The economist John Keynes is above all known for his role as the architect of the theories underlying the Welfare State, the origin in France of Social Security and our pension system. One of his lesser-known forecasts is that of a 15-hour week, which he made almost a century ago, in 1930. According to his logic, the increase in productivity thanks to technical progress should allow everyone to work less. And if many of his principles have been applied and that working time has indeed decreased during his lifetime, it is now stagnating, the French 35 hours seeming almost lenient compared to the 40 of most of our neighbors - and even being violently opposed by a large part of the political class.
Since the 1980s, neoliberal policies have been on the rise, with ever more austerity and ever more demands imposed on workers. If since the 2008 crisis, neoliberalism has again been fought with alternatives of Marxist and socialist inspiration, including a reduction in working time, the criticism of bullshit jobs which would have no other interest than to alienate workers in order to maintain artificial full employment, or even the proposal for universal incomes, the fact remains that austerity policies still dominate , the latest pension reform envisaging a further increase in the retirement age.
And in fact, between the lengthening of the contribution period and the raising of the retirement age, seniors have never worked as much as they do today – not sure that this is the future that Keynes envisioned. Full employment, then, but at what cost? That of a figures policy that focuses only on unemployment statistics, and completely ignores the well-being of employees holding several jobs, or who cannot even enjoy their retirement peacefully - which is precisely the promise made by it. Precariousness is not just a statistical matter, therefore:it is also a question of affect.
And even though the question of raising the retirement age raises questions, as we know that seniors are discriminated against on the labor market, and struggle to find a job when they find themselves unemployed, some are doing the choice to continue working after retirement. This would be the case for 3.4% of them, according to a study published in 2020 by DREES, the Department of Research, Studies, Evaluation and Statistics – a figure that may seem low, but which would nevertheless concern 482,000 of our fellow citizens. And who probably ignores a large number of jobs, impossible to estimate because they are not always exercised legally, whether it is DIY or childcare.
There are several modalities of these employees-retirees, among those who declare it, but the one that concerns the overwhelming majority of them is the accumulation of employment and retirement. This system quite simply allows you to receive your retirement pension (at full rate or not, depending on each person) with another professional activity, whatever the nature of this activity, and whatever the nature of that activity. that they have previously exercised. In short, we get our retirement pension(s) as they are due to us, but we still choose to continue to exercise an activity (on which we continue to pay contributions, like any what other worker, without however being able to benefit from it since 2015), for some by difficulty in leaving the world of work, for others… by lack of income.
The other options are those of the bonus, which consists of increasing your pension, continuing to work longer and accumulating quarters; the other is that of phased retirement, which roughly consists of going part-time while already starting to benefit from part of your retirement pension. But these do not interest us as much as that of the combination of employment and retirement, which concerns more odd jobs and is therefore quite symptomatic of a certain precariousness (which does not mean that they are not necessarily the signs either:the premium suggests a basic retirement deemed too low, gradual retirement that of fatigue approaching retirement, the age of which continues to decline).
Although Germany is regularly cited as a model and a "good student" of austerity policies thanks to its low unemployment rate, we also know that these figures are the result of policies favoring the accumulation of odd jobs, known overseas Rhine under the name of "minijobs" - jobs not exceeding a salary of €450, attractive for students but also for anyone in a precarious situation who cannot make ends meet; and among them, the seniors. Thus, if only 30% of 60-64 year olds work in France, the proportion is doubled among our neighbors - certainly, also due to an even later retirement age than here.
If once again, it is difficult to estimate the reasons pushing everyone to make this choice, the types of jobs favored by the sites promoting the accumulation of a job and retirement suggest that this is rather of a necessity due to too low retirement pensions, so much do they correspond perfectly to the idea that one has of a small job - these works that one can easily carry out outside the framework of the conventional employment, with the CESU (Universal service employment check, aimed at simplifying the remuneration of employees at home) for example, or by declaring oneself self-entrepreneur, or quite simply under the table. By this we mean childcare, animal care, home support courses, personal services, repairs of all kinds, or even the distribution of advertisements and leaflets! In short, we are a long way from a former President of the Republic who would occupy his retirement with consulting activities, for example.
Babysitting your grandchildren to help out the parents and because you want to spend time and build an intimate relationship with them is one thing, babysitting those of a stranger for a fee because you are not able to fully provide for his needs solely with the help of his pension is an entirely different one. As we know, the question of the precariousness of the elderly is one of the most pressing, with the aging of the population only tending to increase. Nevertheless, if the solution adopted is to put the oldest and most fragile part of our population back on the job, if we are not even offended to see retirees accept precarious jobs, and in this way scuttle the promises of what was once called the welfare state, that is a sign of a failure as a society—as a community. Perhaps it is time to turn our backs on rigor, and remember Keynes' prediction. Because according to the latest news, our production system is not creating less wealth than in 1930, far from it.
