NWe are between 15 and 36 years old. We know that at retirement age we will have to survive in a world of +3°C warming, which our parents saw coming since the 1970s. We now know that we may also have to work longer, for lower pensions than those of our elders, whose level of income and wealth is already much higher than ours. In short: our generation suffers a double injustice and we ask him to pay.
The postponement of the legal retirement age is presented to us as an unsurpassable horizon, while it results from an ideological choice promoted by the right, accepted by the center, despite the strong opposition of a majority of the country. .
Who supports this reform? According to a survey published in January and carried out by Cluster 17 for the weekly Point74% of French people show negative feelings towards the reform, but among those who appreciate it are 46% of Emmanuel Macron voters and 33% of Valérie Pécresse voters, against 0% of Jean-Luc Mélenchon voters and 9% of Anne Hidalgo voters. Those who support retirement at 64 are those who will not suffer the consequences: retirees and the most privileged classes.
Who will undergo this reform? The most precarious, who die earlier, women, those who started working at the age of 18, 19 or 20, catering staff, supermarket checkout staff, caregivers, nurses, forklift drivers, childcare workers… And those who, as high school students today, will go on to apprenticeships or for higher technician certificates (BTS).
Does the government want to financially rebalance a pension system that it says is adrift? We know where to find the money: by taxing the highest retirement pensions more, by increasing the employment rate for seniors and by giving everyone a guarantee of employment in professions useful to society (which will increase pension contributions), by taxing the inheritance and the indecent fortune of billionaires enriched by the crises and the destruction of the living, by making contribute the income of the heritage…
Building another legacy
But, beyond the technical arguments, this pension reform raises a fundamental debate: what world do we want? Our choice is made. We do not want this world which glorifies the “value of work”, but which creates unemployment and exclusion, which destroys the planet, which puts pressure on public power to impoverish it, organizes competition and injustice tax. This world that replaces workers with robots who do not contribute, neither for retirement nor for Social Security, then asks them to pay the bill to allow this infernal machine to continue to turn.
You have 42.49% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.