- " the past 10 years:
93% of funds from the individual system (PRIVATE) had a lower return than inflation and 99.3% had a lower return than government bonds of 10 years ".
continuous
Article: http://www.attacmadrid.org/?p=1813
"The" problems "of the public pension system, are only interested myths
The debate is launched to encourage private pension " or MORE MONEY TO PLAY IN BAG "
GLOBAL PENSION FUNDS MANAGED THE 35% OF ALL THE THINGS MOVING IN THE WORLD. AND THIS NEED FOOD .... WANT MORE
Etxezarreta Look, just published What pensions, what future (Icaria), and documented a relentless attack on the hegemonic approaches "system crisis public pensions, which strongly denies existence. LOOK FANTASTIC CONFERENCE
E. :
pensions. Truths and lies. (Look Etxezarreta) from Social Art Productions on Vimeo .
Do not you think that the pension system public is in crisis?
I do not see it anywhere. Nor is or think it will be.
But the projections are there: ever more elderly and fewer young people.
We have four million unemployed! Then the problem would be in the labor market, not pensions.
Well, the problem would come from elsewhere, but it exists.
Not necessarily. There is another trap that is economic nonsense: it relates the amount of money to pay by the number of pensions to be paid.
But important thing is not how many produce but how much is produced . 50 years ago needed a lot of labor force to produce food now with very few people get. The
key should be the national wealth, not the number of contributors. Pensions are paid from contributions by employees, but need not necessarily be so. could involve other actors.
- What if while missing from the equation, either for whatever reason?
This is another powerful myth: why must be balanced the budget for pensions? Perhaps it is the Army's What about the Royal Family ? What about the Education ? Social All items are deficient, for accounting purposes .
Why must be balanced pension?
- If the problem does not exist, why the Government proposes to delay the retirement age, with the political cost that may be?
It was a great blunder of Zapatero. L guess or do to try to convince the international markets (private banks) that are willing to be tough . But it could also be a smokescreen to prevent people to look at another very serious issue: the 50,000 million budget cut has promised over three years. It is an impressive number!
But the debate is global. Why explode?
To help private pension plans , which is an asset f antástica for financial capital, which is the dramatic reports charge.
For them it's a huge inflow of funds, which are insured for many years. And they can invest in stock with the addition that if they lose, you lose . They never.
- The EU has also sounded the alarm.
Right. And has a lot to do with their efforts to mount an integrated capital market. Want to keep up on Wall Street, but this requires very large capital. In fact, anyone interested in the pension of the elderly.
- Is there a relationship between private pension plans and the bubble?
course. The major investors are pension funds. Imagine all the capital raised for speculation with the whole middle class and all Americans workers providing money to a fund for 30 years!
- What are the effects of the bursting of the bubble private pensions?
Huge. As are linked to stock market developments, there is no guarantee that the retiree will receive a good pension. If
reveals something this crisis is the problem with the private system, not the public.
E. :
pensions. Truths and lies. (Look Etxezarreta) from Social Art Productions on Vimeo .
I do not see it anywhere. Nor is or think it will be.
But the projections are there: ever more elderly and fewer young people.
"The propuestade delay the retirement age is a great blunder"
caution should be taken long-term forecasts because there have been serious mistakes in the past. We are told to go into crisis because we will live longer. But they are mixing things: Is the problem really is that there will be many old and few young people? should look at the proportion of population , not the number of retirees. We have four million unemployed! Then the problem would be in the labor market, not pensions.
Well, the problem would come from elsewhere, but it exists.
Not necessarily. There is another trap that is economic nonsense: it relates the amount of money to pay by the number of pensions to be paid.
But important thing is not how many produce but how much is produced . 50 years ago needed a lot of labor force to produce food now with very few people get. The
key should be the national wealth, not the number of contributors. Pensions are paid from contributions by employees, but need not necessarily be so. could involve other actors.
- What if while missing from the equation, either for whatever reason?
