In the UK you can work and draw your state pension if you continue to work after 65. Many people, especially women will fall into poverty if they retire due to having not clocked up enough years of paying national insurance or paying into a pension fund.
That's exactly what I'm pointing out : in France that possibility doesn't exist, and there's a social minima that any retiree can get and that is (barely) enough to remain out of poverty.
65 would still likely be the age at which people can retire but is it fair to force people to if they want to carry on working?
48 hours a week would still be the time at which people can punch out but is it fair to force people to if they want to carry on working ?
Any Government trying to reduce the state pension on the grounds that people can carry on working after 65 would get a huge kicking, surely?
Come on... Do you really believe that ? Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Flexible working is hugely important and under utilised. As I mention elsewhere, a more open minded approach to introducing part time working in higher level posts would provide better opportunities for women with children who wish to work part time (and disabled people, and older people or anyone with caring responsibilities), all groups who are disadvantaged by the current ethos on the labour market and employment.
And our Governments should get a good kicking if they tried to reduce the pension age - who are we electing? What kind of a job are we (socialists generally) doing to let people gain power and keep on shafting every vulnerable section of society?
I did raise a query of why now does the Government see the case for removing the default retirement age and perhaps that is due to Peter Mandelson's eyes shining with pound signs as he figures out a new way to squeeze more work and money out of people. Ad astra per aspera
I think the mistake here is single-issue activism. The problem is that people are being forced to consider extended working because existing pension provision is too poor. The answer isn't extended working, it's better and more flexible pension provision.
People who will receive 30-50% pensions are going to be much less interested in extended working than people who will be forced into poverty even though they've been working since 18 or 21.
A basic thing to always remember, as Coluche said, is that people don't need work, they need money.
As for the problems our societies so atomised that the only way to have social relationships (and socially recognised value) is through employment, well, that's one for another thread. Possibly a much more important ones.
However I looked recently at death age tables and didn't notice any uptick after retirement age - probability of death was rising exponentially from 20 to 70, and getting significant right around 55. Do people die a few years after retiring, or do we interpret deaths that happen right after retirement as caused by inactivity ? Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
If you give the possibility for some employees to work more that (35/48) hours a week, they will have to work more. Because their employers will force them. Because they'll lower their wages to the point they need the money. Because those that don't will be considered lazy. The same goes for the pension and retirement ages.
It seems you are over applying the discrimination framework : old age isn't the same thing as disability or maternity. Forcing young workers to pay for the pensions of the elderly should mean the possibility of constraints on pension earners.
Our governments should get a good kicking if they try to reduce minimum pensions - but currently they don't and they won't. So let's not give them ammunitions to make it easier for them. Unions have got to be realists, not idealists. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
As long as careers are determined by the employer, and as long as careers are the only way to the higher paying jobs, the employer is going to require as much investment from the workers as possible, and will find people willing to give that investment. The employer doesn't give a damn about work-life balance. As long as he finds enough employees willing to give up their free time, flexible working time won't develop ; as long as the employer-employee relationship is one of subordination, it is the employer calling the shots.
To change that, you need to change the balance of power between employee*s* and employer*s*. As long as there is an oversupply of labour, the balance is in favour of the employers - compare with say Crazy Horse or Sven, who have very rare and sought after competencies and could easily negotiate terms of employment if they were to seek a permanent "job".
As long as there isn't full employment, increasing the labour supply is a bad idea and needs to be justified by gross discrimination - sex or ethnicity are gross, asking over 65 to leave the labour supply to get their pension isn't. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Well, let's say you cannot be employed for more than a certain amount in a year without forfeiting your rights to pension.
But when I put my flat to rent, one of the candidates was a 60+ consultant. He had created a company (of which he was the sole shareholder and employee), that did not pay him much any salary, only dividends... His pension alone was more than the salary of any of the other candidates (and more than the combined salaries of most couples)...
I don't like that. He's working full time, he should not get a full pension. So, the flat did not go to him, but to a couple of more limited resources. I figured that they would find it harder to find one. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Of course, the distinction between dividends and other income is silly to begin with...
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
