systems have today's workers financing yesterday's workers' retirements. Today, that equals more than 7% of GDP, and that's projected to double by 2050. If pensions systems continue to be based on the assumption that workers hugely outnumber retirees, they are headed for collapse.

Someone, of course has to pay for it. In 2012, the population of working age people in Europe is expected to start shrinking as the number of retired people increases. What are the choices? One, spend less on pensioners. Two, make younger people pay higher pension contributions. Or, three, have more people working more and longer.

Why can't they just use oil money to pay for it?

You know we DO have plans to send the charles de gaulle to seize the Lofotens... as soon as it's out of repairs, right?

[Coito ergo sum]

But why do they need to go up?

Because rate of aging of the population is putting more and more pressure on government pension and other expenditures paid in relation to older people. Europe's pension systems have today's workers financing yesterday's workers' retirements. Today, that equals more than 7% of GDP, and that's projected to double by 2050. If pensions systems continue to be based on the assumption that workers hugely outnumber retirees, they are headed for collapse.

Someone, of course has to pay for it. In 2012, the population of working age people in Europe is expected to start shrinking as the number of retired people increases. What are the choices? One, spend less on pensioners. Two, make younger people pay higher pension contributions. Or, three, have more people working more and longer.

And I am speaking as someone who is "supposed" to retire at 65, but who fully expects the retirement age to creep up by a year or two.

The fuckers that screwed it up were the early recipients of social security who didn't pay in shit, and yet collected benefits. It was easy to do then because we had the baby boom, so the population was increasing, productivity was increasing, tax revenues were increasing. So, the government ran it like a Ponzi scheme -- early "investors" were paid out by new rubes, I mean "investors." And, it continued on - benefits went up, and so did contributions.

Now, in the US, we no longer have the increasing pool of investors - we have a declining pool of investors, and an ever increasing demand for more and more benefits. This means that fewer workers continue to pay for more and more retirees. At some point, the system has to break, because younger workers are not going to sit still to being a slave of a 2 or 3 retirees, working to support just a couple of people.

It can't sustain itself. You need to either generate more revenue or cut payments.

[JimC]

I was going to retire in 2 and a half years when I reach 60 (where some tax benefits related to superannuation kick in), but the effects of the GFC on super funds mean I too will have to wait till I'm at least 62... :sighsm:

I fully intend to take out my crankiness on my students!

(I mean even more than normal...)

[Link]

But why do they need to go up?

Because rate of aging of the population is putting more and more pressure on government pension and other expenditures paid in relation to older people. Europe's pension systems have today's workers financing yesterday's workers' retirements. Today, that equals more than 7% of GDP, and that's projected to double by 2050. If pensions systems continue to be based on the assumption that workers hugely outnumber retirees, they are headed for collapse.

Someone, of course has to pay for it. In 2012, the population of working age people in Europe is expected to start shrinking as the number of retired people increases. What are the choices? One, spend less on pensioners. Two, make younger people pay higher pension contributions. Or, three, have more people working more and longer.

And I am speaking as someone who is "supposed" to retire at 65, but who fully expects the retirement age to creep up by a year or two.

The fuckers that screwed it up were the early recipients of social security who didn't pay in shit, and yet collected benefits. It was easy to do then because we had the baby boom, so the population was increasing, productivity was increasing, tax revenues were increasing. So, the government ran it like a Ponzi scheme -- early "investors" were paid out by new rubes, I mean "investors." And, it continued on - benefits went up, and so did contributions.

Now, in the US, we no longer have the increasing pool of investors - we have a declining pool of investors, and an ever increasing demand for more and more benefits. This means that fewer workers continue to pay for more and more retirees. At some point, the system has to break, because younger workers are not going to sit still to being a slave of a 2 or 3 retirees, working to support just a couple of people.

It can't sustain itself. You need to either generate more revenue or cut payments.

Or euthanise the oldies