This is another powerful myth: why must be balanced the budget for pensions? Perhaps it is the Army's What about the Royal Family ? What about the Education ? Social All items are deficient, for accounting purposes .
Why must be balanced pension?
- If the problem does not exist, why the Government proposes to delay the retirement age, with the political cost that may be?
It was a great blunder of Zapatero. L guess or do to try to convince the international markets (private banks) that are willing to be tough . But it could also be a smokescreen to prevent people to look at another very serious issue: the 50,000 million budget cut has promised over three years. It is an impressive number!
But the debate is global. Why explode?
To help private pension plans , which is an asset f antástica for financial capital, which is the dramatic reports charge.
For them it's a huge inflow of funds, which are insured for many years. And they can invest in stock with the addition that if they lose, you lose . They never.
- The EU has also sounded the alarm.
Right. And has a lot to do with their efforts to mount an integrated capital market. Want to keep up on Wall Street, but this requires very large capital. In fact, anyone interested in the pension of the elderly.
- Is there a relationship between private pension plans and the bubble?
course. The major investors are pension funds. Imagine all the capital raised for speculation with the whole middle class and all Americans workers providing money to a fund for 30 years!
- What are the effects of the bursting of the bubble private pensions?
Huge. As are linked to stock market developments, there is no guarantee that the retiree will receive a good pension. If
reveals something this crisis is the problem with the private system, not the public.
reader comments:
- Make trap to assume that Social Security must necessarily her own, on their own sound economy, no deficit. If they admit that some chapters are budget deficit, by definition, why are so bitter precisely with Social Security?
not asking the royal family to enter more than it spends. even the Catholic Church. Why has to do Social Security?
unequivocally agree to consider what factor is unsustainable and unacceptable from the standpoint of collective interest, if government spending or private profit. Because in Spain there are people who are amassing fortunes to remove the hiccups at the expense of others' labor. People whose contribution to the collective welfare through taxes, is simply ridiculous.
Maybe what we can not afford Social Security is not we, but we have capitalism.
- All workers must contribute: that is the first, and there we have many employers who employ no contract and are not listed, many employed in domestic service also charge in black ..
source: newspaper Publico: . R. ZARAGOZA 14/02/2010 8:00
OTHER VERY IMPORTANT FACT:
consent UP WHEN THE LOOTING?
As if I have yet readers or viewers who do not have clear, I will discuss here the conclusions of a study by IESE Professor Pablo Fernández and Javier del Campo on the profitability private pension funds (Profitability Pension Funds in Spain. 1994-2009 can be obtained here.)
Vicente Navarro article:
Fedea (Foundation for Applied Economic Studies) is funded primarily by the Banks, for Banks and Insurance Companies. Among its major sponsors are the Banco Sabadell, Banco Popular, Caja Madrid, Banesto, Banco Santander, BBVA, La Caixa, and so on.
is, in other words, what the Anglo-Saxon terminology is called the Think Tank financial capital, the more factual group powerful in Spain. Its influence in design, play and promote the economic conventional wisdom of the country is enormous. For years, his commitment was to convince the English people that the public pension system in Spain is not viable unless it is a substantial cut public pensions.
Year after year reports have been published warning that such a system will collapse in the near future, when that has been constantly delayed the absence of the collapse at the time predicted.
The aim of this was scaremongering and scare the people to run to the Bank, Banks and Companies Insurance to buy a private pension plan.
The big problem they have is that the financial crisis has badly affected such private pension funds, reducing its value dramatically. Meanwhile, Social Security as their forecasts had to be collapsed in 1995, then in 2000, and later in 2010, continues today in surplus.
But financial capital (responsible, of course, the current financial crisis) does not give up. And just released a report that stated for the umpteenth time that the public system is bankrupt, is not sustainable, and must be changes, they all go through a reduction in pension for most pensioners.
Document (Fedea proposals, 07/10/1910) is supported by the same one hundred economists who published another recent report indicating that it was necessary to lay off workers more easily to reduce unemployment. And as was easily predictable, the implementation of a law inspired, in part, on this principle, has determined, not decreased, but an increase in unemployment. Now, following the same logic, the same economists suggest that to have better public pensions in the future, they must be reduced now.
