Topic: Retirement Age for Workers - Does this Make Sense? - page 10. (Read 1422 times)

While this seems fair, they're not going to give you back anything. It's the government that we're talking about. They can only take and whatever they "give" is their way of buying votes.
If they're mismanaging the retirement money they shouldn't put the blame on people, especially those older ones who worked for more than 20 years, just to find out they're going to have to work much more than they thought to get what was promised. They should make the change gradually, with the ones closest to retirement not having to take the burden.
It would've been best if the retirement was a choice. You retire at whatever age you like and that age decides the amount of money you'll receive as pension.

To be honest, I don't understand what's the big deal between 62 and 64 for such protests (that wouldn't happen in my country), but IMO Macron shouldn't have angered them so much and should not have pushed through when people are so much against it (it's not democratic, after all). I've watched a video about the history of French pension protests, and apparently it's a very hot topic for the French. Something more subtle should've been done (like increasing the work years a bit but not the pension age, for example), IMO, and with better explanations to the public to ensure they're not as angry. They've forced the bill without the vote on a Constitutional technicality, which sounds very shady.

The only drawback that I see for that constitution is that the younger generation will have to wait longer to get positions in companies where there are more elderly people are employed and since now the retirement age is increased, there will be two extra years for the companies to have more open positions to hire younger people.

Physical capacities can be a drawback too, you are right about that, but I think that's not the case with most people these days. Someone in their 60s should still be good enough to work with no physical issues.

Solution is making use of the retirement fee, efficiently and wisely. Invest it to a business which has low risk such as grocery store and such, in order to keep the flow of money going. Depending on the money to be earned from retirement would end up in a mess for sure especially if it is not the retired employee who would make use of it; therefore that won't be sufficient. But if things will be used with plans and restrictions, a huge amount could be enough to generate another income. But regarding early retirement, indeed mist of the people have no choice but to continue working oneself until that ceiling age unless they would be able to save money during their days as an employee to achieve esrly retirement.

AFAIK, that is not the main advantage or disadvantage of the age retirement raise.  Macron's rationale for the reform is that it's necessary to raise the pension age due to the unbalanced ratio between the worker and the pensioner -- since the pension funds circling from both of those funds. So the benefit/drawback you have mentioned missing their points about the reform and the protest.

It has something to do with the pension system that was built around France, which I did know fully aware of, so I resist to talks about it further. Besides, I believe the protest is also ignited by other causes, not a sole pension age reform.

This is also true in our country as most people really don't have that choice to retire early since it is really hard to earn and save consistently in this kind of economy. But, I think, it takes good planning and discipline towards ourselves that would let us have a choice on retirement age. But, the sad reality for majority is that they have no choice but to work their whole life since financial planning isn't the strong suit of majority here leaving them no plans for things like retirement.

Here I will say that this is just a bit of reality based on what I have seen from my relatives, They retired after completing 60yrs of service in the government, let's say that they will get a large retirement pay, and let's say that they will set up a business and house depending on the payment to be received in retirement. I think they will not be able to enjoy whatever business or property they buy because they are old. But anyway, of course it's their choice and we have no rights to say that their decision is wrong.

As long as older employees can still contribute to the company or office, it won't be a problem and the performance of those people can still be maintained properly. Maybe giving older people the opportunity to work can be more useful for them in preparing for retirement.

But if older employees feel that their performance has decreased considerably, they should immediately ask for early retirement. That will not interfere with the performance of the company or office. This will help them leave their work routine and enjoy their old days soon.

But most people, especially people entering retirement, don't think about this and instead want to get a higher position because there will be a raise for them. And if they retire in a higher position, their pension will also be bigger than those in a lower position. Maybe this will become the awareness of everyone, especially people who have entered retirement age, just to retire rather than burden their company or office.

Yes, retirement age was always one of the lowest in France as far as I remember. Since average life expectancy in France is 80 years for male, I don't think that 64 years is that much for to retire. 62 years old male is really capable to work, still has power and definitely has the knowledge and experience, 64 is a normal and acceptable to my mind. But if French people burn their cities, then I'm afraid their retirement age will grow even higher.

High life expectancy doesn't mean that person will be capable to work till 70. Some people live until 90s but are physically very weak with low energy levels.

A very "thin" topic.
On the one hand, raising the retirement age indicates that the state wants to "save" on the pension maintenance of its citizens. This is a bad indicator, it indicates problems in the economy or a bias in priorities. In a word, this is not a good indicator.

On the other hand - if the life expectancy of the country's population is growing, people can live longer, and lead a full life longer, and can still earn - why not?
But certain conditions must be created for this, and such changes cannot be made in a couple of years ...

