Petition [EN] Pétition [FR] Petición [ES] Petiţie [RO] Ψήφισμα [EL] Petice[CZ] Petition [DE] Petizione [IT] Petycja [PL] Petitie [NL] Petíció [HU] Petição [PT] Namninsamling [SV] Underskriftindsamling [DA] Petícia [SK] Achainí [GA] Peticija [LT] Петиция [RU] Eskaera [EU] Petskribo [EO] Petició [CA] Athchuinge [GD]
there is not much rational for it, especially when these pension funds have to be paid by doctors (50% of their pensions payment go to agricultors and SNCF) and private employees who are far from enjoying these quind of outdated status (they are not exhausted anymore at 50).
Have you got any data to back up your sob-sob stuff about poor doctors paying for everybody else? Or did you read it in the Fig-Mag? When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
http://www.senat.fr/bulletin/20061218/soc.html
But your "50% of doctors' pension contributions for farmers and SNCF" is nonsense. Look at the document you link to:
Doctors, through their scheme (CARMF) pay into the CNAVPL, that pays 32% of its receipts to the compensation and surcompensation schemes. Which pay out to:
So the main subsidies concern branches of activity that have undergone demographic change that has left a small number of payers-in covering a large number of pensioners (farming, coal-mining, shopkeepers and craftsmen). SNCF only receives about 3% of the total (according to my calculation).
So making this a beef against the régimes spéciaux seems unjustified, it really involves branches whose numbers have gone down dramatically, (and not only farmers, for that matter). And the proportion of doctors' contributions is not 50%, but considerably less (32%).
And what doctors' contributions are those? Only the obligatory minimum national pensions scheme payments (doctors will contribute to other schemes that will benefit them exclusively; the national minimum is a social solidarity system). How does that pan out for most doctors? I could give you the details (from a liberal professions' tax handbook, I haven't got a link, sorry), but most will be paying the ceiling, which, for 2006 income, was €4,334. 32% of that is €1,387. These are professionals who average more than €80,000 p.a. in net (of expenses inc social contributions) before-tax income. Sob-sob.
There may be an over-complicated system that needs overhaul, but essentially this is about redistribution and solidarity (and has little to do with the régimes spéciaux, as your document proves). And, if one is worried about privilege and inequality, perhaps one should be concerned about this:
Le Monde
Doctors' (top three) income has risen faster than salaried workers (bottom line, flat for several years). This graph stops in 2004, but the trend has continued since. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
http://www.entreprise-sncf.com/mieux_nous/RA2006/SNCF-RF-2006.pdf
Retraites (contribution d'équilibre - art. 30) Le système de retraite de la SNCF résulte principalement de la loi du 21 juillet 1909, définissant le régime particulier des agents de la SNCF, et de l'article 30 du cahier des charges de la SNCF définissant, depuis le 1er janvier 1970, les conditions de prise en charge par l'État de l'équilibre financier du régime, dans le respect du règlement européen de 1969. En effet, en contrepartie du versement par la SNCF de cotisations « normalisées » à la Caisse des retraites, l'État verse une contribution au titre de l'article 30 du cahier des charges de la SNCF. Le taux de cotisation « normalisé » est déterminé sur la base de la population des cotisants et des pensionnés de la SNCF, corrigée de son déséquilibre démographique par rapport à celle des régimes de retraite de droit commun. Ce taux de cotisation a été régulièrement révisé jusqu'en 1990. Le décret du 27 février 1991 le fixe à 36,29 % de la masse salariale, se répartissant entre 7,85 % pour la part salariale et 28,44 % pour la part patronale. Par ailleurs, les nouveaux avantages propres au régime SNCF, créés depuis 1990 par rapport au régime de référence, sont à la charge de la SNCF et de ses salariés. Les différents avantages créés portent sur la définition de l'assiette des pensions liquidables (intégration successives de points d'indemnités de résidence, mise en place du nouveau système de rémunération) et sur le relèvement du niveau minimum des pensions. Pour l'année 2006 le taux financé par l'entreprise était de 5,29 % de la masse salariale liquidable.
