living in europe privileged or not👍👎

Those numbers aren't made up, but use another defintion than just class A unemployments. This defintion, used by the government, in particularly misleading as the class A is artificially lowered by kicking people from France Travail or redirecting them to class B, C, D...
There are other twists of statistics that result in underestimation of unemployment in France, but for short, and more accurately, 20%+ of the population is registered to France Travail, and the 7.5% of class A also seems to be underestimated and closer to 9.5%

Anyone receiving RSA benefits is automatically registered on France Travail, along with their spouse. There are also people who decided to leave their comfortable job just to get unemployment benefits (I'm not sure there is an estimate of how many there are, but I personally know 3 people and my circle is rather small). So yes you're right, there are people who want a full time job who aren't taken into account. But there are also many who have no intention to work.

Let's still assume your number is accurate. Your point was "but when you have 20% of unemployment (2022), especially among youth, then early retirement can be beneficial to your economy". This is the same theory behind the 2000 35HR reform whose premise that if people work fewer hours, it should make room for unemployed people. It is no secret that the unemployment rate never went down, while also shrinking the economy. So no, working less never improves the economy. It is the other way around: working more creates opportunities (look at virtually all of Asia, minus North Korea, look at Switzerland, look at the US).

I admit that what I have about the COR might be a little bit outdated. There was indeed a deficit expected, but it doesn't seem so important. Yes, its a few billions, and up to 13% of the GDP, yet it should aslo decline with time according to projections.

I did some more research later and went down the rabbit hole, and it's actually even more interesting (this article is a very good breakdown of the situation). Not only is it not a 8B euro deficit, it is actually 21% if you account for government subsidies. Also, since pensions are supposed to exclusively be funded by employer/employee contributions, and they are also funded by a variety of other taxes, at the end of the day it is a whopping 44% (!) that is missing from the expected source of funding. So yes, the current situation is in fact dramatic.

You could say the same with healthcare or the whole welfare system, but here, I think we have core divergence. I don't think that completly changing the system here is desirable nor even needed. For pensions, yes, you are around 360 billions spent per year, but if you fight the frauds and cut it to retirees who live abroad, my gut feelings is that you could already save a good 10-20 billions per year. If you cut pensions above 2500€, or even 2000€, to make it more reasonable (starting from the idea that rich salaries had way enough time to get an extra capital), then you could again save a few billions.

I agree with most of this, and think we could even do orders of magnitude better than 10-20B. Of course there are people who worked 45+ years and have a miserable pension and they deserve every penny they get (it's even outraging that some get so little after everything they've done). When I say "boomers" I'm thinking of these guys (retired at 55, getting 75% of last 6 months of activity, earns more while retired than his working engineer son, thinks it's normal). So we must do 2 things:

- heavily reduce these peoples' pensions

- introduce capitalization into pensions. If more and more people are retired, and less and less are working, we face a strictly mathematical issue due to shrinking demography (and no the solution to this is not immigration, but I believe you already know that). There's nothing political about it. Either we work more and milk children out of their life and future to pay for old people, or we rely on an ever growing global market to have a sustainable society. We can easily do this step by step over a couple of few decades. Companies will greatly benefit from it, too.

I think people should have the right to retire anywhere they want though. You can't force people to live in a country, there is something fundamentally authoritarian about this. But if we were all able to manage our retirement fund whoever we please throughout our life, this wouldn't even be an issue since we would do with our own individual money we put aside. 😛

Surely, I won't say that I am against my retirement plan being cared by the state. If you want to talk about robbery, then, no, I wouldnt' mind a kind to take more money that necessary if he does his job properly. That would be his rightful share. However, it has to work. I really dislike the idea that money is taken to fill the pocket of what is the communism of the riches.

In that sense, I don't want to pay for a hope, I'd sure prefer people to pay (because, as of now, honestly, I dont pay much) nothing than to pay taxes to see the system to fall apart rather than getting what they are due in exchange: proper healthcare, education, science, infrastructures and services. I think it's not dreaming too much too, as it has worked in some ways.

