France Retirement Age: 60

(Newser) – As US voters and legislators are snipping workers' benefits, a nation on the other side of the pond is taking a different approach. France's new socialist president, François Hollande, is lowering the minimum retirement age by two years, reports the Telegraph. Those who begin work at the age of 18 and pay enough into the pension system can now retire with benefits at the age of 60. The move fulfills a campaign promise, and reverses the work of Nicolas Sarkozy, who raised the minimum retirement age from 60 to 62, sparking a storm of national protests.

We here have to wait until we're 67 (minus a few months for if born pre-1960). We can choose to get benefits as early as 62, but at a reduced rate.

60 seems crazy young; you can certainly work longer, even if you are French.

62 seems rather too young; I know your hip hurts, but we'll give you a desk job.

67 is getting there, but probably also too young; we got you a new hip so please see to your inbox.

But there is some age that makes the numbers come out right: as much coming in as going out. What is that number at the current input level?

Hey, France is a hotbed of entrepreneurialism, they should have no problem paying for it.

Although if you lose your job after age 50 it's really hard to find a new one, isn't it?

Many employers won't even look at your resume if you are over 50.

http://hr.cch.com/news/uiss/060712a.asp

68 here in Britland, and you've little chance of finding work if you're over 40 unless you're highly skilled.

asthmatic camel wrote:

68 here in Britland, and you've little chance of finding work if you're over 40 unless you're highly skilled.

I think it just depends on the type of job. That's probably so for manual labor jobs. Ditch diggin' is no place for a old man. They know it. You know it. Yea, you claim you can dig circles around those young whipper-snappers, but we all know better.

For other types of jobs, the prospects are at least as good if your skillz are there, and why shouldn't they be, you've been doing 'the' job for 20+ years! Then again, if your skills are there, why are you looking for a job?

But there is some age that makes the numbers come out right: as much coming in as going out. What is that number at the current input level?

You'd have to ask an actuary or statistician, and even they'd be guessing.

Rob Lister wrote:

But there is some age that makes the numbers come out right: as much coming in as going out. What is that number at the current input level?

Right now, it's about 78.6. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ ... 2s0105.pdf

Actually, with our deficits and relatively small size of Generations X and Y and the Millenials compared to the Boomers and Greatest Generation (and whatever you call those born in between the latter two), we'll all be required to work for 2.25 years after death. Zombies will have a strong union, I predict.

CH

Rob Lister wrote:

(Newser) – As US voters and legislators are snipping workers' benefits, a nation on the other side of the pond is taking a different approach. France's new socialist president, François Hollande, is lowering the minimum retirement age by two years, reports the Telegraph. Those who begin work at the age of 18 and pay enough into the pension system can now retire with benefits at the age of 60. The move fulfills a campaign promise, and reverses the work of Nicolas Sarkozy, who raised the minimum retirement age from 60 to 62, sparking a storm of national protests.

We here have to wait until we're 67 (minus a few months for if born pre-1960). We can choose to get benefits as early as 62, but at a reduced rate.
...(big snip)...
But there is some age that makes the numbers come out right: as much coming in as going out. What is that number at the current input level?

How about 70?

Skeeve wrote:

How about 70?

Why do you pick that number? CH, above, picked 78 for obvious reasons; that being the current average life expectancy. IIR, back when SS was first started, the average life expectancy was also the SS retirement age, or something pretty close. So only half would live long enough to see it, and if all went well, die shortly thereafter anyway.

There are two [primary] ways to make the numbers come out right. Increase the age of eligibility or increase the individual contribution. Doing both is also an option.

So ... why do you pick 70?

If you bump SS by two years for people under 40, undo the bush tax cuts, and stop the wars, we're solvent. Now.

but it'll never happen.

Rob Lister wrote:

There are two [primary] ways to make the numbers come out right. Increase the age of eligibility or increase the individual contribution. Doing both is also an option.

You forgot euthanasia.

A modest proposal:
Start out with a voluntary program to get people used to the idea.
Then start offering incentives, like a break on inheritance taxes to get the heirs behind the idea.
If this works well enough, phase 3 may not even be necessary for quite some time.

Rob Lister wrote:

Skeeve wrote:

How about 70?

Why do you pick that number? CH, above, picked 78 for obvious reasons; that being the current average life expectancy. IIR, back when SS was first started, the average life expectancy was also the SS retirement age, or something pretty close. So only half would live long enough to see it, and if all went well, die shortly thereafter anyway.

There are two [primary] ways to make the numbers come out right. Increase the age of eligibility or increase the individual contribution. Doing both is also an option.

So ... why do you pick 70?

Loosing the wage cap is another option, but no one wants to talk about that...hrmm wonder why.