Le système de retraite de la SNCF résulte principalement de la loi du 21 juillet 1909, définissant le régime particulier des agents de la SNCF, et de l'article 30 du cahier des charges de la SNCF définissant, depuis le 1er janvier 1970, les conditions de prise en charge par l'État de l'équilibre financier du régime, dans le respect du règlement européen de 1969. En effet, en contrepartie du versement par la SNCF de cotisations « normalisées » à la Caisse des retraites, l'État verse une contribution au titre de l'article 30 du cahier des charges de la SNCF. Le taux de cotisation « normalisé » est déterminé sur la base de la population des cotisants et des pensionnés de la SNCF, corrigée de son déséquilibre démographique par rapport à celle des régimes de retraite de droit commun. Ce taux de cotisation a été régulièrement révisé jusqu'en 1990. Le décret du 27 février 1991 le fixe à 36,29 % de la masse salariale, se répartissant entre 7,85 % pour la part salariale et 28,44 % pour la part patronale. Par ailleurs, les nouveaux avantages propres au régime SNCF, créés depuis 1990 par rapport au régime de référence, sont à la charge de la SNCF et de ses salariés. Les différents avantages créés portent sur la définition de l'assiette des pensions liquidables (intégration successives de points d'indemnités de résidence, mise en place du nouveau système de rémunération) et sur le relèvement du niveau minimum des pensions. Pour l'année 2006 le taux financé par l'entreprise était de 5,29 % de la masse salariale liquidable.
A solution: expand the rail network, reopening branch lines and building new ones, and hire an additional 100,000 people to work on rebuilding, expanding, and operating the new services. And it would reduce unemployment, too! We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
all self-employed people in France pay contributions to the national health insurance scheme; the base is their expenses-deducted before-tax income, and the rate is 0.5% up to the Social Security "ceiling" (€31K approx for 2006), and 5.19% beyond that.
But doctors only pay 0.11%, with no increase above the "ceiling". In other words, they get a huge cut in their national health contributions, and other people have to fork out the difference.
fredouil seems to believe these poor individuals are oppressed by "privileged" rail workers etc.
LOL. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
Oh, and about the poor doctors, among the most wealthy professionals around, with their regular pay increase after regular strikes, and whose high pay is causing the Sécurité Sociale deficit... That deficit will have to be paid with what amounts to a 50€ flat tax. That's inequality, and redistribution from poor to wealthy. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Having 3 children giving the possibility of retiring early for women was stopped in the Fillon reform in 2003
A notary clerk can retire after 15 (fifteen) years of work if she has 3 (three) children. This is still in place. Pierre
;-) When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
And in their plans to reduce the pension benefits, are they planning to compensate the workers by increasing the wages so as not to drastically reduce the terms and conditions of the workers? Ad astra per aspera
Re-reading the diary it looks as though they intend to remove the pension benefit from current workers. As Linca says, this is equivalent to cutting pay/wages. Ad astra per aspera
European Tribune - Comments - Strike day in France
But the current proponents of equality are never heard calling for the docking of higher wages - which are the most obvious inequality around. Pensions system are an element of salary, and one may have chosen to work at the SNCF or RATP knowing that the pension plan would be better, and thus maybe accepting a lower wage. Not many people would accept direct cuts on their monthly wage ; this is no different. And calling train drivers "privileged" in these days of rising inequalities is preposterous ; no train driver earns enough, even with a better retirement compounded, to be the the top centiles of highest French incomes.
So what are the proposed solutions? If inequality is supposedly a problem, it will return again and again and again. I then don't see a problem to get rid of it - which means that if they're going to increase contribution before pension, it will have to come with advantageous wage increases or any other quid pro quo that is 1) fair and 2) equal towards other workers.
If it takes strikes to address a wage increase in return of longer work contribution, would you think that is a desirable compromise?
Oh, and the "inequality" in pensions is financed by higher payments by the SNCF, not by the other workers ; like any wage differential. The privilege meme only gained enough traction because it became a regular cover of the French news magazines a few years ago. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
linca:
and the "inequality" in pensions is financed by higher payments by the SNCF, not by the other workers ; like any wage differential.
I understand that offset - hence the proposal to couple wage increases with contribution increases. Yet is this, or other compromises, even on the table by the government? If not, do you think such proposals would be forthcoming? In other words: how much is Fillon bluffing?