The wish you describe cannot come true. The more things are collectivized, the more poorly they will be run, because people feel more and more detached from management and personal accountability. You pointed out the problem yourself in another thread when it comes to healthcare: people feel like it's free so they go to the hospital for the most minor things thus clogging the system. If they paid much less taxes but paid out of pocket when needed, they would make much more informed decisions about their own needs. The same applies to every sector of the public economy. It cannot improve without massive cuts and deep restructuring, it is 100% impossible. I know it may seem counter intuitive, but only destruction will lead to any future prosperity.

Still, the retirement system as it used to be was washing off a part of socio-economical inequalities by redistributing the wealth. Healthcare for instance gave access good medicine to people. Education and welfare system in France gave everyone a good chance to success.

I can't spit on that. I have and I still benefit partly of every of those, at least in my family and it's why I think living/being born in France/Europe, at least for a part, is a priviledge. Would it be anywhere else, my peasant/worker descendant ass would have been endebted as a child with the family history,; and that would have only been due to stochasticity, not even from poor money management.

I definitely support education being free. But welfare is the worst thing that has ever happened to poor people. The only way to get out of poverty is through work opportunities, not by handing out money: you teach a starving man how to catch a fish, instead of handing him 1 fish every week until the rest of his life. Welfare is enslavement, it is the reason why poverty is so persistent (again I understand it may be counter intuitive, but the correlation is well documented in the history of socialist societies). There is a crucial difference between helping somebody improve their life and making them dependent on a faceless system.

Now for civil servant creating no raw value, what do you exactly mean? No direct contribution to the economy? If so, then I disagree. That''s true for teachers, postme, and many others, although they indirectly contribute, but none of them? We have a whole sector for research & development that produce values, among others...

By definition a state worker cannot produce value, because they don't create/sell anything. Sure they can be a vector or a multiplier (through education, transportation, or even healthcare) but they technically produce nothing, just like a cop doesn't create value. Does this mean they're useless? Of course not, they definitely serve a purpose. But their numbers need to remain relatively low, as they are ultimately exclusively funded by the private sector. Rule of thumb is: are you (or the entity that directly employs you) able to print out an invoice? If so, congrats, you are an eminent contributor to society

You should all write bestseller books 👌😊🤭

Anyone receiving RSA benefits is automatically registered on France Travail, along with their spouse. There are also people who decided to leave their comfortable job just to get unemployment benefits (I'm not sure there is an estimate of how many there are, but I personally know 3 people and my circle is rather small). So yes you're right, there are people who want a full time job who aren't taken into account. But there are also many who have no intention to work.

Let's still assume your number is accurate. Your point was "but when you have 20% of unemployment (2022), especially among youth, then early retirement can be beneficial to your economy". This is the same theory behind the 2000 35HR reform whose premise that if people work fewer hours, it should make room for unemployed people. It is no secret that the unemployment rate never went down, while also shrinking the economy. So no, working less never improves the economy. It is the other way around: working more creates opportunities (look at virtually all of Asia, minus North Korea, look at Switzerland, look at the US).

Well, let's say people who needs a job, rather than want, because the people trying to get benefits from the state and not work probably need a job still.

As for the 35h, I find your judgement harsh. You forget many things, if 35h is a dimunition of work, French were still working much more than 35h per week (around 39-40h in average if I remember properly). Similarly, if it failed, then what to say about the reduced social contribution from companies that came with it? Can you attribute the shrink of the economy to the diminution of the work time rather than the social contributions?
Not to forget that something important went across France in the meantime; Subprime crisis.

I also disagree that working less is bad for economy. There are a bunch of studies that now correlate productivity and better health (bad health costing an arm) to less worked hours... Typically 35-40h or 4days/week.

Now, back to retirement, you could say so, but again, when an elder retire, you have to replace that person in the company (except in science maybe, in which the seat is just sold with that old man, but that's yet another story).

I did some more research later and went down the rabbit hole, and it's actually even more interesting (this article is a very good breakdown of the situation). Not only is it not a 8B euro deficit, it is actually 21% if you account for government subsidies. Also, since pensions are supposed to exclusively be funded by employer/employee contributions, and they are also funded by a variety of other taxes, at the end of the day it is a whopping 44% (!) that is missing from the expected source of funding. So yes, the current situation is in fact dramatic.

