Retirement ... at what age?

philosophical debates and companies.
bamboo
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1534
Registration: 19/03/07, 14:46
Location: Breizh




View bamboo » 28/09/10, 10:17

xaveco wrote:To answer dedeleco, to tell the truth I think that if the OS manage to put 2,7 million people on the street, it is that people have already asked themselves the question of financing before us.
Easy to put 2,7 million people on the street: You can also tell them that you give 1000 € to each person who will be on the street that day.
This is more or less what the unions say to people who do not think more than you do: they have only to demonstrate to recover wheat that does not exist.
Even when you are shown that your demonstrations are full of bullshit, you persist in saying that the funding is simple.
Image
The Coué method doesn't work for math.
0 x
Solar Production + VE + VAE = short cycle electricity
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79674
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11213




View Christophe » 28/09/10, 10:19

xaveco wrote:To answer dedeleco, to tell the truth I think that if the OS manage to put 2,7 million people on the street, it is that people have already asked themselves the question of financing before us.


What is this 2 ball argument? : Shock: : Shock:

It is not because you manage to convince people to make a demonstration that you are right about your action and especially that all the demonstrators understand them and defend the cause.

People are so sheep and then a demonstration it breaks the work routine so much that it doesn't hurt ...

Given the current situation of youth employment (graduates included), I can tell you that I bitterly regret having made the bèèèèèèèèèèèh of sheep against the young smic in 1995 (I think).

I was, like many, "indoctrinated" (even if the word is strong) by some ... but it's true that we had fun ...


The CPE which is a new attempt to improve the situation of 1st hiring of young people it was the same ... I prefer to be with the smic young or under cpe that with the chomdu ... but that many students (many of whom are doing long-term studies that are worth nothing on the job market, so direct RMIte hop at the exit because more than 25 years ...) are too in their "world" to understand it ...

If not, just for information, what was the estimated share of people in the private sector in this demonstration?

pb2488 wrote:Yes but did they find answers? There, I have a serious doubt.
There is not much left of your pps ...


+1 and finding theoretical answers is one thing, applying them in practice ...

I advise everyone (especially at Xaveco) to watch this 2-part TV movie to better understand how the republic (still) works: the school of power
0 x
xaveco
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 61
Registration: 17/07/10, 20:20
Location: france "34"




View xaveco » 28/09/10, 20:42

To answer to:
What is this 2 ball argument?

This is not an argument, it is just an observation. And I think that asking someone to go on strike and lose money is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly, that's all. After I believe that you are still convinced that there is no money to finance pensions, so messieux the great economists I just ask you where did all this money go? No one has answered this question yet. In any case, it has not disappeared. But hey you're probably right there is no money Sarkozy right ...
Be careful, when we are sure, sometimes we are wrong, beware of what we tell you, I say it from very recent experience : Cheesy:

To dismantle the argument of the increase in life expectancy: (What is not a burden, it must be remembered)
If we look into the past, history shows us that the increase in life expectancy has not prevented the time spent at work decreasing steadily. Weekly hours of work have decreased, as has the number of hours spent at work. In France, from the 19th to the 20th century, individual annual working time was halved while the number of jobs increased by 2/3. Therefore the working time should not increase because one lives more lomgtemp. It has nothing to do
0 x
pb2488
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 837
Registration: 17/08/09, 13:04




View pb2488 » 28/09/10, 21:26

xaveco wrote:And I think that asking someone to go on strike and lose money is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly, that's all.
I still have serious doubts about the false documents that the unions are distributing.

xaveco wrote:After I believe that you are still convinced that there is no money to finance pensions, so messieux the great economists I just ask you where did all this money go? No one has answered this question yet. In any case, it has not disappeared.
It never existed. With a pay-as-you-go system, revenue and spending need to be adjusted to balance the budget.

xaveco wrote:To dismantle the argument of the increase in life expectancy: (What is not a burden, it must be remembered)
If we look into the past, history shows us that the increase in life expectancy has not prevented the time spent at work decreasing steadily. Weekly hours of work have decreased, as has the number of hours spent at work. In France, from the 19th to the 20th century, individual annual working time was halved while the number of jobs increased by 2/3. Therefore the working time should not increase because one lives more lomgtemp. It has nothing to do
Work less to earn more. I agree but find the money. Where are the numbers?
0 x
"The truth can not be defined as the majority opinion:
The truth is what follows from the observation of facts. "
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79674
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11213




