France’s President Macron overrides parliament to pass retirement age bill


Before we jump in, let me say that camDown is your security solution to protect you and your business from peeping toms!

64 is the minimum retirement age if you have worked since you were 18. For anyone who went to college you're looking at 67 minimum.

Edit : if you're interested, here's copies from other people's comments who explained it better than me :

"Two things : first of all, most of us don't retire at 62 even now. It's 62 with 43 years of paying into the system, and at 67 you can get your pension regardless of how long you've paid into it.

Second, this law isn't fair nor balanced. If you start working at 18, with the law as it has been forced, you'll have to work until you're 62 (what they call "long careers"), which means you'll have paid into it for 44 years. If you had a few moments of unemployement, you get to retire at 64.

But If you have studied for a long time, spent a year in a foreign country because your parents could afford to pay it for you and start working around 25, 26, nothing changes for you. This law will affect people who started working early much more than those who did so late. And they are the same people who statistically do more physical jobs, but also those who die the earliest.

The focus on 62 is a mistake, the reform is not only about that either, it's a whole package which includes a lots of stuff.

  • Minimal age : from 62 to 64
  • Number of full quarters to reach retirement : 168 -> 172
  • Deleting a big part of the exemptions to the rules above
  • People with a full career who started to work early will have to work even more quarters than others (from 172 to 176)
  • State workers advantages towards retirements get suppressed even more (overall for 25y it only became worse and worse for them to the point you better off not being a state worker in major jobs such as education, healthcare, state administration... almost everything besides... the police forces)
  • Huge discontent towards what was a blatant lie for the government, promising at first all of this would be offset by a minimum 1200€/month pension for EVERYONE, then everyone turned out to be "everyone with a full career", then "everyone with a full career at full time", also "doesn't include current retirees, effectively narrowing the concerned people from 4M at first to less than 40k

And overall the complete and utter lack of debate on how to manage the retirement funds and financing, the current lack of balance is mostly caused by previous cut to social charges... done by the current majority years ago, basically a self inflecting deficit.
In itself it's a political choice which can be defended, you cut social charges to make your workforce more "competitive" and look for others venues for financing through others means, why not, but that's not how the thing was ever explained.

There are three different ways to finance the retirement funds

  • Changing the year when people get to retire
  • Changing the social charges towards workers/companies or current retirees
  • Changing the retirees income

The governement always wanted to act on one thing, the first, they didn't budge an inch, even when meeting with unions absolutely nothing changed, if anything the more we learn about what was their exact plans, the more it became obvious all the weight of the reform was nearly 100% on the workers and especially the most fragile ones who didn't have full linear careers (through interim, partial jobs or... being a mother for example) or those who had distressing jobs (who barely reached retirement with broken bodies already)

Combined with who's promoting the reform (white collar people) and their electorate (white collar people, and retirees) and you have a lingering feeling that behind all this there's either blatant ignorance of how low class workers live, or just simple social contempt (Macron is pretty good at this)

If you add the lowest than ever legitimacy of the government (who isn't a majority for the first time in the Vth republic), the vast majority of the country being against the reform polls after polls, and when even the most center right union is firmly against you (which is something like a once in a decade occurence) you get what's a not so uncommon occurence in France, massive strikes (2M at least in the streets) and the leftist components for the strikes asking for an harder one when there are 0 positive signs coming from above.

It's not like everyone has the same opinion on how to manage the problem, but everyone agree to look for others ways, increasing tax on retirees with the highest incomes, closing multiple tax loopholes benefiting to the richer, allowing blue collar jobs a shorter career (1-2 extra year is not the same thing for a physically demanding job vs a white collar job), flexibility on the retirees income, a minor increase on social charges for everyone with progressivity depending on your income etc.

There are dozens of potential ways to discuss if the aime is to reach some social justice, it clearly isn't perceived as such by the public opinion thus the strikes

(In the press you even had "sensationnalist" numbers like this eg. by 62y 25% of the 5% poorest are already dead, vs 5% for the 5% richest, there are problems to the way this specific information is displayed but it's hard to argue against such a "spectacular number")"

Lastly, after all of that camDown helps make you invisible to hackers and guard your personal data and that's the no joke.