The argument is identical to that used in these previous reports (for a criticism of the arguments used in these and other reports that question the viability of pensions, see V. Navarro, J. Torres Y Garzón Espinosa A.,
Are public pensions in jeopardy?
questions we all ask, the answers that we always hide "Attac 2010).
Thus, the argument that the system is not viable based on the statement, now there are 4 people of working age per pensioner, and in forty years there will be only 1.75 per pensioner. Conclude that this prediction of the future pensioners will not receive pensions, because there are not enough workers to support them.
This statement, however, is based on erroneous assumptions about . One is that the key to define whether pensions will be sustainable or not is not the number of people of working age (as the 100 economists), but the number of workers contributing to Social Security, and the size of such a contribution.
The latter depends on the wage (due, in part, worker productivity) and the size of the contribution (which depends in turn on political decisions) for both the worker and the employer. Let us first analyze the impact factor of productivity in the creation of wealth, and therefore, in social security contributions, a point ignored in the report.
Forty years ago, the percentage of the population working in agriculture in Spain was 30%. Today is only 3%. This 3% produce 30% more than forty years ago. In fact, the state provides subsidies to farmers not to produce more.
Look how absurd it would have been for forty years the "hundred economists then" had alarmed the population, using the argument that the declining number of workers in the field during the next forty years would lead to a decrease in food production to feed its population, thus, the population in forty years would suffer hunger.
alarmists "hundred economists" who have made this prediction would then ridicule, it would not have taken into account, resulting from increased productivity, produce an agricultural worker in forty years, which produced ten forty years ago.
Substitute the word food in the pension, and you can see the absurdity of what they are saying "one hundred economists" to alarm the public about that pensions can be paid in forty years. In forty years, productivity will be such that will require fewer workers per pensioner who are needed now.
Moreover, the financing system of contributory pensions is regressive, as from a certain income level, no trades at Social Security. You reach a situation in which Mr. Botin, whose income is over 500 times that of a skilled worker pays the same Social Security that the last
follows: http://rebelion.org/noticia . php? id = 115059
other news:
private pension funds in Britain fell dramatically by the crisis ...:
http://coyunturapolitica.wordpress.com/2009/04/08 / the-funds-of-private-pension-in-england-fall-dramatically-by-the-crisis% C2% BFno-les-seems-a-history-known-in-chile / ---
BOOK:
synopsis
Given the hypothesis of a severely aging population on that date, the payment of pensions would be a problem secondary to the general collapse that would result from the shortage of young workers.
something wrong with the logic the demographic argument with which bankers, politicians, senior officials, major employers and other doomsayers attentive to the voice of his master, predicted the collapse of pensions public in 2040.
Given the hypothesis of a severely aging population on that date, the payment of pensions would be a problem secondary to the general collapse that would result from the shortage of young workers.
could not be address road networks, airports, hospitals or schools. Or to cover the staffing of the military and police responsible for public order and national defense.
Who would work in factories, offices, shops, transport and fishing boats?
---- old before and not after .... CREE AS
http://www.vnavarro.org/?p=5222 ----
This article responds to the response that the spokesman of neoliberal manifesto signed by 100 economists (proposing the reduction of pensions ) has led to criticisms made in a previous article by Vicente Navarro . This article points out the inconsistencies and errors of such response, showing that the viability of public pension system is guaranteed as long as reforms are made in different direction pointed to by the manifest of 100 economists whose recommendations focus on reducing pension and delaying the retirement age. The article notes that these reforms, in addition to being regressive, unnecessary, proposing instead rarely considered measures that would enhance revenues to public pensions system.
October 11 published a critique of the show of a hundred economists (Fedea Proposals: Towards a public pension system sustainable, equitable and transparent ), who have proposed a series of measures that, in practice, public pensions decline to save the public pension system, involving unfeasible. I published my article "manifest errors of neoliberal pension of a hundred economists" in the plural (10/11/1910) article that was widely reproduced in digital communication networks. (These hundred economists, of course, are the same as proposed to lower the price of dismissal as a way to solve the unemployment problem.)
