I really want to tell you about the niac. It is a term used to describe the state of a highly motivated, competitive and combative individual, who has an extra drive compared to his opponents.
What relationship will you tell me with the theme of pensions?
If you find yourself in a complicated social situation or perceive in your entourage fragile people who suffer and resign themselves, you can give up and give up the conviction that you will never be able to change the order of things. You risk becoming a resigned claimant.
But you can also change your look and tell yourself that your thought and your action are useful for something. No special talent is required. It’s just about accepting to change the way you look and feel responsible for your life and the impact it can have on others.
Beyond beliefs, beyond difficulties. “They didn’t know it was impossible, so they did it.” Taught us Mark Twain. Some believe that succeeding is beyond their reach. If they finally believe that their success depends on their obstinacy, their determination and that their success is not the gauge of an external judgment but that it is up to them to find their way. Our life is unique and our role is essential. It is up to us to find the right path first for us and therefore for others.
Today we are confronted with a social debate which concerns us since it concerns the last third of our lives, the debate on retirement. It is a long-term reform proposal that strikes a short-term demand for social justice illustrated by the Yellow Vests movement. Politicians must explain the importance of a long-term measure to French people worried about their month-end. This poses a real problem.
The citizens have gone from skepticism to mistrust and put up resistance to those who propose progress that would be beneficial to them. Who among us would be involved in a long-term project if he does not trust his partners or if he is not sure of his intentions?
Will the politician keep his word on the value of the point? Will he be able to do it? Many are the indicators of future difficulties and are these parameters integrated into the reform proposal? The loss of confidence in the ability of politicians to speak far is a threat to our democracies and our economies.
The retirement age has been lowered to 60, remember in 1983 because workers died a few weeks after retiring at 65. It was at that time considered intolerable. Today, as we have gained in France 7 years of life expectancy, which is a great triumph, it is statistically normal for the retirement age to be after 60 years. Unless the advancing retirement age has allowed people to live longer.
The real relationship between work and retirement is not implicit as desired by the reform, for me the right relationship would be 2 months at work 1 month at retirement.
This reform poses a series of questions.
Does the reform make sense? I will answer yes in principle even if I do not support its current form. The principle of the points system will make it possible to follow those who have made their career in several companies, in several trades. A useful element is that of floors.
But this proposed reform is inconsistent in the spirit of the best. It would be desirable to clarify the intentions. The distrust comes from the idea that today in France the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. How to understand that we plan to raise the retirement age when at the same time unemployment among seniors breaks records? How to accept the idea that it may be necessary to take out insurance for a supplementary pension? Can we save with 1000 euros per month?
There are inconsistencies in the mix between the financial equilibrium which raises the question of whether to extend or postpone the retirement age which has nothing to do with the issue of the pension system. We forgot that we need to upgrade pensions and the status of women and teachers, among others. And so the system does not appear coherent either financially or intellectually.
So obviously as it is in a context where everyone realizes that the pension system does not hold water as it is presented, it is necessary to separate the problems. Put on the one hand the sustainability of the current pension system and the problem of the system as a whole.
The reason for the current social conflagration has been the subject of so-called special diets, just as the fuel surcharge has been that of the birth of the Yellow Vests movement. We must understand that it is imperative to recreate social justice.
The economist that I am cannot conceive of the idea of abolishing established contracts. It is a story of respect for the word given.
A worker who has signed a contract is able to claim that it is respected. The consequence is that time must be given to any reform and we must engage in a real social debate for future generations.
We are engaged in a battle of opinion, even in a debate which goes beyond the theme of pensions and which requires everyone to think about the society in which we want to live. People do not want to feel threatened by economic reasons, breakups generate fear, especially if they arise in a complicated economic context for them. Politicians must explain their vision of the world, demonstrate their actions, clearly name the winners and losers, in order to make negotiation possible.
Today all negotiation is lost and reform is lost in its current form.
With my gaze as an economist, I get angry at seeing this project so poorly prepared and explained in confusion and especially so unbalanced, I get angry and it is necessary to make a reform. Nothing is more important to future generations than a new retirement system to finance their future. Is it a pedagogical problem? I am enraged by my competence and I see that in France thousands of people are angry and at the same time people are in a precarious situation, people are hungry and confidence is lost over vague, contradictory statements, guilt-inducing. Distrust is combined with resistance in a climate where we try to understand who will be the next victim and where the lure is.
We all need to regain confidence.
In the countries of northern Europe, we can reform because the citizens have confidence in their political class that we in France do not have today. Why not use what works elsewhere, analyze what has not worked and draw conclusions for our own choices?
We should be able in France to prepare reforms for the pensions of future generations, so we should always ask ourselves if the policy we are pursuing will be favorable to future generations. We really need, and everyone is aware of this, to rebalance the logic of our pension systems.