The proposals of the journalist and politician Éric Zemmour on the subjects of retirement, work during interviews and political debates with candidates for the French presidential election of 2022.
We have to relocate industries. But for that we must ignore the European regulations. We must also impose national priority for public procurement.
We must oppose universal income. Rather, we need to make people work, to introduce protectionism. Benoît Hamon claimed responsibility on the pretext of the end of work. Unfortunately he is right. Universal income reflects a liberal philosophy, joined today by a certain left, that is to say individualism. We give 500 euros to a person who then has to manage. There is no longer a project or a collective objective. It is deeply liberal, in the sense of the individual is king.
We have deindustrialised ourselves so much and made ourselves independent of inexpensive products imported from Asia, that it will be very difficult to return to the consumption of quality products. If we reindustrialize, if we relocate, the French also have better wages. The Swiss minimum wage is 4000 euros, while the French minimum wage is 1200 euros. Salaries are not high enough because French productivity is too low. We have been in a trade deficit for 20 years, we have a balance of payments deficit of 40 billion, which is enormous. France is gradually being bought by foreigners.
We must first increase production, and only then wages. It is through industry that we will be able to rebalance our trade accounts. People who work in industry have better social promotion than people who work in entry-level services. We have to rebuild the economic system. France threw itself into the arms of consumption, importation and debt. We abandoned the path of production.
The fact of having increased the minimum wage considerably for years, not to mention the enormous social charges, this has led to many relocations of French companies. This contributed to deindustrialization. The Germans have only had the minimum wage for a few years, it is more flexible than ours.
The current pension reform is led by the Brussels commission. The European commissioners have called on the French government to reform the pension system in order to obtain the loan and the subsidies from the European plan. There is in any case a need to reform this pension system which poses many problems. The distribution system only works if there are a lot of contributors compared to the number of retirees. In the 60s and 70s, there were 4 contributors for a retiree. While today we are at 1.6, even 1.7 contributors per retiree. So we are in difficulty, not to mention the high unemployment which means that we have fewer contributors.
The pay-as-you-go system must be questioned. Some liberals propose a system of capitalization. We have bad memories with this type of system because it collapsed after the crisis of 1929. And that's why the Vichy regime created the pay-as-you-go system in 1940-1941. All of this has a history and is found in the collective unconscious. So a solution to the retirement system would not be simple, we could mix the two by having a pay-as-you-go system with a minority capitalization share. This is what we do for civil servants, for executives.
The point retirement system, the French quickly understood that the point could be lowered if the economic conjecture required it. They therefore pushed the president to back down on his major systemic reform.
Nowadays we are coming back with a more modest measure, but perhaps more effective, which would be to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 years. We could even go up to 65, that's not shocking. However, we must be in favor of this proposal on condition that companies keep their senior employees. Otherwise it would put these people out of work, there would be no interest. We would lighten the retirement funds, but we would increase the unemployment and active solidarity income funds. Already today, half of the people who retire at 62 are no longer at work.
Businesses have had some really bad habits over the last 30 years even though they are reducing it. We must require companies by a system of bonus malus, with reductions in charge if they keep seniors. It is not the fact of scrapping seniors, that we are going to employ young people. It's a myth of the 1980s. In countries like Japan and Germany, older people are put to work, they are kept, they are the memory of the company. And that does not prevent them from hiring young people, especially if they are trained by the elders. It is convenient for companies to fire old workers because they are too expensive. We have to change this mentality. This is the main condition for having a legitimate pension reform.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.