OTOH, some banners put up during the demonstration were asking for 37.5 years of contribution for all, even CGT banners, which hadn't happened during the 1995 and 2003 strikes. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
I find it hard to believe that early retirements can be attacked as being "inefficient" in the same way the shorter workweek has been. Does anyone really believe that 60 year olds are as productive as 30 year olds in the pure capitalist sense?
That's the good old (1830s) liberal prerequisite to have a work market.
See Polanyi and the end of Speenhamland laws... Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
It's not only that. Many railway jobs are stressful jobs where age will be a safety issue earlier and the wear on the worker is greater. You don't want 62-year-olds doing the 12-hour locomotive driver shifts at any time, or what about 37 years of standing up at 2am to get to the locomotive shop to get trains ready for the morning runs. (We discussed the class division in how early one commutes -- well railwaymen have it even worse than average workers, and commuter train depot workers the worst.) *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
This is a hugely important point, because it represents the opportunity to attack the neo-libs with their own rhetoric. In the the logic of the neo-libs, the opportunity cost lost through the imposition of regulation is said to represent a takings of private wealth by the state.
So when a company is forbidden to pursue a business opportunity, let's say that a company views laws banning certain chemical substances as forcing them to suspend production of something that they make. This is said to be theft, a takings.
Yet when working men and women forego wages in order to receive pension payments, and an employer later reneges on paying out those benefits there is not said to be a takings.
Lesson?
The rights of individuals matter less than the rights of impersonal wealth lacking the most basic requirement for human rights: Humanity.
We matter more than pounds and pence/ Your economic theory makes no sense "We work the Black Seam"-Sting
That's the amount of money these workers are losing... quite staggering. Living on 800€ a month is very tough in France, impossible near Paris if one wants any comforts. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Even though the unions were in a much more vulnerable position; one would have figured civil disobedience would have been the most effective way to protest the Nafta treaty and other trade agreements which were passed or amended during the Clinton administration. The rationale was always if you don't agree with us; then it will be much worse under a Republican administration. When Reagan wa sPresident many of the union leaders enjoyed far more the perks his Republicans offered than any meaningful representation of the unions.
Also, a recent scandal (maybe two weeks old, funny that it got out just before the big strike) is that an important member of the bosses' union MEDEF, Gautier-Sauvignac, was taking huge amounts of cash from the unions account ; conservative newspapers insinuated that some of that cash was going to the labor union leaders... Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Because saying that you have a choice if you have a choice between a careen at EDF or a private company is not much of a choice. The pension-plan is not exactly the only thing that differs between those two careers. And is the lower salary in the state exactly compensated by the extra payments by SNCF? Because if it aren't fully compensated by, then they actually get payed less than they should, and if it costs more than the salary difference, maybe then they would have done a different choice.
In any case, it's bad for the SNCF workers.
The only possibly conclusion of the argument that you should pay for what you get and that you should have a choice in pension-age and similar, is that the pension system as a whole should be replaced with a system based on private pension funds, where each person can choose his own pension-plan. I'd be rather surprised if I see people strike for THAT reform. :-)
And I'm quite staggered that people even do comparisons with a pension-age of 55. 55... Most people haven't even begun to reach the top of their career when they are 55. Why would anybody, unless they are sick, wanna retire when they are 55? I see the point with engine-drivers maybe not being at their best when they are 65, but shouldn't that then be a special deal for engine-drivers, not anybody who happens to work at SNCF of EDF?
As for the possibility of choosing retirement age, it is also possible in a state system ; the only problem is being able to negotiate this flexibility with a government and employers who care only about making people work as long as possible, for as little as possible.
Et bienvenue sur la Tribune Européenne ! Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
And the negotiation problem is then just again another argument for not letting the unions and the employers decide when you retire.
Et merci!
As for the negotiation problem, I prefer negotiation between unions and employers, where at least I have a say in the union's policy, to the market where I don't have any say in deciding prices - and letting big market players and gamblers decide on my retirement.
(Oh, and I guess you wanted to click on the "Reply To" link under my comment, rather than "Post a comment") Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
I prefer to negotiation myself. Especially if it's between the union and the state-owned corporation. State-owned corporations have a tendency to be filled with people from the political left. And, whaddayouknow, so does the union. The result is that there are close buddies on both sides. Which in turn is one major reason why people in public service tend to have lower pay than similar jobs in the private sector.