I would be cautious with this reference. Its interesting to have, but the IFRAP is very liberal and close to the MEDEF, hence would have any interests to make the worst of statistics. It''s like asking Bernard Friot his view on the matter. It can be very interesting, yet, it will inevitably very social.
I admit I didn't read it very carefully, but what you mention first seems to be about the "régimes spéciaux". I am not particularly shocked by this news as it's concerning civil servants. There might be a good explanation behind it that is not offered by the link.

I agree with most of this, and think we could even do orders of magnitude better than 10-20B. Of course there are people who worked 45+ years and have a miserable pension and they deserve every penny they get (it's even outraging that some get so little after everything they've done). When I say "boomers" I'm thinking of these guys (retired at 55, getting 75% of last 6 months of activity, earns more while retired than his working engineer son, thinks it's normal). So we must do 2 things:

- heavily reduce these peoples' pensions

- introduce capitalization into pensions. If more and more people are retired, and less and less are working, we face a strictly mathematical issue due to shrinking demography (and no the solution to this is not immigration, but I believe you already know that). There's nothing political about it. Either we work more and milk children out of their life and future to pay for old people, or we rely on an ever growing global market to have a sustainable society. We can easily do this step by step over a couple of few decades. Companies will greatly benefit from it, too.

I think people should have the right to retire anywhere they want though. You can't force people to live in a country, there is something fundamentally authoritarian about this. But if we were all able to manage our retirement fund whoever we please throughout our life, this wouldn't even be an issue since we would do with our own individual money we put aside. 😛

Ok, thank you for precising because often there is a generalization of boomers, even though we have the same definition it seems. Like I said, yes, capping pensions could be a nice way to reduce these people's pensions that are not needed to get a decent life.
However, I disagree with the capitalization of pensions for several reasons. Firstly, capitalization in other countries made retirees poorer (I mentioned to you this site in pm, but I think it fits well here). Secondly, capitalization is nice when the economy works. However, you have seen like me the euros striking fall for a while, the system not being so good and thus the economy getting closer to the edge of the cliff. Capitalization in this case means taking the risk that your savings will be nothing compared to the effects of the inflation, or that everything could be lost.

Add to that the feeding to the institutions that will benefits from capitalization, which will inevitably result in lobbying for lower salaries/rights and you get a dangerous cocktail. I'm not saying that the current system is perfect, or the best, but capitalization comes with a bunch of problems, too.

The wish you describe cannot come true. The more things are collectivized, the more poorly they will be run, because people feel more and more detached from management and personal accountability. You pointed out the problem yourself in another thread when it comes to healthcare: people feel like it's free so they go to the hospital for the most minor things thus clogging the system. If they paid much less taxes but paid out of pocket when needed, they would make much more informed decisions about their own needs. The same applies to every sector of the public economy. It cannot improve without massive cuts and deep restructuring, it is 100% impossible. I know it may seem counter intuitive, but only destruction will lead to any future prosperity.

That's a very liberal view. Things that are collectivized are not necessarily poorly ran, but ,for sure, national unity or sense at least should exist in many cases. You mention healthcare and its problems; was there so many problems and abusers before? Same for the RSA, were so many people prompt to ask for it? In this last case, it was even a shame to do so.

Wanting to make cuts everywhere is sometimes taking the risk to make everything worse, especially if you don't take into consideration why and how it was implemented first.

I definitely support education being free. But welfare is the worst thing that has ever happened to poor people. The only way to get out of poverty is through work opportunities, not by handing out money: you teach a starving man how to catch a fish, instead of handing him 1 fish every week until the rest of his life. Welfare is enslavement, it is the reason why poverty is so persistent (again I understand it may be counter intuitive, but the correlation is well documented in the history of socialist societies). There is a crucial difference between helping somebody improve their life and making them dependent on a faceless system.

Having free education is not enough, most of the time. With free education only, I would definitely nto be able to study, or really not like I did. I benefited welfare for it. Maybe your problem here lies more in unconditional welfare (or very low conditions) rather than welfare itself.