As to why 70, hrm, three-score and ten and all that I suppose, no real hard numbers I just felt 65
was way too young, IMHO, YMMV. It also seems as if it is a do-able number, CH may be correct in his estimate, but I suspect the further above 70 you go, the less likely it is to be acted upon.

Interestingly enough a few top GOPer's seem to agree with me (go figure).
Top Republican: Raise Social Security's retirement age to 70

Skeeve wrote:

Rob Lister wrote:

Skeeve wrote:

How about 70?

Why do you pick that number? CH, above, picked 78 for obvious reasons; that being the current average life expectancy. IIR, back when SS was first started, the average life expectancy was also the SS retirement age, or something pretty close. So only half would live long enough to see it, and if all went well, die shortly thereafter anyway.

There are two [primary] ways to make the numbers come out right. Increase the age of eligibility or increase the individual contribution. Doing both is also an option.

So ... why do you pick 70?

Loosing the wage cap is another option, but no one wants to talk about that...hrmm wonder why.

You can talk about whatever you want. Just put some numbers or logic behind it.

Skeeve wrote:

As to why 70, hrm, three-score and ten and all that I suppose, no real hard numbers I just felt 65
was way too young, IMHO, YMMV. It also seems as if it is a do-able number, CH may be correct in his estimate, but I suspect the further above 70 you go, the less likely it is to be acted upon.

Interestingly enough a few top GOPer's seem to agree with me (go figure).
Top Republican: Raise Social Security's retirement age to 70

Nix the politics: it isn't a political question, it is a mathematical/logical puzzle. Certainly raising to 70 would help, but is 70 the right number? What do we need to know to calculate this number? CH provided half the answer.

Rob Lister wrote:

...

Skeeve wrote:

As to why 70, hrm, three-score and ten and all that I suppose, no real hard numbers I just felt 65
was way too young, IMHO, YMMV. It also seems as if it is a do-able number, CH may be correct in his estimate, but I suspect the further above 70 you go, the less likely it is to be acted upon.

Interestingly enough a few top GOPer's seem to agree with me (go figure).
Top Republican: Raise Social Security's retirement age to 70

Nix the politics: it isn't a political question, it is a mathematical/logical puzzle. Certainly raising to 70 would help, but is 70 the right number? What do we need to know to calculate this number? CH provided half the answer.

I beg to differ, politics is a big part of it.
You can come up with all the numbers you like, (CH did) good luck selling it politically...
Its not a real stretch to guess the further you push it back, the harder it will be to implement.

Skeeve wrote:

Rob Lister wrote:

...

Skeeve wrote:

As to why 70, hrm, three-score and ten and all that I suppose, no real hard numbers I just felt 65
was way too young, IMHO, YMMV. It also seems as if it is a do-able number, CH may be correct in his estimate, but I suspect the further above 70 you go, the less likely it is to be acted upon.

Interestingly enough a few top GOPer's seem to agree with me (go figure).
Top Republican: Raise Social Security's retirement age to 70

Nix the politics: it isn't a political question, it is a mathematical/logical puzzle. Certainly raising to 70 would help, but is 70 the right number? What do we need to know to calculate this number? CH provided half the answer.

I beg to differ, politics is a big part of it.
You can come up with all the numbers you like, (CH did) good luck selling it politically...
Its not a real stretch to guess the further you push it back, the harder it will be to implement.

No, politics has nothing to do with the actual math. nix the politics. we're not trying to 'sell it' to anyone.

Do you really not know the difference between real and political? What are the actual answers, not the answers you or others want to hear.

There is a number that is correct at the current levels, regardless of what people think of those numbers.

what are the numbers.

jj wrote:

If you bump SS by two years for people under 40, undo the bush tax cuts, and stop the wars, we're solvent. Now.

Please show someone's work that demonstrates that. Thanks.

but it'll never happen.

Yes, I know. Your Park Ranger doesn't fit on the screen.

... stop the wars ...

Obtuse humor?

Rob Lister wrote:

Skeeve wrote:

How about 70?

Why do you pick that number? CH, above, picked 78 for obvious reasons; that being the current average life expectancy. IIR, back when SS was first started, the average life expectancy was also the SS retirement age, or something pretty close. So only half would live long enough to see it, and if all went well, die shortly thereafter anyway.

There are two [primary] ways to make the numbers come out right. Increase the age of eligibility or increase the individual contribution. Doing both is also an option.

So ... why do you pick 70?

Why not?
Oh you want numbers, okay here's some numbers its interesting, but fahh, just a guess.
Heres another link:

According to data compiled by the Social Security Administration:
•A man reaching age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 83.
•A woman turning age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 85.

And those are just averages. About one out of every four 65-year-olds today will live past age 90, and one out of 10 will live past age 95.

oh well, guess CH was a bit shy there... still its just a guess.
So what the heck, okay I say 70, what do you say Rob?
What do you think is a good year/age?

jj wrote:

If you bump SS by two years for people under 40, undo the bush tax cuts, and stop the wars, we're solvent. Now.

but it'll never happen.