And why should you negotiate at all? I see no reason to negotiate. I want to choose my retirement plan. Why on earth should I negotiate about it? It's MY money, in the end. Yeah, I know that the employer does the actual payment, but that means that when you employ somebody, the employer takes all of this into his calculation on how much the highest salary he is prepared to pay is. So in the end, it comes out of my money, buy giving me a lower salary. So why on earth should the union and the state negotiate over something that in fact almost only affects me?
The state should only handle things that affect many people. The union should only handle things that affect their members. I would very much like them to keep their fingers out of my life unless I ask them to, thank you very much.
Because most workers have little enough disposable income that they can't save a lot of money.
Because it is hard to know how long you'll live as a retired person ; and individual insurance contracts are much more expensive than collective ones : insurance companies have to forecast a winning on each contract.
Because having to put your earnings into equities, as is needed for individual pension plans, puts you at the risk of market crashes.
Because unions and the state are democratic institutions, unlike the market. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Because that is what happened before collective pensions. When people talked of "the poor" until the 70's, they talked about older people.
Then you need to first prove that it was the fact that the pensions were collective that fixed this issue, and you then have to prove that it will revert if they get uncollectivized.
Well, evidently they can, since they pay for the collective pensions. That money doesn't dissappear just because the pensions aren't run by the state.
Because it is hard to know how long you'll live as a retired person
And this becomes easy if your pensions are collectivized?
and individual insurance contracts are much more expensive than collective ones
That's not true. When Sweden got a pension system in the 50s, people who were self-employed could elect to not pay to the collective pension system, but instead pay to private pensions. These people have gotten much higher returns that the state pensions. So in fact, it's probably the other way around, as it usually is.
insurance companies have to forecast a winning on each contract.
So? Despite the fact that private companies always have to go with a profit, private companies also always provide the same service cheaper than when the state does it. That there has to be a profit does not make it more expensive, it's a red herring. What makes something expensive is lack of competition.
Which is easily controllable by gradually moving over the savings to safe investments with low returns the closer you get to retirement age. Hence not a problem.
Because unions and the state are democratic institutions, unlike the market.
You are using the word "democratic" as in "majority rule". It is true that they are democratic in that sense. That means that with unions and the state, the majority decides over your life. I don't see how that automatically means that old peopl become poor, but you are welcome to explain.
There is very little concept of "proof" in the social sciences, and the fact that the modern, collective, state-backed pension system is what got older people out of misery is obvious. I won't waste my time "proving" that. As for what happen after uncollectivisation, see Chile or even the US.
Actually, in France, they can't. Salaries around minimum wage don't pay much charges sociales.
Because running a collective insurance contract means you can even out pension lengths across the population, which isn't possible for individualised pension accounts.
You completely miss my point. An insurance company can't make a contract for an individual that runs the risk of making a loss. Pensions are only viable over a large pool of subscribers.
As for the private companies providing cheaper service, see the example of health care. That's simply not true.
It is not easily controllable. See the recent failure of AAA-rated CDOs . And systemic crashes can wipe out any and all assets. It is a problem, and you are waving it away all too fast.
You are using the word "democratic" as in "majority rule". It is true that they are democratic in that sense. That means that with unions and the state, the majority decides over your life.
Much better than the markets where a dozen large market players control your retirement assets' valuation.
I don't see how that automatically means that old peopl become poor, but you are welcome to explain.
Said market players, and others, are very good at swindling the majority of people out of their retirement, have they have done in the recent and more ancient past. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
As for what happen after uncollectivisation, see Chile or even the US.
High growth and low absolute poverty. You do make a compelling argument against collective state-run pensions, I must say.
An insurance company can't make a contract for an individual that runs the risk of making a loss.
In fact, this is exactly what insurance companies do every single day. It is in fact what the business of insurance is all about.
Pensions are only viable over a large pool of subscribers.
Which is what insurance is about. But of course, it can be argued that pensions aren't insurance at all, and most of the time it's handles by banks. ;-)
It is not easily controllable. See the recent failure of AAA-rated CDOs . And systemic crashes can wipe out any and all assets.
Including much of the states assets, so that's not an argument. Having your money in the bank is not more risky than giving them to the state, and the reason for that is that states have bank guarantees, which are a necessity to have a well functioning financial system.