By definition a state worker cannot produce value, because they don't create/sell anything. Sure they can be a vector or a multiplier (through education, transportation, or even healthcare) but they technically produce nothing, just like a cop doesn't create value. Does this mean they're useless? Of course not, they definitely serve a purpose. But their numbers need to remain relatively low, as they are ultimately exclusively funded by the private sector. Rule of thumb is: are you (or the entity that directly employs you) able to print out an invoice? If so, congrats, you are an eminent contributor to society

Don't sell, eventually, and yet it's not totally true (EDF used to have state engineers, participating in the development of nuclear reactors with Areva and later sold; same for the development of TGV in which the SNCF is involved, or the Concorde with, very specifically ONERA that participated in it and in many other projects).

SAme applies to research, although it's rather indirect when it's fundamental (and for most part totalyl useless, thus also and paradoxally crucial).

You should all write bestseller books 👌😊🤭

To tease like that when you barely formulate any argument is a little bold.

As for the 35h, I find your judgement harsh. You forget many things, if 35h is a dimunition of work, French were still working much more than 35h per week (around 39-40h in average if I remember properly). Similarly, if it failed, then what to say about the reduced social contribution from companies that came with it? Can you attribute the shrink of the economy to the diminution of the work time rather than the social contributions?

Not to forget that something important went across France in the meantime; Subprime crisis.

I'm not sure what you're trying to defend here when even the Left has been more than happy to forget about this. Unemployment didn't go down and the net cost was 3B euros. Also, the subprime crisis was in 2008, 8 years later.

I also disagree that working less is bad for economy. There are a bunch of studies that now correlate productivity and better health (bad health costing an arm) to less worked hours... Typically 35-40h or 4days/week.

Now, back to retirement, you could say so, but again, when an elder retire, you have to replace that person in the company (except in science maybe, in which the seat is just sold with that old man, but that's yet another story).

Yes 35-40 is a good number but this isn't the issue: they expected a 4% reduction in work time would reduce unemployment by whatever the corresponding amount would be. Just like somebody retiring does not mean an automatic replacement, you're making the exact same assumption that led to this 35hr reform: the alleged premise that all individuals are equal and bound to replace one another on an exact 1 to 1 basis. If this was the case, the growing population on the planet would lead to ever growing unemployment, as it basically assumes individuals can only be employed by existing structures.

I would be cautious with this reference. Its interesting to have, but the IFRAP is very liberal and close to the MEDEF, hence would have any interests to make the worst of statistics.

I admit I didn't read it very carefully, but what you mention first seems to be about the "régimes spéciaux". I am not particularly shocked by this news as it's concerning civil servants. There might be a good explanation behind it that is not offered by the link.

This article isn't about political recommendations, it lays out raw accounting numbers. The data does include everyone (cf: CNAVTS), not the "régime spéciaux".

However, I disagree with the capitalization of pensions for several reasons. Firstly, capitalization in other countries made retirees poorer (I mentioned to you this site in pm, but I think it fits well here). Secondly, capitalization is nice when the economy works. However, you have seen like me the euros striking fall for a while, the system not being so good and thus the economy getting closer to the edge of the cliff. Capitalization in this case means taking the risk that your savings will be nothing compared to the effects of the inflation, or that everything could be lost.

Add to that the feeding to the institutions that will benefits from capitalization, which will inevitably result in lobbying for lower salaries/rights and you get a dangerous cocktail. I'm not saying that the current system is perfect, or the best, but capitalization comes with a bunch of problems, too.

😭️ The compound annual growth rate for our PAYGO system is currently 0.3% and still decreases every year. The MSCI World index has a CAGR over 10%... The first argument brought up in your article against capitalized pensions is that they are subject to a potential market crash... It is exactly as if you'd advise somebody to never get in a car because it could be involved in an accident. Capitalized pensions occur over a very long time periods (40+ years), the chance of losing value on a very common CW8-like index is 0.06%. The 2nd argument states that the PAYGO system is much more stable. Indeed it is, it is a 100% guarantee to be crippled in debt because it's extremely easy to foresee the shortcomings of the ratio when people stop having kids. Last, your article fails to address the elephant in the room: the system has been working somewhat well until now, but starting with our generation we are spending much, much more than what we will ever get back.

That's a very liberal view. Things that are collectivized are not necessarily poorly ran, but ,for sure, national unity or sense at least should exist in many cases. You mention healthcare and its problems; was there so many problems and abusers before? Same for the RSA, were so many people prompt to ask for it?

