I don't find those differences in poverty level especially significant. We are still talking about some of the richest countries in the world, and we are talking about a level of "poverty" which much of the world would consider luxury. These people we are talking about are not starving or freezing or lacking in clothes.

<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:

1. That freedom of choice was an argument for keeping the current situation in French pensions. That was honestly a rather silly attempt and nobody is pursuing that line of argumentation any more, thank god.

2. That if you allow people freedom of choice in pensions, poverty and starving old people  will ensue. The proof for this seem to be that the US has 2.7% units more kids under an arbitrary level of household income, dubbed "the poverty line", despite the fact that none of these kids are retired or starving. The fact that other countries vary significantly more up and down on this measurement completely independntly of how their pension system look should be an indication of the complete irrelevance of this line of argumentation. ;-)

Well, really, is that the best you guys can come up with? And you accuse me of trolling? Come on... :-)