You are solvent for a bit. Spending has to be reduced. If you add money, it will get spent. Period.

ed wrote:

jj wrote:

...
If you add money, it will get spent. Period.

Aint that the truth!

...
1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)

2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.

3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.

4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything. The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan’s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.

5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006. (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspan’s role in initiating the Social Security surplus revenue.)

6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers. Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.

and neither did slick Willie, or Dubya.

...
The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated approximately $2.5 trillionin surplus Social Security revenue which is supposed to be in the trust fund for use in paying for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers. But the trust fund is empty! It contains no real assets. As a result, the government will soon be unable to pay full benefits without a tax increase. Money can be spent or it can be saved. But you can’t do both. Absolutely none of the $2.5 trillion was saved or invested in anything.

Well, a tad mis-leading:

...
When program revenues exceed payments (i.e., the program is in surplus) the extra funds are borrowed and used by the government for other purposes, but a legal obligation to program recipients is created to the extent this occurs. These surpluses add to the Trust Fund. At the end of 2011, the Trust Fund contained (or alternatively, was owed) $2.7 trillion, up $69 billion from 2010.[1] The fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government.

But I believe Ed you are essentially correct, if they raised the SS Tax, took off the cap, raised retirement age, and or all of the above, some douche-bag in Washington would probably piss away any excess (oh there will be some - not to worry) on something.

ed wrote:

...
If you add money, it will get spent. Period.

Aint that the truth!

...
1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)

2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.

3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.

4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything. The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan’s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.

5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006. (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspan’s role in initiating the Social Security surplus revenue.)

6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers. Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.

and neither did slick Willie, or Dubya.

...
The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated approximately $2.5 trillionin surplus Social Security revenue which is supposed to be in the trust fund for use in paying for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers. But the trust fund is empty! It contains no real assets. As a result, the government will soon be unable to pay full benefits without a tax increase. Money can be spent or it can be saved. But you can’t do both. Absolutely none of the $2.5 trillion was saved or invested in anything.

Well, a tad mis-leading:

...
When program revenues exceed payments (i.e., the program is in surplus) the extra funds are borrowed and used by the government for other purposes, but a legal obligation to program recipients is created to the extent this occurs. These surpluses add to the Trust Fund. At the end of 2011, the Trust Fund contained (or alternatively, was owed) $2.7 trillion, up $69 billion from 2010.[1] The fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government.

[/quote]But I believe Ed you are essentially correct, if they raised the SS Tax, took off the cap, raised retirement age, and or all of the above, some douche-bag in Washington would probably piss away any excess (oh there will be some - not to worry) on something.

Polititions spend money because that is how they get votes which is the prime directive.

As with closet space in a home, there is no such thing as too much money in government coffers. Matters not which party controls. It will get spent. Ed's right; the only way to protect wager earners' wallets from Congress' thieving fingers is to impose a hard limit on Congress' spending. That invariably means shrinking government's roles in our affairs, which means less regulation, not more. With regulation comes the need for more government employees and oversight, which means more spending.

Statists (on both the left and the right, and everywhere in between) want regulation and oversight, but they don't seem to understand that every regulation costs both freedom and money. Regulation isn't free. Think about that next time before you say, "There ought to be a law..."

CH

On the other hand, deregulation led to the entire fucking housing bubble debacle, did it not? Those money changing cocksuckers have got to be watched or they take down the whole world for the sake of profit.......

sparks wrote:

On the other hand, deregulation led to the entire fucking housing bubble debacle, did it not? Those money changing cocksuckers have got to be watched or they take down the whole world for the sake of profit.......

Spoken like a true statist. Anyone who uses profit like it's a dirty word ought never be allowed to make one. Your wages should be taxed at 100% for the sake of consistency.

CH

Cool Hand wrote:

sparks wrote:

On the other hand, deregulation led to the entire fucking housing bubble debacle, did it not? Those money changing cocksuckers have got to be watched or they take down the whole world for the sake of profit.......

Spoken like a true statist. Anyone who uses profit like it's a dirty word ought never be allowed to make one. Your wages should be taxed at 100% for the sake of consistency.

CH

Nothing wrong with a profit, "the labourer is worthy of their hire" and all that.
Nothing wrong with some regulation (laws) either, gives guys like you a job, no?
Finding the 'happy medium' as it were is the problem, and yes, every time they
try to 'change-it-to-make-it-better' you gotta ask, "better for who?"

Sparks is correct to point out the 'relaxation/elimination' of regulations (CFMA) played its part in the crash we got to experience a few years back.

Cool Hand wrote:

sparks wrote:

On the other hand, deregulation led to the entire fucking housing bubble debacle, did it not? Those money changing cocksuckers have got to be watched or they take down the whole world for the sake of profit.......