Wanting to make cuts everywhere is sometimes taking the risk to make everything worse, especially if you don't take into consideration why and how it was implemented first.

Things were better, because:

- more people contributed to society
- not as much benefits were handed out
- the high trust society they previously enjoyed has since collapsed largely due to unvetted immigration.

The why and how things were initially implemented are exactly the same reason why we need to make these cuts: because of a mix between individual abuse and bloated bureaucracy.

Having free education is not enough, most of the time. With free education only, I would definitely nto be able to study, or really not like I did. I benefited welfare for it. Maybe your problem here lies more in unconditional welfare (or very low conditions) rather than welfare itself.

Welfare by definition is unconditional, since your sole lack of income is considered and not what your actions are. How is it fair to take from somebody who worked their ass off to give to somebody who didn't bother? The term "social justice" some love to use is by definition theft. It was never about justice, just like when people say "we need to censor X to protect democracy" was never about democracy. Everyone agrees with helping those who deserve to be helped. But we've collectively given up (or were forced to give up) on this very basic condition.

Don't sell, eventually, and yet it's not totally true (EDF used to have state engineers, participating in the development of nuclear reactors with Areva and later sold; same for the development of TGV in which the SNCF is involved, or the Concorde with, very specifically ONERA that participated in it and in many other projects).

SAme applies to research, although it's rather indirect when it's fundamental (and for most part totalyl useless, thus also and paradoxally crucial).

These are state funded companies, not state workers. Yes the state can and should back certain industries (transportation or energy for instance), but that doesn't mean replace them. Besides, whenever the state hires workers for jobs that could be handled by the private sector, it technically drives up unemployment because it removes room for such companies to operate, thus shrinking the economy.

You should all write bestseller books 👌😊🤭

I'll glady send you a signed copy @TierM38

I'm not sure what you're trying to defend here when even the Left has been more than happy to forget about this. Unemployment didn't go down and the net cost was 3B euros. Also, the subprime crisis was in 2008, 8 years later.

Yes 35-40 is a good number but this isn't the issue: they expected a 4% reduction in work time would reduce unemployment by whatever the corresponding amount would be. Just like somebody retiring does not mean an automatic replacement, you're making the exact same assumption that led to this 35hr reform: the alleged premise that all individuals are equal and bound to replace one another on an exact 1 to 1 basis. If this was the case, the growing population on the planet would lead to ever growing unemployment, as it basically assumes individuals can only be employed by existing structures.

This article isn't about political recommendations, it lays out raw accounting numbers. The data does include everyone (cf: CNAVTS), not the "régime spéciaux".

😭️ The compound annual growth rate for our PAYGO system is currently 0.3% and still decreases every year. The MSCI World index has a CAGR over 10%... The first argument brought up in your article against capitalized pensions is that they are subject to a potential market crash... It is exactly as if you'd advise somebody to never get in a car because it could be involved in an accident. Capitalized pensions occur over a very long time periods (40+ years), the chance of losing value on a very common CW8-like index is 0.06%. The 2nd argument states that the PAYGO system is much more stable. Indeed it is, it is a 100% guarantee to be crippled in debt because it's extremely easy to foresee the shortcomings of the ratio when people stop having kids. Last, your article fails to address the elephant in the room: the system has been working somewhat well until now, but starting with our generation we are spending much, much more than what we will ever get back.

Things were better, because:

- more people contributed to society
- not as much benefits were handed out
- the high trust society they previously enjoyed has since collapsed largely due to unvetted immigration.

The why and how things were initially implemented are exactly the same reason why we need to make these cuts: because of a mix between individual abuse and bloated bureaucracy.

Welfare by definition is unconditional, since your sole lack of income is considered and not what your actions are. How is it fair to take from somebody who worked their ass off to give to somebody who didn't bother? The term "social justice" some love to use is by definition theft. It was never about justice, just like when people say "we need to censor X to protect democracy" was never about democracy. Everyone agrees with helping those who deserve to be helped. But we've collectively given up (or were forced to give up) on this very basic condition.

