France – suppression of social rights : retirement at 70

Adaryn

The Living Force
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKTRE4A00ZI20081101

PARIS (Reuters) - French workers may be allowed to continue working past the age of 65 under a measure approved by the lower house of parliament and criticised by the opposition as opening the way to pushing back the official retirement age.

The measure, voted in late on Friday night and needing Senate approval to become law, would prevent employers from making employees retire at 65 from January, 2010.

"Society is evolving because we are living longer, the rules have to evolve as well," Labour Minister Xavier Bertrand told France Info radio on Saturday.

He denied the rule was an effort to undermine the current system under which workers can retire on a full pension at 60 if they have paid contributions for a minimum number of years. The contribution period is set to rise from 40 to 41 years by 2012.

"Nothing has been changed. The only thing that was voted in last night is that we just stop systematically getting rid of French people who want to stay in their company and who are perfectly capable of staying in their company," he said.

Like other industrialised countries, France faces growing pressure on its pension system and has been forced to increase the pensions contribution period to 41 years despite strong opposition from unions.

But the measure was denounced by the opposition Green party which said that it effectively opened the way to forcing people to work longer.

"The retirement age is being insidiously pushed back to 70 years," Martine Billard, a Greens deputy said in a statement.

A separate measure voted on Friday, allowing airline pilots and cabin crew to work until 65 has already sparked strike threats from unions representing staff at Air France.
 
What is the origin of this problem ? To my understanding, there is a common root to the gradual suppression of the social rights in France. It is the law of January 3rd of 1973 (that of course, no “opposition party” denounces). This law prevents the government from borrowing money at a 0% rate from banque de France, thus forcing it to go to the private financial markets and pay endless interests. The right to borrow money “for free” for a government is the 1st condition of the welfare state. Without it, the debt is bound to swell and the higher the debt, the higher the social cost. It is currently above 100% of the GDP in France but would only be 15-20% if France did not have to pay any interests on its debt (and on its interests). The same principle applies to other countries.

Something else of importance that has to be noticed is that most social rights have been voted after WW2, during the glorious thirty (3 decades of prosperity with around 7% yearly growth rate), when the economic model was based on growth. It is now based on credit because there is almost 0 growth. A question is to know if such privileges can be maintained in very different economic conditions.

Adaryn said:
"Society is evolving because we are living longer, the rules have to evolve as well," Labour Minister Xavier Bertrand told France Info radio on Saturday.

Ha ha HA. Good joke. The freemasons have sometimes strange points of view, or they have found the secret of immortality.

I fear that this trend towards the removal of social rights increases because the economic system supports it. The euro, free trade, the financialization of economy, the engineered demographic crisis… are some of the ingredients of the mix to the destruction of the social rights.

Furthermore, all of them may disappear within 2 years, according to Jamie Mcgeever. Great video; he says that France is the next Greece. If France really defaults, all social rights, out !

_http://insider.thomsonreuters.com/link.html?cn=share&cid=1129370&shareToken=Mzo3N2ExZjFiZS03MWU0LTQ2ZTMtOWJhNi02OWRiMjViYjk3YmE%3D

To conclude, I’d like to say that I do not agree with the idea of “rights”. I prefer the following statement : “no rights, only privileges”.
 
Shinzenbi said:
To conclude, I’d like to say that I do not agree with the idea of “rights”. I prefer the following statement : “no rights, only privileges”.

Shinzenbi, do you understand the meanings of 'rights' and privileges'?

From the dictionary:

Privilege (1) a right, immunity, or advantage granted exclusively to a particular person, class or group esp an advantage attached to a position or office; a prerogative. (2) the possession of privileges, esp those conferred by rank or wealth.

Right That which is consonant with equity or the light of nature; that which is morally just or due.

Right (1) in accordance with what is morally good, just, or proper.

Right (1) qualities that together constitute the ideal of moral conduct or merit moral approval. (2) a power, privilege, interest, etc to which one has a just claim.

Do you see the difference between 'rights' and 'privileges'?

Do you think that having clean air and water, and nutritious food, is a right or a privilege?

How about the right of association? Do you think it's a privilege to be able to associate freely - or to choose not to associate - or do you think it's a right?

I'm really shocked by your statement. If you think that the things I listed above - which are inalienable rights - are in fact privileges, I would suggest that you have bought into the pathological control system.

Claiming that inalienable rights are in fact privileges allows the PTB and their puppet corporations to then define rights and privileges according to their twisted desires to control the human race and the planet we live on.

It may be that you are confusing the two terms, for as we can see there is some overlap in their respective meanings. But I think we should define these words according to more strict criteria so as to avoid any confusion between the two. One naturally wonders if the essential meaning of 'right', as in that which is morally proper and just, has been corrupted over the years so as to open the door for the PTB to redefine rights as privileges.
 
Endymion,

Thanks for the reply.

Sorry, i’m french and my English lacks nuances. I’ve learnt English at school in France and at home with video games in English, and I’m sure that it shows in all my posts. Of course, I agree with you, all that you have mentioned above are rights for everyone. But I disagree with your idea that they are inalienable rights. I would rather say that they should be inalienable rights. I’m not willing to play on words, but basically “inalienable” means “unable to be removed”. How many people on earth suffer the removal of these rights ?
Even though these are rights, in the current world they look more and more like privileges. Instead of this sentence (no rights, only privileges), I should have written “Because of the psychopaths take over of the world, basic rights are gradually being removed from us, and many of them may now be regarded as privileges, which they are not.” I’ve not deemed very useful to say it because everyone here knows it.

Endymion said:
Do you think that having clean air and water, and nutritious food, is a right or a privilege?

A right for everyone. However, when I said “no rights, only privileges”, I was speaking only for myself. This thought came to me after having visited poor countries and seen, for example, rachitic people picking up noodles out of the mud after the flea market and surviving on it. Or young guys who were 17 but looked liked they were 12. My following meals and shelters appeared to me as privileges conferred by relative wealth. I also had the thought that western companies/governments had brought poverty where it normally does not exist (Africa, regions of Asia where there are prawn farms…). Again, I’m not insinuating that eating is a privilege.

Endymion said:
Right That which is consonant with equity or the light of nature; that which is morally just or due.

By who ? Nature ? God almighty ? The government ? No one owes me anything. Most of my personal needs necessitate my efforts to be met. I’m not expecting someone else to support me and bring me whatever I need without the slightest effort. This would be childish. I’m a bit puzzled by these 2 words.

One last word : if you live in France, you’ll certainly be taught at school that the word “right” includes totalitarian aspects. For instance, the colonization has been undertaken in the name of the “human rights”. It is a domination tool. The PTB had the messianic mission to force the so-called savages to accept and live according to our so-called civilization. In other words “we have to civilize you with big shoes to kick your a…”. Maybe it’s the root of my difficulties to clearly understand the concept of right. I appreciate your help.
 
Back
Top Bottom