Spoken like a true statist. Anyone who uses profit like it's a dirty word ought never be allowed to make one. Your wages should be taxed at 100% for the sake of consistency.

CH

Wow, you've gone all teabagger, haven't you?

The problem is not profit, it's excessive profits collected via short-term thinking, i.e. arbitrage-related thinking.

ed wrote:

jj wrote:

If you bump SS by two years for people under 40, undo the bush tax cuts, and stop the wars, we're solvent. Now.

but it'll never happen.

You are solvent for a bit. Spending has to be reduced. If you add money, it will get spent. Period.

So, because we have a solution to stabilize the situation, we shouldn't do that because somebody might misbehave at some time in the future, you say?

In other words, your argument says that the country is doomed, no matter what.

That's ridiculous. It's an argument to avoid doing what needs to be done.

Pathetic.

jj wrote:

Cool Hand wrote:

sparks wrote:

On the other hand, deregulation led to the entire fucking housing bubble debacle, did it not? Those money changing cocksuckers have got to be watched or they take down the whole world for the sake of profit.......

Spoken like a true statist. Anyone who uses profit like it's a dirty word ought never be allowed to make one. Your wages should be taxed at 100% for the sake of consistency.

CH

Wow, you've gone all teabagger, haven't you?

The problem is not profit, it's excessive profits collected via short-term thinking, i.e. arbitrage-related thinking.

Oh, I just love the goal-post shifting. Profits good, "excessive" profits bad.

OK, Batman, riddle me this. Who decides how much profit is "excessive," and how?

CH

Consumers decide how much profit is excessive, unless they're served by a monopoly or cartel for essentials. They buy or they don't.

asthmatic camel wrote:

Consumers decide how much profit is excessive, unless they're served by a monopoly or cartel for essentials.

Food self-sufficiency in the USA was among the main subversive activities of the Black Panthers.

asthmatic camel wrote:

Consumers decide how much profit is excessive, unless they're served by a monopoly or cartel for essentials. They buy or they don't.

No. Consumers define the fair market price. Profit varies as a function of that.

ed wrote:

asthmatic camel wrote:

Consumers decide how much profit is excessive, unless they're served by a monopoly or cartel for essentials. They buy or they don't.

No. Consumers define the fair market price. Profit varies as a function of that.

You're both mistaking Utopian dreams for reality.

ed wrote:

asthmatic camel wrote:

Consumers decide how much profit is excessive, unless they're served by a monopoly or cartel for essentials. They buy or they don't.

No. Consumers define the fair market price. Profit varies as a function of that.

I have a book for you to read. It's by William Poundstone, who mainly digests what experts have researched and reported and then feeds it to laypersons. It's called Priceless: The Myth of Fairvalue and was first published in 2010, so it's current and relevant. One of the many myths it dispels is the notion from Macroeconomics about the demand curve and how fair markets determine price. Price is entirely artificial, as humans are terrible at assigning values to goods and services. We're good at being sensitive to relative changes, but without referents, we would have no idea how much a loaf of bread is worth. Psychological factors like anchoring play a much greater role in the determination of price than any of us would care to admit, traditional economics be damned.

CH

CH, I'm not a wealthy man by anyone's standards and know exactly how much a loaf of bread is worth; a certain percentage of my limited income.

It's not rocket science.

asthmatic camel wrote:

CH, I'm not a wealthy man by anyone's standards and know exactly how much a loaf of bread is worth; a certain percentage of my limited income.

It's not rocket science.

Really? Indeed, it is very much a science, and not at all what you might think it is. Pricing and the use of very sophisticated price consultants lies somewhere near the intersection of psychology and economics and game theory, and it is very big business.

Anyway, read the book. You might find that the price of bread is not determined so much by the market, but much more by people like these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Kucher_%26_Partners.

Again, without referents, without knowing in advance based on your lifetime of experience how much a loaf of bread is supposed to cost, you would have no idea. No one would. You might have a good intuitive sense that a loaf of bread shouldn't cost as much as a house, but you would suck at assigning an arbitrary quantitative value to it, or even one relative to the price of a house, after assigning some qualitative value to that. We all suck at that. We are very good at sensing changes in the price, however, because we're intuitively sensitive to relative changes, but not to intuiting the appropriate absolute quantitative price.

CH

If people aren't buying, they lower the price. Particularly something perishable.
This is true even for a monopoly.

Abdul Alhazred wrote:

If people aren't buying, they lower the price. Particularly something perishable.
This is true even for a monopoly.

You just convinced me to go look for a CSA.

DrMatt wrote:

Abdul Alhazred wrote:

If people aren't buying, they lower the price. Particularly something perishable.
This is true even for a monopoly.

You just convinced me to go look for a CSA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community- ... griculture