It seems to me that there should be some kind of compromise - a person PAYS TAXES FOR ALL LIFE. And there should be some kind of agreement where the conditions cannot be changed. If the state takes money from you in the form of taxes and uses it ineptly, which leads to distortions in the economy, then you should not violate the retirement period, but look for solutions, but not at the expense of those who have already paid, and counted on pension payments in a certain age. Then the taxpayer should also have a mechanism for reviewing relations. For example - you raised the retirement age by 10% - give me back 10% of all taxes I paid, plus the interest rate for using my money for this period, which I counted on but was deceived.

As a young person you can avoid by participating in the social insurance plan, people are participating in that scam plan because of conformity. If you ask them why are they paying huge money for it they will answer that they don't know or they will answer that the company required them to do so. It is the conformity that holding us to achieve freedom that they want, I'm now in my working stage of my life but I never decided to have or participate in that kind of social insurance plan. I don't like security, what I like is freedom. Freedom to buy all I want, it is the freedom to do all the things that I want to do.

I will never achieve that kind of freedom if I will follow the majority of the people or in short comformity. The normal people are participating it without knowing the pros and cons of it. If you want to become rich, do not follow what majority of the people are doing. Follow what the rich people did when they where still starting. They focus on buying assets that will keep their cash flows alive and not buying or participating in scam insurances.

This makes sense if there is a good plan for their retirement. The only sad thing is to use the retirement of retirement in the absence of things.

But early age, they often invest in their retirement fee in business and other properties, but at this time I will only receive a retirement fee for sure the 50% I will put in the Bitcoin investment here in the industry This is it.

I would vote on personal choice after the required service years are finished. For example, 60 should be your last year of service and anything that is later than this should be retirement period of your choice. The finish line can be kept at 64 years of age which seems to be max age to effectively work.

However, there is a catch in this as well. Many employees start feeling inadequate right after they cross their 55’s. Defending on the industry of work this feeling could differ. An IT or desk guy may not feel the pain of working hard if compared to the mechanics or manufacturing based companies.

This is why, it should be kept as personal choice. There should be amendments by the company itself. HR can simply finish this activity when someone hits 60 and could ask the employee if they wish to continue and if they do then what should be the payroll and other incentives. This will help both, the company and the employee without any confusion.

Allowing employees to continue working also needs to be strictly managed to avoid affecting the company's work performance. This requires empathy and consideration for older workers and the rest of the company. Therefore, I agree with the view that employees approaching retirement age should be given the option to continue working or retire after the appraisal to ensure their benefits. But this needs to be managed carefully to ensure that it doesn't affect the company's performance at the same time. This is of great significance to the protection of workers' rights. Allowing seniors to continue working or to retire depends on their choice and due diligence by the company. This helps to ensure that older workers are not left with no choice and no means of living.

Keep in mind that the increase in the retirement age will happen in every country if there's a public social insurance plan in which the government forces you to participate. The life expectancy is going up and the medical costs to keep things going for seniors is just going to rise, so they're forced to raise the age before benefits are paid out. It makes "sense" from the perspective of the government who are forced to meet the obligations of the citizens they forced to participate in the social insurance plan. Isn't so fair for the citizens.

Consider not relying on the government for your retirement. If you're young, there's no way to know when the benefits you pay into all your life will ever be returned to you.

Retirement age is usually depends on citizens' life expectancy and how productive are the old workers. I found if people life expectancy live in France is really high. I think 70 years old in France is still capable to work.


A middle class person will retire earlier if they're bored to work in the company and they have savings to fulfill his need until he die. But for lower class person, he will work until he die because he don't have enough saving and he can't survive if he not work.

You're making sense but are we forgetting who's getting more benefits in this new law, the workers now have a chance of been paid for some additional years and I think that's a good things because many works don't have means of earning immediately they retire so giving them some additional years is a good move by the government of france and other countries should increase theirs.

As we grow older, experience should become a major part of our jobs instead of just relying on physical strength, the older workers can also be shifted to positions that won't need much physical strength so they can work longer and earn enough money to help them in their days of retirement.

In my country, the retirement age is 65 however since everything is so expensive many people work much past that. And they even extended the retirement benefits of security from 65 till age 67 if I recall.

So this is happening everywhere and I am not surprised many other countries are doing this. Obviously seniors won’t like it because they are probably old and want to retire already but with the massive debt that these countries have they have no choice but to make these cuts.

and some people are still working even beyond 65. so this is only a matter of self preference. additional 2 years may not be that bad. at least for some people who are after for their benefits, can still work for another 2 years. they won't increase the retirement age if they are not seeing good reasons on such move. if it is already approved, then people should just look at the brighter side of this change.

I don’t think anybody should have to work past the age of 65, if they don’t want to. The situation in France has been wild but their current retirement age is 62, I really don’t think it is that bad that Macron is attempting to push it to 64. If it was 70 or something I would support the uproar but 64 really is not that old. It’s still younger than many other first world countries. The economy is obviously struggling, working until 64 does not seem too bad in my opinion.