Other stuff

[AdrienIer]

-Get reelected because you're facing far right scum in the second round. Claim that this situation gives you obligations.
-Only win a plurality in parliament a few weeks after. Claim that you're going to have to govern differently.
-Push for an unnecessary reform to postpone the retirement age. 70% of the population opposes it. Claim it was in your presidential program, and that the people voted for that reform when they voted for you.
-Face many days of protest, including the biggest day of protest since people started to record their size.
-Use every constitutional tool to stop the parliament from modifying the text, and shorten the debates as much as constitutionally possible.
-Negociate with the right people so the text is voted in commission. Propose it to the assembly saying it's "the parliament's text". Become afraid that it's going to be rejected, so use the 49-3* clause of the constitution to get it passed.
-Watch people march on parliament (and on major plazas in other cities). People start burning stuff in the streets of Paris.

The great democrat Emmanuel Macron everyone !

*The text passes automatically unless the majority of the assembly agrees to make the government fall. Particularly efficient when the opposition goes from the left to the far right because they're less likely to vote together on the necessary text explaining why they want to remove the government.

[Mjmd]

What is the time frame on the age increase? IE in the US Reagan passed in 1983 but it didn't actually start increasing age until 2000.

[darrelljs]

-Push for an unnecessary reform to postpone the retirement age.

While he's certainly gone about it in the wrong way, is it really unnecessary? The "aging populations are putting unsustainable strain on pension systems" refrain feels believable. If you don't proactively do anything, you risk being Greece (who ironically just had their first pension increase since they were forced to cut it TEN times back in 2009).

What is the time frame on the age increase? IE in the US Reagan passed in 1983 but it didn't actually start increasing age until 2000.

Making the impact so far out that the people impacted are too young to realize they should give a shit is IMO worse, as they miss their opportunity to protest.

Darrell

[Mjmd]

I didn't say it wasn't still bad. But yes that is the smarter way.

[AdrienIer]

It's for people born in 61 and later (but progressively), so it'll start being implemented in like a year.

The reform is unnecessary because the retirement agency is expecting to keep its finances balanced in most economic scenarios for the next ~10 years. The "observatory council for pensions" gave like 4 where it was balanced and only one apocalyptic one in its premises where there was a small deficit in ~10 years. Either way, no reason to push back the retirement age in the near future.

[Tarkeel]

It's for people born in 61 and later (but progressively), so it'll start being implemented in like a year.

The reform is unnecessary because the retirement agency is expecting to keep its finances balanced in most economic scenarios for the next ~10 years. The "observatory council for pensions" gave like 4 where it was balanced and only one apocalyptic one in its premises where there was a small deficit in ~10 years. Either way, no reason to push back the retirement age in the near future.

I'm curious, what is the retirement age like now?

[Mjmd]

I believe they are moving from 62 to 64. Which as someone in the US looking at 67 looks ok. HOWEVER, this is a flawed argument as saying someone else should be worse off because you are is not valid.

Now you can argue more aging population and longer life expectancy. Being solvent for 10 years is not a long time in the history of things. To be fair I don't know the full details and financial situation, but just making general arguments.

[AdrienIer]

It's for people born in 61 and later (but progressively), so it'll start being implemented in like a year.

The reform is unnecessary because the retirement agency is expecting to keep its finances balanced in most economic scenarios for the next ~10 years. The "observatory council for pensions" gave like 4 where it was balanced and only one apocalyptic one in its premises where there was a small deficit in ~10 years. Either way, no reason to push back the retirement age in the near future.

I'm curious, what is the retirement age like now?

You need 42 years of work and you need to be at least 62. The government is changing it to 43 years and 64. The people who started working early can retire at 62 currently, but many people (myself included) who started late because of their degrees already retire around 65, 66 or 67. The reform is going to be hardest on those who are the poorest and on women, and that's also fueling the discontent.

A note : when I say one of the scenarios shows a problem in around 10 years, it's a temporary problem that solves itself like 5 years afterwards.

[Tarkeel]

The retirement age here in Norway is officialy 67, but there are deals in place such that most can retire at 62 if they want. There has been a lot of talk about raising these limits as well.

[superdeath]

Guess i didnt know i was THAT lucky being able to retire at 57