These are state funded companies, not state workers. Yes the state can and should back certain industries (transportation or energy for instance), but that doesn't mean replace them. Besides, whenever the state hires workers for jobs that could be handled by the private sector, it technically drives up unemployment because it removes room for such companies to operate, thus shrinking the economy.

I'll glady send you a signed copy @TierM38

@Etienne i really think you a smart and i like read your opinions i dont always agree with you 😬but i like to read it

@Etienne i really think you a smart and i like read your opinions i dont always agree with you 😬but i like to read it

I'm glad to see other people read this conversation at least 😛

This forum is very nice and i dont know yet if i understand everything fully. But still i like reading what others wrote.

Now there is something really new to write about the topic i think. For who can read Dutch: NU.NL news about happiest countries. And here is the report in English: World Happiness Report 2025.

I will translate part of the Dutch news about the report:

Finland is for the 8th year the country with the happiest people in the world, it shows in the World Happiness Report that was published Thursday. The Netherlands is 5th, one place higher than last year.

Just like last year the Scandanavian countries are all in the top 10. Denmark is 2nd and Iceland is 3rd, Sweden is 4th and Norway is 7th.

The happiness researchers identified several factors that make people happier in general, like social support, income, life expectation, freedom and if there is corruption in that country. For the report, the researchers analysed the period 2022-2024.

The authors discovered for example that faith in niceness of others is a lot more connected with happiness than they thought earlier. For example they made a paralel with the faith that others are willing to give back a lost wallet and the happiness of the people in that country. In Scandanavia people seem to have a lot more trust that the wallet is given back and it really happens more often.

Jeffrey Sachs, one of the writers of the report, says that the results of this year "confirm a fundamental truth". "Happiness is based on trust, friendliness and social connecting."

The authors also found out a strong link between sharing meals with others and happiness. "Happiness comes by our relations with others. Investing in positive social bonds and participating in positive actions both are linked with happiness", says Lara Aknin, one of the writers of the report.

On the list are 147 countries. Afghanistan has the last place. Costa Rica (6) and Mexico (10) are for the first time in the top 10. Germany is up from 24 to 22, the USA is one place lower: to the 24th place, the lowest position ever in the happiness report of that country.

This is the top 50:

1. Finland

2. Denmark

3. Iceland

4. Sweden

5. Netherlands

6. Costa Rica

7. Norway

8. Israel

9. Luxembourg

10. Mexico

11. Australia

12. New Zealand

13. Switzerland

14. Belgium

15. Ireland

16. Lithuania

17. Austria

18. Canada

19. Slovenia

20. Czech Republic

21. United Arab Emirates

22. Germany

23. United Kingdom

24. United States

25. Belize

26. Poland

27. Taiwan

28. Uruguay

29. Kosovo

30. Kuwait

31. Serbia

32. Saudi Arabia

33. France

34. Singapore

35. Romania

36. Brazil

37. El Salvador

38. Spain

39. Estonia

40. Italy

41. Panama

42. Argentina

43. Kazakhstan

44. Guatemala

45. Chile

46. Vietnam

47. Nicaragua

48. Malta

49. Thailand

50. Slovakia

Omg belgium

I'm not sure what you're trying to defend here when even the Left has been more than happy to forget about this. Unemployment didn't go down and the net cost was 3B euros. Also, the subprime crisis was in 2008, 8 years later.

What I am trying to say is that it's not only a reduction of time, but more than that and the effects might not be as good as expected, but also not as bad as its detractors. For examples, some estimate that it allowed the creation of 400k jobs (you might tell me that it is difficult to evaluate properly the number of jobs it created, but same could be said about its failure in this case). Yes, the crisis was in 2008; but then you would look only at the short terms effects?

Just like somebody retiring does not mean an automatic replacement, you're making the exact same assumption that led to this 35hr reform: the alleged premise that all individuals are equal and bound to replace one another on an exact 1 to 1 basis. If this was the case, the growing population on the planet would lead to ever growing unemployment, as it basically assumes individuals can only be employed by existing structures.