View Christophe » 29/09/10, 09:15

Yes what money?

xaveco wrote:In France, from the 19th to the 20th century, individual annual working time was halved while the number of jobs increased by 2/3. Therefore the working time should not increase because one lives more lomgtemp. It has nothing to do


Yes and at that time 90% of the French population was peasant so lived on the culture of his land ... the miners that we often take as an example, well they were the privileged both by the hours and the wages .. . (Oh yes)

The duration of working time is linked to the hourly wealth created ... and therefore to the economic profitability for the employer of nothing else and surely not to the desire of the employee to work less !!

If we were able to reduce the working time it is mainly thanks to technology: we produced more with 1 man during 1 hour when he is helped by technology.

We owe it more to technical evolution than to union struggles: without the evolution of technology (and professions), union struggles would have resulted in nothing ...

Now wealth is far from increasing as much today as it did in recent decades, some boxes are closing because their shareholders always want more but some are also closing because they are no longer profitable in a hypertaxed and hyper-imposed society (thank you who ?), with each new tax or tax, they also lose their competitiveness and all this in a merciless globalized market ... Pkoi do you believe that Renault and Peugeot have already relocated nearly 70% of their production? Because France fears to work ... on the other hand these 2 pocketed large subsidies from the French State, starting with the scrappage bonus ... so they don't care about us but hey is another debate ...

The 35h is a monumental political bullshit which has only resulted in increasing the rates and lowering the purchasing power of workers ... and it is the same for pensions, except the time scale is different ...

Brief to summarize and a few words: it is the economic logic that dictates the social logic of a country, not the reverse ... in other words: we can do social when we have the money ...

Think about it ...
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




View dedeleco » 29/09/10, 13:10

Same in pure and hard Communist country !!
The "money" or not, it is first of all work and its productivity even outside capitalism !!

We can put what we want in place of money, salt, stones, etc. .. the result per hour of work alone counts !!!

Likewise, for the pensions which must make it possible to pay the pensioners who live statistically more and more old !!
An average retirement of 60 years to 96 years for all, that is 36 years requires with 36 years of work (from 24 years to 60 years, considering unemployment) to put in reserve half of the real salary for the retirement, whatever the system !! !!

Also, the technological creation of new efficient devices, even made in China, has an infinite price, if they are used for eternity for significant progress !!

2 million years ago, the man who invented the tool with stones, is still useful to us !!
Those who have mastered fire 400000 years ago, with incessant progress since, are still hyper-useful to us, !!

Those who have understood electricity, incessant progress for 250 years, curious disinterested, then capitalists, are still useful and indispensable to us with TV, telephones, computers, etc .;

Collective creativity has an almost infinite value, reducing in perpetuity, the work necessary for the same use, while this creativity is underpaid or stolen often !!!

So our salvation is in this creativity to keep, even made in China, which sees itself badly, which must be kept ahead of the Chinese, (who buy this technology at a huge price in hours of their work), and who explains most of the difference in wages between Chinese and Europeans (explanation rarely given) !!
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79674
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11213




View Christophe » 29/09/10, 17:36

You see Xaveco, there is so much money in France that we ax with the little aid that remained for sustainable investment:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/budget-201 ... t9995.html

There is even talk of eliminating the work niche at 5.5% !! :frown:

And contrary to what I heard: it is not the wealthiest (who really make a living from capital) that will muffle the most but indeed the middle classes ... including a majority on forums are part of...

: Cry:
0 x
xaveco
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 61
Registration: 17/07/10, 20:20
Location: france "34"




View xaveco » 29/09/10, 22:15

Christophe, when you say:
Yes and at that time 90% of the French population was peasant so lived on the culture of his land ...

Obviously, it is indisputable that productivity was lower than today.
When you say:
the miners that we often take as an example, well they were the privileged as well by the schedules as the wages ... (hey yes)

My point of view is rather that the privileged were what employed them who did not go to the mines and did not send their children there either. But hey, that's another debate, and let's not forget that everything is relative.