The claim that it is risky is complete and utter bogus.
A dozen vs one. Yeah. MUCH better.
Said market players, and others, are very good at swindling the majority of people out of their retirement, have they have done in the recent and more ancient past.
And so have states. In fact, you are argung that Sarkozy is trying to do just that right now.
QED.
As for what happen after uncollectivisation, see Chile or even the US.High growth and low absolute poverty. You do make a compelling argument against collective state-run pensions, I must say.
Well US and Chile don't have particularly low poverty levels in fact the majority of European countries are at least a percent below the US poverty rate. I seem to remember discussing on here the manipulation of US poverty definitions to remove 4% from US poverty figures. So the idea that the US has low poverty levels dosn't really stand up. Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Percentage_population_living_on_less_than_1_dollar_day.png
The US poverty rate you refer to is defined as a percentage of the median income, and is therefore in fact not a measurement of poverty at all, but a measurement of income distribution, just as all so called "relative poverty" measurements are.
The US has low poverty levels. Anything else is pure misinformation.
Also note how Chile is doing well, and better than it's neighbours. Also, Chile has a very good life expectancy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Life_expectancy_world_map.PNG
And a good HDI value: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HDImap_spectrum2006.png
All things that largely has happened thanks to a relatively liberal economic policies. (Yes, relatively, that is about as liberal as Sweden. The idea that Chile is some sort of superneoliberal experiment is a pure myth).
it may well be that the relative poverty measures aren't truly effective in showing poverty, but theres got to be some measure better than a dollar a day. Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.
Another good measure of serious (but not extreme) poverty is HDI, and as noted bot US and Chile is doing very nicely there.
I suspect that you simply will have to just grin and bear it: The myth that liberal politics causes poverty is just that: A myth. Neither the US nor Chile has any huge problem with poverty compared to the rest of the world.
The main cause of poverty is when the mechanism that create wealth break down. That mechanism is trade, and it breaks down mainly because of war or other violent conflicts, corrupt governments and planned economy (in roughly that order of importance).
It's PPP dollars, hence that difference is taken care of.
PPP is a normalization to purchasing power, and an imperfect one at that. What is relevant in terms of poverty is subsistence costs and PPP is largely meaningless in that respect.
From Wikipedia:
The purchasing power parity (PPP) theory was developed by Gustav Cassel in 1920. It is the method of using the long-run equilibrium exchange rate of two currencies to equalize the currencies' purchasing power. It is based on the law of one price, the idea that, in an efficient market, identical goods must have only one price.
See, there are two problems with using PPP to normalize for subsistence costs. First, for most of the goods involved in subsistence, there is no global market, hence the assumption of equal prices is simply (and patently) false. Subsistence depends mainly on shelter, food and water. Of those three, only food is globally tradeable on any kind of industrial scale, and even then, if you believe that the global food market behaves according to the normal rules of market economics, I've got some Enron shares I think you should have a look at.
Second, there does exist a global market for such things as cars, flat-screen TVs and computers, although even there, the assumption of a single price is somewhat suspect). Which means that PPP is going to normalize to the cost of flat-screens rather than food.
To put it in simple terms, 1000 US$PPP may buy me the same amount of cell phones or computers anywhere in the world (give or take ten percent), but it will manifestly not buy me the same amount of calories or vitamin A anywhere in the world.
I'm a charitable kind of guy, so I'll chalk this error up to simple ignorance rather than outright mendacity. Others might be less kind, especially as you yourself so flippantly accuse many of us of lying.
Oh, and next time, do your homework yourself.
- Jake And yes, we in Europe might get bread and circus, but in the US I'm not sure, if they haven't somehow managed, to make only circus, but no bread.
PPP Exchange rate is the theoretical exchange rate you should have if each currency would give you the same amount of money.
I think JakeSs main misunderstanding comes here:
First, for most of the goods involved in subsistence, there is no global market, hence the assumption of equal prices is simply (and patently) false.
Sure. But that doesn't matter, since the point here is not saying what the exchange rates between two currencies should be, but the point is to convert the daily income into something that is comparable. And for that, PPP works just fine.
This is of course not perfect, but it's way better than just using currency exchange rates when measuring poverty.