You are right to point out that a person going to retirement doesn't mean that the post will be reopened, and it's not rare to see that in Science. Digging a little, I found papers stating that, in the US, earlier retirement isnt linked to more job opportunities for younger worker. However, my quick search didn't allow me to determine if it was because the opportunities were shifted to less young workers, or if the average retirement age matched the early retirement reform (just like in France, we have 35h, buut average worker is about 39-40h).

France is not US, but it seems that my position sounds more like a bet here, in the end.

This article isn't about political recommendations, it lays out raw accounting numbers. The data does include everyone (cf: CNAVTS), not the "régime spéciaux".

I may be wrong, but a good part of the "subventions" really looks like they are used to fund the "régimes spéciaux". Also, yes, it's not about political recommendations, but you can legitimately question the article here, like the ideological interpretation or the aim.

😭️ The compound annual growth rate for our PAYGO system is currently 0.3% and still decreases every year. The MSCI World index has a CAGR over 10%... The first argument brought up in your article against capitalized pensions is that they are subject to a potential market crash... It is exactly as if you'd advise somebody to never get in a car because it could be involved in an accident. Capitalized pensions occur over a very long time periods (40+ years), the chance of losing value on a very common CW8-like index is 0.06%. The 2nd argument states that the PAYGO system is much more stable. Indeed it is, it is a 100% guarantee to be crippled in debt because it's extremely easy to foresee the shortcomings of the ratio when people stop having kids. Last, your article fails to address the elephant in the room: the system has been working somewhat well until now, but starting with our generation we are spending much, much more than what we will ever get back.

It's 10% for now and yes, the article first argument is about a potential market crash, which we are irronically rushing to in France, and no, it's not like a car crash where you actually drive your car. You have very little incidence on the market. Furthermore, my gt feeling as someone working in biology is that your chance of losing value is very optimistic given the energy crisis incoming, as well as resource crisis. I dont' know for how long you can realistically expect a 10% return every year without everything collapsing, but I admit finance is further and further from what I know.

You talk about elephant in the room too, but while you made a very good argument earlier talkign about how young doesn't need to wait elders to get a spot on the job market, you also forget that if it was only a demography issues, the system would have long crashed. It hasn't because we happens to be more productive (for now at least than our predecessors.

Additionnally, if you can make the problem a little bit easier to solve with a bunch of children, then nothing prevent the state to save the current system with a pro-natality policy, couldn't they?

Things were better, because:

- more people contributed to society
- not as much benefits were handed out
- the high trust society they previously enjoyed has since collapsed largely due to unvetted immigration.

The why and how things were initially implemented are exactly the same reason why we need to make these cuts: because of a mix between individual abuse and bloated bureaucracy.

Exactly. Then maybe you have grabbed, here, another potential way to fix, at least partly, the problem of welfare in France without having to turn it into a fully liberal state. I suppose that is something we are irreconciliable about though, as it recquire, from my perspective, an authoritarian turn to preserve etatism; both can't go without the other in my opinion.

Welfare by definition is unconditional, since your sole lack of income is considered and not what your actions are. How is it fair to take from somebody who worked their ass off to give to somebody who didn't bother? The term "social justice" some love to use is by definition theft. It was never about justice, just like when people say "we need to censor X to protect democracy" was never about democracy. Everyone agrees with helping those who deserve to be helped. But we've collectively given up (or were forced to give up) on this very basic condition.

No. Lack of income is already a condition and some other can be applied. I know that it sounds crazy because, in France, it's a crime to think this way (typically for so-called social-justice apologists), but conditional welfare is not something incongruent. RSA also is conditionned, but the conditions are very loosy and inneficient to say the least and many situations are favourising cheating strategies.
You could of course give up on most of welfare to get rid of all the thieves you'd find in every steps of welfare, and it would certainyl be much easier, but again, and probably because I got much help from the State, I'd rather try to fix it.

These are state funded companies, not state workers. Yes the state can and should back certain industries (transportation or energy for instance), but that doesn't mean replace them. Besides, whenever the state hires workers for jobs that could be handled by the private sector, it technically drives up unemployment because it removes room for such companies to operate, thus shrinking the economy.

Nowadays mostly, but in the past and from what I remember, there was a bunch of civil servant in companies like EDF, notably state engineers. If youu prefer another counter example though, you can look at the INRAE or IFSTTAR, where you have a good amount of applied sciences.
I honestly fail to see how hiring workers for jobs instead of favourising the private sectors shrink the economy. All I can think about while reading that is EDF and its troubles.

