While the timetable for pension reform is accelerating, the main unions and the left continue to castigate its “unequal” and “unfair” nature vis-à-vis the most modest. One argument has been particularly put forward in recent days by the opposition: the postponement of the legal retirement age (which must reach 64 by 2030) would be all the more violent as 25% of the most poor would have already died before reaching the age of 62. Is this assertion relayed by the rebellious elected officials correct? We take stock.
The rebellious MP for Val de Marne Clémence Guette repeated it Sunday on France 5: “A quarter of the poorest men would have already died at 62 and a third at 65”.
The statements of the rebellious elected official are based on INSEE data taken from a 2018 study on the mortality of French people by standard of living. The Institute of Statistics divides the French population into twenty categories, called “deciles”, ranging from the most modest (earning an average of 460 euros per month) to the wealthiest (with 5790 euros monthly). If we focus on the poorest 5% of men, almost 75% of them (74,660 out of 100,000 people) are still alive at 62 years old. In other words, 25% of the poorest have already died before reaching this age.
And among the wealthy? If we look at the wealthiest 5%, nearly 95% of men are still alive at 62. Thereby, Only 5% of the wealthiest died at age 62. The difference in life expectancy is such that there are 25% of men who died among the richest but from the age of 81, that is… almost 20 years after the most modest categories. This gap tends to widen over the years: at age 65, 31% of the poorest are already dead, nearly a third, as Clémence Guetté suggests, against only 7% of the richest.
While life expectancy has steadily increased in France over the years, social inequalities in the face of death persist. Unsurprisingly, the professions exercised always explain these differences but not only, observes Catherine Sofer, professor specializing in labor economics at the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne. “On the one hand, executives are less exposed to accidents, illnesses or chemical products than workers. On the other hand, the most privileged classes have a better lifestyle. This requires the more regular practice of a sport, a better quality diet, less widespread smoking…”, recalls the academic.
Access to care also differs from one setting to another. “The working classes traditionally go to the doctor less. On the contrary, they will enhance the resistance of the body. Above all, making an appointment with a specialist can be more complicated both from a financial point of view – with excess fees that are not covered by Social Security – and from a financial point of view. practice, given the importance of medical deserts in rural areas”, adds Constance Perrin-Joly, lecturer in sociology at the University of Paris 13.
13% of the poorest women died at age 62
And on the women’s side? The figure of “25%” put forward by the unions and the left-wing parties does not reflect their situation. At 62, 87% of the poorest French women are alive. In other words, 13% died at this age, or just under a quarter, again according to INSEE data. And if we look at the wealthiest classes, only 3% of French women died at the same age. The life expectancy of female workers today corresponds to that of female executives in the mid-1980s, INSEE has already observed in a previous study.
If the difference in life expectancy between men and women is maintained, it tends to decrease over the years. “Certain behaviors that we thought were more masculine are now spreading throughout the population: alcohol, tobacco, risky behaviour, etc.,” emphasizes Constance Perrin-Joly.
Despite these social inequalities, the government assures us that support measures will make it possible to attenuate the impact of the reform for the most modest workers. He wishes to better take into account “professional wear and tear”, by “strengthening medical monitoring” and by “accompanying these employees towards early departure arrangements at 62 years old”. An argument that is still struggling to convince the unions and the opposition, who intend to march in numbers on January 19 against the postponement of the legal age.