I'll even admit that I flew off the handle a bit from being accused of dishonesty. That tends to piss me off. Nevertheless, I do not think that it would be wise of you to attempt to turn this into a discussion of who has been most polite in this thread. DoDo and linca would win that contest hands down.
Nevertheless, it is still true that PPP$ do not accurately reflect subsistence costs, which is the thrust of my original point, as the PPP normalisation includes many goods and services that are not necessary to subsistence.
It is, of course, possible to construct an appropriate normalisation, but that's not what's being done with the official numbers.
Thus, being able to afford a train ride in a poor country based on subsistence farming is not a major problem (at least compared to all the other problems subsistence farmers face), while in a society where the economic structure is based on thirty-km commutes each way, each day, inability to afford a train ticket is A Bad Thing. Precisely the same good. Wildly differing degrees of necessity.
I accuse you who perpetuate this argument of having been suckered. :-)
People are NOT rich because they starve to death together.
Sure, but it's the best option we have until somebody actually make a PPP index that is done only to measure poverty. And to be quite honest, regarding how cheap subsistence goods like somewhere to live and food is in the US, I seriously doubt that the US is gonna come out any worse in the comparison...
Huh!? HDI is an average that tells little about wealth distribution, and thus the level of poverty, especially that of pensioners. HDI is composed of life expectancy (an average itself), literacy and school enrollment (says absolutely nothing about pensioners' income), and GDP per capita (which again is an average itself). HDI is not at all useful here. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
little about wealth distribution, and thus the level of poverty
As mentioned before, those are NOT the same thing. Income distribution in North Korea is probably very good, people are equally poor. But they still starve to death when the crops fail.
Wealth distribution does NOT measure poverty.
Besides, HDI includes wealth distribution.
But yes, it sais very little about pensioners incomes.
No one said they are the same thing. One needs both the average and the distribution to calculate the level of poverty (be it absolute or relative), and you ignored one of these.
Nope. The sole figure in HDI related to wealth (but not equivalent with wealth, ask the Irish) is per capita GDP, which is an average. Check the formula. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
The idea of saying any other measure of poverty than 1 dollar a day isn't poverty is frankly laughable.
Good thing I didn't say anything resembilng that, btw. I included three measures of poverty. I just pointed out that a measurement that measure income distribution doe not measure poverty, just because you call it "poverty". I can measure the average temperature of a country and call that a "poverty scale" if I like. It doesn't make it true.
"Poverty" measures as percentage of a countries mean income is not a measure of poverty at all. Calling it that, which many people do, is simply a lie.
Good thing I didn't say anything resembilng that, btw. I included three measures of poverty.
Yes and you managed to exclude the one measure of poverty out of 4 on the page that agrees with me. Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.
In other words, if you live in France, you have a lower risk of being poor by US standards than if you live in the US. France having a lower median income (if the stats in the article are correct), the numbers become even more atrocious when you compare them the other way around.
And now you are running out of arguments. I'm not gonna discuss with people who can't keep the discussion civil.
This is the fraction of children in OECD countries below the US poverty level. Most European countries (among the exceptions: UK) have lower ABSOLUTE poverty than the US, despite much lower average revenues.
Now if your standard is 'there are fewer poor than in India', feel free. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The argument presented here was that if you did NOT have state run collective pension agreements then misery and disaster and loads of starving old people would ensue. The argument was also that we should look to the US to see the horrible effects of this.
And the proof for the immense amount of starving people is evidently that there is 2.3 units more children who's family is below the US poverty line in US than in France.
I fail to see how the supposed horrors have materialized, or for that matter what that graph has to do with pensions. And I also look forward to explanations of where all the starving people are in Iceland. I sure didn't see them where I lived there and whaddayouknow, they have a system with private obligatory pension funds. And the worlds next highest HDI (after Norway, who as a state pension system).
Maybe privatizing the pension system isn't such a horrible disaster after all?
What's this about Iceland? Iceland does have a state-run pension system alongside mandatory occupational ones (the dominant form) and free individual ones, and as it happens, the system was a result of negotiations with trade unions: they got this system in exchange for accepting a delay in wage increases almost four decades ago, and trade union heads sit on the boards of the mandatory occupational funds.