@Etienne @Lianshen i like read what you both wrighting 😊

This forum is very nice and i dont know yet if i understand everything fully. But still i like reading what others wrote.

Now there is something really new to write about the topic i think. For who can read Dutch: NU.NL news about happiest countries. And here is the report in English: World Happiness Report 2025.

I will translate part of the Dutch news about the report:

Finland is for the 8th year the country with the happiest people in the world, it shows in the World Happiness Report that was published Thursday. The Netherlands is 5th, one place higher than last year.

Just like last year the Scandanavian countries are all in the top 10. Denmark is 2nd and Iceland is 3rd, Sweden is 4th and Norway is 7th.

The happiness researchers identified several factors that make people happier in general, like social support, income, life expectation, freedom and if there is corruption in that country. For the report, the researchers analysed the period 2022-2024.

The authors discovered for example that faith in niceness of others is a lot more connected with happiness than they thought earlier. For example they made a paralel with the faith that others are willing to give back a lost wallet and the happiness of the people in that country. In Scandanavia people seem to have a lot more trust that the wallet is given back and it really happens more often.

Jeffrey Sachs, one of the writers of the report, says that the results of this year "confirm a fundamental truth". "Happiness is based on trust, friendliness and social connecting."

The authors also found out a strong link between sharing meals with others and happiness. "Happiness comes by our relations with others. Investing in positive social bonds and participating in positive actions both are linked with happiness", says Lara Aknin, one of the writers of the report.

On the list are 147 countries. Afghanistan has the last place. Costa Rica (6) and Mexico (10) are for the first time in the top 10. Germany is up from 24 to 22, the USA is one place lower: to the 24th place, the lowest position ever in the happiness report of that country.

This is the top 50:

1. Finland

2. Denmark

3. Iceland

4. Sweden

5. Netherlands

6. Costa Rica

7. Norway

8. Israel

9. Luxembourg

10. Mexico

11. Australia

12. New Zealand

13. Switzerland

14. Belgium

15. Ireland

16. Lithuania

17. Austria

18. Canada

19. Slovenia

20. Czech Republic

21. United Arab Emirates

22. Germany

23. United Kingdom

24. United States

25. Belize

26. Poland

27. Taiwan

28. Uruguay

29. Kosovo

30. Kuwait

31. Serbia

32. Saudi Arabia

33. France

34. Singapore

35. Romania

36. Brazil

37. El Salvador

38. Spain

39. Estonia

40. Italy

41. Panama

42. Argentina

43. Kazakhstan

44. Guatemala

45. Chile

46. Vietnam

47. Nicaragua

48. Malta

49. Thailand

50. Slovakia

Well, might be, but if you trust too much people in France, you will get naked. I wouldn't trust so much random people in Mexico either, at least in some states, although the ones I met were adorable!

Many people think that living in europe has more advantages. Is that true? Are the costs high? What about taxes? Weather? Hospital? Work? Let me know how it is in your country?forum: @Pennarossa2024, , @NILU1234, @Etienne, @Simone724, @mayuuram, @Sarahsalah27, @Esma-Nur, @Annika2007, @Emmiiii_17_11, @Miss_Penpal, @Sabri_KC, @allstarcheer, @martutuni, @Roseeeee, @-Kiki-, @Txya, @Lianshen, @LandRoverDiscovery2 @Esma-Nur @Yue @TierM38

Like every place Europe has Pros and Cons

Except Turkey and Russia and Hungary, ....

Except Turkey and Russia and Hungary, ....

it is ur opinion =)

Like every place Europe has Pros and Cons

I agree but if i look at all Pros and Cons i think for me it is the place. Even when sometimes other people disagree (they shout racist things) it is for me here home.

I agree (for now) with you Anny! @Yue_

I agree but if i look at all Pros and Cons i think for me it is the place. Even when sometimes other people disagree (they shout racist things) it is for me here home.

No!

I agree (for now) with you Anny! @Yue_

If you had to choose between Turkey and Germany you choose Germany? Or both? And if Germany: where? And if Turkey: where? 🙂