We shouldn’t have to work ourselves to death.
In France for the past three months, aÂ million or more people have filled the streets of cities across the country in daily rolling protests and strikes opposing the national pension reform proposed by French president Emmanuel Macron.
The plan would raise the age of eligibility for a government pension — in effect, the minimum retirement age — from 62 to 64. Although nearly two-thirds of the French people oppose this change and the French parliament did not have the votes to approve it, Macron unilaterally pushed it through. He claimed it was needed to respond to people living longer and the French governmentâs debt. Macron later narrowly avoided a no-confidence vote in the National Assembly, but protests continued by angry citizens.
French Workers Are Speaking Out
In a story about a protest in the city of Metz, in northeastern France, not far from the German border, the French daily newspaper Le Monde quoted two workers from a nearby power plant run by the giant French electrical utility EDF.
One explained why he was protesting: “Iâve been on shift work there for 31 years, so Iâm pretty fed up.â Another said that, “We work all year round in noise, heat, with risks from chemicals and radiation. We wonât let our best years of retirement be stolen.â
Debates over how much a person works for wages are not new. In the United States, the National Labor Union called for an eight-hour workday starting in 1866. It wasnât until 1940 that an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act gave us the 40-hour work week standard. Of course, there remains consistent pressure from employers to work longer days and longer weeks, although some employers and workers are floating the idea of a four-day work week.
How much work goes into a day or week is one question about work. But perhaps an even greater — and more existential — question is how much work goes into a lifetime? For the French (who seem to love existential questions), the answer found on many protest signs has been “64 years. Itâs a No.â
Living Longer Shouldn’t Equal Working Longer
For many Americans, 64 seems like a perfectly fine answer. After all, when the U.S. raised its age for full Social Security benefits from 65 to 67 in 1983, there were no protests to mark the occasion. The rationale for the change was similar to Franceâs: the Social Security fund was projected to run low on money in the coming decades.
Perhaps people didnât protest because the 1983 law phased in the two-year increase over 22 years. The people affected most were in their 20s and likely werenât paying attention.
Forty years later, those born in 1960 or after — the oldest of whom today are in their early 60s — are stuck with 67 as the age at which they can collect full social security benefits. If they retire earlier, say at 62, theyâd receive only 70% of the full benefit. At 65, retirees get just 86.7% of the benefits theyâd be eligible for if they kept working for two more years.
This all may sound very logical — as people live longer, they can work longer and hold off on receiving Social Security benefits theyâve paid into their whole working lives. But as the French protestors understand, working-class people often canât stay on the job that long. And even if they could, they would have fewer years after their working lives to enjoy retirement.
People may live longer now, compared to decades ago, but it shouldnât necessarily invite years of more work.
A French study from 2021 found that postponing the retirement age results in more frequent and longer sick leave for older workers, “due to the gradual deterioration in the health status of workers at the end of their careers,â Le Monde reported.
It isnât just the physical demands of many working-class jobs. Itâs a class issue we can see if we look at the senior citizen country club set. As an extensive study by the Brookings Institution shows, “income is a strong predictor of life expectancy.â
The study explains the income effect in more detail, noting that, “For example, 40-year-old men with incomes in the bottom 1% have an expected age at death of 72 years, while those with incomes in the top 1% have an expected age at death of 87 years — 15 years longer.â The pattern plays out for women, as well.
Working-class people are likelier to live shorter lives, and many have started working full-time earlier than their middle-class counterparts, so they work more years before reaching age 67 and receiving full benefits. Worse, they may need to continue working even after that to survive, since Social Security alone often isnât sufficient.
Meanwhile, wealthier people may start their work lives later and have more years to draw upon Social Security.
About the Author: Christopher R. Martin is a professor of Digital Journalism in the Department of Communication and Media at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls, Iowa.
This is a portion of a blog originally that originally appeared in full at In These Times on April 11, 2023. Republished with permission.