Since this started with SNCF's special pensions regime, I am all ears why you think occupational segmentation of pension funds is bad in France but good in Iceland. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
...while per capita GDP is significantly higher. Thus would per capita GDPs match, I'd expect twice as many poor... and that's not considering differences of measurement and unaccounted-for factors (like stuff the French poor get for free but the US poor have to pay for, say, healthcare). *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
Thus would per capita GDPs match, I'd expect twice as many poor...
No, because then the level of poverty would have been different, see. ;) That's the problem with that kind of measurement.
and that's not considering differences of measurement and unaccounted-for factors (like stuff the French poor get for free but the US poor have to pay for, say, healthcare).
Right. Which is why I before use HDI is variable, because it does take those factors into account. And United States are in place 8 and France in Place 16.
Both high enough to be practically the same in a global perspective. Which is my point. Poverty isn't caused by having a choice in pension schemes, or having private pensions. No matter of wriggling and juggling with facts is going to change that.
Nope, the level of poverty in Jérôme's graph is absolute (current US poverty line, read the caption). If you increase French per capita GDP to the US level, more Frenchmen will move across the US poverty level.
I before use HDI is variable, because it does take those factors into account
No, it doesn't take them into account. Check the formula. And again, HDI is not a measure of poverty rates.
To repeat the point you avoided, not only is the ratio of poor people much higher in the USA even if we use an absolute income threshold, but the French-US difference is even stronger if we add the virtual value of for-free public services available to the poor. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
And your point is what?
My point is simply to answer to your claims up in the thread that the US has low poverty levels.
And yet, even using the most favorable measure for the US (using the absolute US threshhold for poverty for all countries, rather than each countrie's level), the US has significantly higher poverty rates than the main continental and Scandinavian European countries.
So your claim is, simply false. And that's not even taking into account discussions on status, positional goods, and social mobility which make the use of relative poverty rates a lot more relevant in reality.
Oh, for a country that has very little poverty, that paragraph from an other diary makes one wonder what "poverty" means for you (all sources, and more on poverty, at that link):
Infantile mortality rates are now rising in the US, a surprising phenomenon in peacetime. Even more impressively, the life expectancy at birth of its poorest citizens is 15 years shorter than that of its more privileged ones.
<blockquotes>So your claim is, simply false.</blockquotes>
Evidently not. Look, I understand it's painful to get your myths crushed, but the fact is that there is no starving masses in the United States, despite what some people like to tell you. Arbitrary measurements does not change this fact even if you call it a poverty measurement.
The case that was presented here was twofold:
There is absolute poverty in the US and other industrialized countries. And the number of people living in poverty varies according to the state policies.
Try to use facts rather than groundless affirmations. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Although I suspect most of these differences are based on how you measure, again this supposed huge poverty in the US vanished in a big puff of smoke when you actually look at it.
Besides, most people that are truly homeless, ie really have no permanent place to keep their stuff for a significant period of their lifes in the US are homeless for the same reasons as the homeless in France or anywhere else in the western world, and that drug abuse, alcoholism och mental disorders. That is not a poverty issue.
It's hard to measure. I have been officially homeless. Once for 14 months I didn't have an official address. I still had somewhere to sleep (although this admittedly was just a bunkbed in the dormitory at the military). That's not real homelessness, but it counts in the statistics. I've also had a shorter period of a month or so where I moved around amongst friends. I just couldn't get a permanent place to Stay in Stockholm, because the housing market there is highly regulated which in practice means that the only way you kind find a place is to rent illegaly in second hand for ridicolous prices. That's homelessness in a more real sense (although it probably didn't count in the statistics since I put my permanent address at my parents by that time), but not a poverty issue in any real sense.
3.5 million people experiencing "homelessness" is 1.5 %, not thousandth.
There are working people, who have a daily job, and are homeless. People who aren't alcoholic or mad. A third of the homeless in France ; a similar share in the US.
And it's not about "not having permanent address". It's about having no place to sleep in, and having to ask to an emergency shelter. The fact that you compare your past situation to homelessness shows you have only a very tenuous grasp with what poverty actually means in the industrialised world. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
And it's not about "not having permanent address". It's about having no place to sleep in, and having to ask to an emergency shelter.
No it's not. It is about not having a permanent adress. That's the definition used, and then number of around 800.000 is what other sources also use. And that is NOT about going to shelters, but not having apermanent address.
The fact that you compare your pas
