While the final bill for the pension reform arrives this Thursday, March 16 in the National Assembly, the government has made the decline in the retirement age the unwavering pillar of policy; he does not budge. Facing him the unions, historically united, and a very large and solid majority of the population oppose it, without flinching. In this confrontation, two visions come together, both of which relate to the use of time.
The clash of two principles
For some, usually on the right, one reality prevails: progress produces an expansion of the time scale, tendential, gradual, unstoppable, which applies to all ages of life – lengthening of training time, leading to a decline that of entry into employment; lengthening of lifespan, leading to a decline in that of entry into death. Consequently, it seems logical, not to say biological, that this dilation of time does not escape that dedicated, or indeed due, to work, and that the duration of life which is granted to it, too, lengthens, naturally, if not fatally. For the others, classically on the left, the reward for progress, harshly torn from history, is the ever greater escape from the long yoke of labor – from the end of child labor to the reduction of the working week. worked, passing through paid holidays -, and therefore the extension of time expressly qualified as free, and finally perceived as that of real life.
Each of the adversaries sticks to their principle, unshakeably. Yet there may be a way of compromise.
The idea is simple: it is to take life expectancy as a pivotal variable – since in this battle it is humanly what counts -; to measure its progression in a fixed and regular sequence; and of the observed gain divide into two parts: one converted into an extension of the retirement age, the other kept as overtime spent in retirement. One brought to work, the other kept for oneself; one for his work time, the other for his free time; one to the community, and the other to its own life.
More precisely: the right variable seems to be life expectancy at age 60 – that is to say not at the threshold, but at the approach of retirement. Barely a few weeks after the end of each year, INSEE gives the renewed value, based on indisputable civil status data, distinguishing between men and women (INSEE does not provide figures bringing them together) .
Thus, we can envisage that towards the end of January once every three years, or even every four years – these sequences seem to be the relevant duration -, trade unions and public authorities meet, take note of the gain in life expectancy at age 60 observed over the period, and act together the part that will relate to the postponement of the retirement age and will go to work, and that which will conversely be earned in additional time in retirement. This sharing endorsed, the new retirement threshold would take effect on July 1 of the same year and for the following three or four years. And so, from period to period, without more philosophical debate, expert figures, scholarly scenarios, or effervescent social struggles and exacerbated political battles, in the routine of an established, chained, permanent rule.
The benefits of this device
Sharing from period to period the gain in life expectancy between retirement age and time to retirement: this system has some virtues. In the first place, it reconciles the two antagonistic principles, which are at the crux of the current deadlock: that of the extension of working time inherent in the lengthening of life time, that of the enjoyment of additional time at retirement as a deserved reward for human progress.
Then it has the virtue of simplicity. The majority of French people agree that the reform is incomprehensible, drowned in expert calculations and in specific cases. Out of the jumble of clashes, a single idea floats, crushing all the rest: as we grow older, we will have to work two more years. It is true that the subject matter is tough, and not everyone will have had the heart to wrestle with the half-thousand pages of the work of the COR and the impact study, with their scholarly complexities. While life expectancy, everyone understands.
Then comes the solidity, because it is based on recorded, indisputable figures, drawn from the civil status. Far from the skein of forecasts and uncertainties, we can hear these figures and resume with confidence. This is where acceptability comes from: raising the starting age is done on a clear basis, understood, verifiable by everyone, instead of being the game of episodic and abrupt decisions, with a technocratic overtone.
This device also has the advantage of fluidity: the changes are periodic, regular and gradual; and flexibility: the sharing parameters, between work and retirement or between income levels, can be reviewed at each meeting. Because another of its virtues is that it leaves plenty of room for social dialogue, both on the key to sharing the gain in life expectancy and on the thresholds that may be chosen to modulate the starting ages according to living standards. .
Finally, and this is not the least, it can convey the feeling of a certain fairness: not content with ensuring a division between retirement and work, it can tackle, in part and in a global way, the question of inequalities with regard to retirement, and through this bias, up to a certain point, that of arduous work. It is therefore also a bearer of appeasement.
A name for this device? RELEVES, for: Balanced Redistribution of the Length of Additional Effective Life Expectancy.