QWhat is the common point between the pension reform proposed three years ago by the government, described as “systemic” and supported by the CFDT, and the reform “parametric” of today, fought by the CFDT, the trade union front and the left parties? Both present themselves as defenses of the pay-as-you-go system, just like, moreover, the opposition to the current reform.
Amazing ! Would everyone agree? Is it possible ? The pay-as-you-go system is – it should be – the opposite of the capitalization system: it is the choice of solidarity against the choice of individualization. On the pay-as-you-go side, financing is done by compulsory deduction, by contribution; on the capitalization side, through savings.
On the one hand, solidarity financing where pensions are financed by the immediate and collective distribution of the contributions of active workers; on the other, individual financing where the pension is the deferred return of an investment. At the time of retirement, the pension fund sells the financial assets previously purchased on behalf of the saver. And who does he sell them to? To the active people of the moment, who in turn subscribe by buying them with their income, which itself comes in part from their work…
The consequences of individualization in the world of work
But hasn’t the Trojan horse of individualization infiltrated into the system that should be based on cooperation? This was obvious in the previous attempt since the “systemic” reform was based on a principle of “points” whose logic must be remembered: everyone can individually arbitrate their “retirement account”, there is no need to wave the red rag of the decline of the legal age (hence the membership of the CFDT).
Individualization in the world of work as a legitimization of inequalities is well known since it is already what justifies the differences in remuneration in the name of the fable of “merit”, the three ingredients of which would be the diploma, the responsibility and the ‘experience. Without embarking on the project of a radical questioning of such legitimization, one can nevertheless wonder why these inequalities would continue for retirement.
Is the non-work of a retired employee formally different from the non-work of a retired executive? No, since they are in the same situation: to “not work”, no diploma is required, the social responsibility is the same, no need for experience. Notwithstanding that not only have income inequalities been converted into wealth inequalities, but they have also allowed the individualistic financing of a supplementary pension by capitalization…
You have 49.55% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.