Does the graph indicates that actual retirement is on average before 60 in France, and on average way above 60 in South Korea?
I am guessing (with the help of a small check on Google) that life expantancy in both country are fairly close (79 vs 81, according to Google, and it doesn't discriminate men and women).
In any case, it strongly suggest that my beloved country will be in trouble soon (but isn't it suggested for quite a long time now?).
Does the graph show "actual retirement age" (which is around 62 in France for those who work, and around 58 for those who are unemployed at the time of retirement) or the legal age (which we know is 60)?
How many of these years are spent in relative health? How many of these years spent in hospital/care/great need?
Interesting data. Prof. Mankiw's comment (increase the age of eligibility) is hardly surprising but nonetheless mean-spirited. Faced with the humane abundance of those expanded years of leisure the conservative mind says, "Take it away from them!" Another solution: divert more of the increasingly concentrated and vast private wealth so that many can enjoy the prerogatives otherwise hoarded by the few.
Brent, Your idea of sharing the wealth is indeed a welcome corrective to Mankiw, but Mankiw's retort would no doubt be that a disproportionate share of social transfer payments already goes to older citizens. Indeed, there is an "insider-outsider" problem, in that the welfare state as currently conceived directs health and retirement benefits to the elderly while youth unemployment remains high. Owing to increased life expectancy after legal retirement age, each active worker must support a larger number of retirees, so the share of the social wage going to the old has increased. Generosity cannot do without replenishing the resources on which it depends. Hence it may be necessary for each to work longer so that all can live better: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," and at least some of those above the legal age of retirement have the ability to continue to contribute to the social good while retaining a reasonable prospect of enjoying an eventual period of healthy retirement.
I second MYOS's first paragraph. If the data has been calculated using the formula (life expectancy - legal age for retirement), as it looks to me given the caption, then the graph also tells that life expectancy in France is lower than the six following countries (Austria to Canada). That is not true. So I am pretty curious to know where the data being used comes from, and how they are were calculated.
8 comments:
Does the graph indicates that actual retirement is on average before 60 in France, and on average way above 60 in South Korea?
I am guessing (with the help of a small check on Google) that life expantancy in both country are fairly close (79 vs 81, according to Google, and it doesn't discriminate men and women).
In any case, it strongly suggest that my beloved country will be in trouble soon (but isn't it suggested for quite a long time now?).
Does the graph show "actual retirement age" (which is around 62 in France for those who work, and around 58 for those who are unemployed at the time of retirement) or the legal age (which we know is 60)?
How many of these years are spent in relative health? How many of these years spent in hospital/care/great need?
About Italy, the retirement age is wrong. It is around 60.
The graphic shows not the actual age of retirement but the "legal" age for claiming full retirement benefits.
Interesting data. Prof. Mankiw's comment (increase the age of eligibility) is hardly surprising but nonetheless mean-spirited. Faced with the humane abundance of those expanded years of leisure the conservative mind says, "Take it away from them!" Another solution: divert more of the increasingly concentrated and vast private wealth so that many can enjoy the prerogatives otherwise hoarded by the few.
Brent, Your idea of sharing the wealth is indeed a welcome corrective to Mankiw, but Mankiw's retort would no doubt be that a disproportionate share of social transfer payments already goes to older citizens. Indeed, there is an "insider-outsider" problem, in that the welfare state as currently conceived directs health and retirement benefits to the elderly while youth unemployment remains high. Owing to increased life expectancy after legal retirement age, each active worker must support a larger number of retirees, so the share of the social wage going to the old has increased. Generosity cannot do without replenishing the resources on which it depends. Hence it may be necessary for each to work longer so that all can live better: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," and at least some of those above the legal age of retirement have the ability to continue to contribute to the social good while retaining a reasonable prospect of enjoying an eventual period of healthy retirement.
I second MYOS's first paragraph. If the data has been calculated using the formula (life expectancy - legal age for retirement), as it looks to me given the caption, then the graph also tells that life expectancy in France is lower than the six following countries (Austria to Canada). That is not true. So I am pretty curious to know where the data being used comes from, and how they are were calculated.
Gah, I'd better follow the provided links next time, in order not to look stupid. ^^;
Post a Comment