Then when you say:
If we were able to reduce working time it is mainly thanks to technology: we produced more with 1 man for 1 hour when he is helped by technology

It is absolutely true. This is called the productivity

Now when you say:
The duration of working time is linked to the hourly wealth created ... and therefore to the economic profitability for the employer of nothing else and surely not to the desire of the employee to work less !!

I think you are confusing Productivity with profitability. They are two completely different things. And contrary to what you say, increasing productivity does not mean increasing profitability for the employer.
You forget to take into account the worker's salary.
When it works, it creates added value. It is then shared between the employer and the employee. The part that goes to the employee is his salary (direct and deferred) called labor income. The part that goes to the employer is the income from capital (including investments).
Now I will try to show you that profitability has nothing to do with productivity:

-If an employee at a rate of very high productivityIt produces a lot of added value. Now this added value is shared between the employer and the employee.
Let us assume that 95% of this added value goes into the worker's salary and 5% for the employer. Then the profitability for the employer will be low even if the productivity rate is high.

- Let us now admit that the worker productivity rate be low, it will always produce added value but much less. It can add value. Then this added value produced by the employee is shared: Let's say 95% for the employer and 5% for the employee.
Then the rate of return for the employer will be very high even if the productivity rate is low.

Conclusion, the profitability for the employer does not come from the productivity of the employee but from the sharing of added value.

So when you say:
We owe it more to technical evolution than to union struggles: without the evolution of technology (and professions), union struggles would have resulted in nothing ...


Indeed, the increase in productivity is due to technical development and not to the union struggle, nor to the employers' struggles for that matter.
But the union struggles of yesterday and today never aimed to increase productivity. Their goal is only to increase the share of added value that goes to employees.

So now, the added value that an employee produces, at the national level (added value of all workers in the country) this is called TAX ID No

And just as the added value produced by an employee is shared between the employer and the employee, GDP is shared between work and capital, since it is the sum of the added value of all workers.
Vary the share of GDP in favor of labor or capital? It's called "class struggle"

The working class uses social struggles to increase the added value that comes back to it, the capital class uses the state which legislates in this favor.

As far as I know, GDP (or national value added) has not decreased. It even increased. Only the percentage of the share that goes back to work has not increased as fast as it, suddenly, the share of value added that comes back to work has decreased. So when you tell me "There is no more money" I answer "for work (the employees)".
But what happened is not that it disappeared since the GDP did not drop, it just transferred from work to capital.

The pension reform proposed by the government translates into: "work more to earn as much" or "work as much to earn less", which amounts to giving less to the worker, to the working class and therefore more to that of capital.

Don't be displeased, there is no problem of financing, there is just a problem of distribution of the added value between capital and labor.

So to answer "or find the money" I would say in the pockets of capital. How? 'Or' What? By increasing the share that pensions (labor income) represent in GDP.

So to repeat your quote:
Think about it ...
also
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




View dedeleco » 30/09/10, 02:06

It is much more complex because there is the supply and demand of workers and the unemployed, and the supply of payment capacity of the population which includes these workers and others !!
See economists for details.
The funding problem is very real for pensions, whatever the systems, unless you put half the wages and productivity for present or future retirees, if the retired life lasts as much as that of work !!.
Prices are fixed as much as the bosses find buyers.
The bosses abandon the manufacturing if it works at a loss !!
The large and unemployed Chinese are ready to accept low wages rather than nothing.

Workers in France too will take the best paid offers as much as possible, according to their abilities, and therefore the sharing of added value is a complex assessment, which unions and employers are obliged to take into account.
Unions can only act if striking workers are not too easy to replace, otherwise the not too complex work, sooner or later, will end up being done by the Chinese !!
French workers also buy the cheapest from China without hesitation !!
This fact allows the Chinese and others to develop at our expense as soon as we are not far enough ahead with knowledge and capacities inaccessible to the Chinese !!

The same goes for very graduates who are too numerous in relation to needs who see their wages depreciated as long as they do not have rare and sought-after capacities!

Rudimentary claims far from reality are doomed to failure if confronted with the concrete.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79674
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11213




View Christophe » 30/09/10, 09:19

xaveco you are a bit tiring ... : Lol:
0 x

Back to "Society and Philosophy"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 179 guests