First modification:
The streets of France maintain their resounding opposition to the pension reform of the Government of Emmanuel Macron despite the fact that the law is already a reality. But why is this reform arousing so much anger? What are the arguments of the unions and the protesters? Is it true that this reform will weigh more on the most impoverished classes? In this episode of In 5 Minutes we explain all the keys to understanding the controversy.
“Live longer, work more”: that is the argument used by several French governments to justify raising the pension age or increasing the time worked before retirement. That of Emmanuel Macron has been perhaps the most daring advance to date, but it is by no means the first in recent decades.
The increase in life expectancy puts pension systems in check throughout Europe, including France. The French system is based on solidarity between generations: today’s active workers pay for the retirement of today’s older adults. However, with an increasingly aging population, these strategies run the risk of being loss-making, that is, more money is spent on pensions than is collected from youth work.
But to what extent is it true that the French pension system is unsustainable? Is it really necessary to stop working at the age of 64, two more than what was mandatory up to now? These are the questions being asked by the unions and the protesters who, for months, have been taking to the streets to demand that Macron’s reform be withdrawn.
Although it is true that, in the last fifteen years, there have been more deficit periods than surplus periods, in 2021 more was collected than spent. Around 900 million euros were the surplus, a surplus that is believed to be repeated in 2022. The Guidance Council for Pensions records that, last year, the surplus could have grown to 3,200 million euros.
On the other hand, the opponents of the reform value that other options should be considered to finance the potential deficit. According to calculations by the NGO Oxfam, a 2% tax on French billionaires would be enough to raise the money that may be missing in the future.
This is not the first time that a French government seeks to extend the working life of the population. In 1982, the historic retirement age of 60 was set, something that was considered a milestone for workers’ rights and seen as an example of prosperity and solidity of the French public system. The necessary years of contributions were established at 35.7.
However, starting in the 1990s, the discourse began to change. Four governments sought to lengthen the retirement age or, at least, lengthen the contribution period for workers. Three succeeded, while one failed as a result of social mobilization.
In 2010 the most radical change happened. The conservative Nicolas Sarkozy buried retirement at 60, which so defined the French pension system, and delayed it to 62. The protests were massive, but not enough to push back the reform. These changes are not exclusive to right-wing governments: the socialist François Hollande lengthened the time for contributions, for example.
That is why, thirteen years after Sarkozy’s reform, the feeling among French workers is of a constant cascade of setbacks in their labor rights. Some setbacks that, moreover, weigh more heavily on the working classes, who start their working life at an earlier age, who carry out work that is more punishing for their health and who live with a shorter life expectancy.
