“Our research shows that there are many other analyzes of the state of our pension system”

Dince the Borne government officially launched its pension counter-reform, all the stylistic devices of reactionary rhetoric have been at work. Two or three tropes are enough for ministers to defend it and enclose its opponents in a formidable linguistic trap.

First and foremost “naturalize” it to remove it from debate: we live longer in our societies, so we should work longer. Then repeat anauseam that there would be no alternative (the famous “There Is No Alternative”, of Margaret Thatcher) and thus prevent the discussion by pretending to open it: if you do not approve ThisThis “reform” is that in reality you are not proposing any since there would be no other choice.

Finally, “dramatize”: any position other than that of the supporters of this policy would be culpable wait-and-see and would lead us to a catastrophic situation shortly.

There are variations but the fundamentals of government communication are always the same. They aim in thin one goal: to close the debate by giving the illusion that this “reform”, like so many others before it, would not be a political choice or a social choice, but an absolute and indisputable necessity, which should just have the “political courage” to implement.

No threat of collapse

To disqualify the critics, here again there is no need to argue on the merits, a few rhetorical turns are enough, pointing out the “dangers” and “perverse effects” that any social progress would have within it, like those who, since generations, defend a model of society where people work earlier (child labor at the end of the 19^e century, work-study, apprenticeship, civic service, etc.), longer, whatever the conditions and purposes. It being understood that only the working classes are compelled to this fate, idleness and leisure remaining the privilege of the owners…

However, there are many other analyzes of the state of our pension system and other proposals to improve it. As scholars, we show and document this in our research and writing. From this point of view, the reason is not on the side of the government.

The observation first. Although the pension system will probably experience deficits over the next ten years, it is not threatened with collapse. What is more, before claiming to want to save it, it would already be necessary not to scuttle it with (too) generous policies of exemptions from social security contributions (75 billion euros in 2022) which empty the coffers.

You have 61.63% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.