In my article, which is herein, indicated that the manifest errors contained. The manifesto based his thesis of non-viability of the pension system in the fact that public spending on pensions would be about 9% of GDP now to 15% in 2050, a percentage too high, "said the manifesto," are clearly excessive. In my review, pointing and empirical data showed that even though the percentage of pension expenditure in GDP increased six points during these forty years, the GDP would grow even more (it would be 2.25 times more than now), making, cake would more than double the current and, therefore, have more resources for non-pensioners and pensioners. He added that in the same way forty years ago pension expenditure was only 3% and now is 6 points of GDP, without of course that we now have fewer resources to pensioners and non pensioners, it will happen within forty years. The calculation of the GDP in forty years would be 2.25 times higher than now assumed that productivity would grow by 1.5% per year (which is about the average productivity growth over the last forty years.) In fact, more than likely that the growth is much higher due to the enormous technological advances. But I wanted to be deliberately conservative in my figures so they do not accuse me that I was exaggerating the numbers in my favor.
In all these criticisms, the reader will see that, as I always do in my articles, I use data, not rhetoric, and, above all, without any insult. Since returning from exile I am more than tired of the insolence and insults that characterize both the political debate and the academic English, and that as a result of a poorly developed democratic culture.
In my article, which is herein, indicated that the manifest errors contained. The manifesto based his thesis of non-viability of the pension system in the fact that public spending on pensions would be about 9% of GDP now to 15% in 2050, a percentage too high, "said the manifesto," are clearly excessive. In my review, pointing and empirical data showed that even though the percentage of pension expenditure in GDP increased six points during these forty years, the GDP would grow even more (it would be 2.25 times more than now), making, cake would more than double the current and, therefore, have more resources for non-pensioners and pensioners. He added that in the same way forty years ago pension expenditure was only 3% and now is 6 points of GDP, without of course that we now have fewer resources to pensioners and non pensioners, it will happen within forty years. The calculation of the GDP in forty years would be 2.25 times higher than now assumed that productivity would grow by 1.5% per year (which is about the average productivity growth over the last forty years.) In fact, more than likely that the growth is much higher due to the enormous technological advances. But I wanted to be deliberately conservative in my figures so they do not accuse me that I was exaggerating the numbers in my favor.
In all these criticisms, the reader will see that, as I always do in my articles, I use data, not rhetoric, and, above all, without any insult. Since returning from exile I am more than tired of the insolence and insults that characterize both the political debate and the academic English, and that as a result of a poorly developed democratic culture.
THE INSULT IN RESPONSE
Well, one of which mobilized over the collection of signatures from economists in support of the manifesto, and had greater role in preparing the paper, Mr. Jesus Fernandez Villaverde, answer me (without mentioning my name even once) with all kinds of insults, characteristic of rights in this country. (Believe neoliberalism economic ideology of the right in Spain) When will learn to respond to criticism without insulting? As a rule, do not respond to this type of intervention, which occur with great frequency, "but I believe that the importance of the subject required to respond, because, in this culture, silence is misinterpreted as agreement or acceptance of criticism.
in predictable style, Mr. Jesus Fernandez Villaverde (from now JFV), insulted me, saying "I do not understand much about economics." I come from a family and a culture that frowns talk about yourself. But as I am accused of ignorance in economics, I should clarify that I have been for more than forty years Professor of Public Policy, an area of \u200b\u200bknowledge that is based in Economics and Political Science, at The Johns Hopkins University (one of the best universities in the USA), having been proposed as an Extraordinary Professor of Applied Economics at the Complutense University, and later having won, in contrast, a Chair Applied Economics at the University of Barcelona, \u200b\u200band later, another, also in opposition, Social and Political Sciences (University Pompeu Fabra) directing the joint program in Public Policy sponsored by this University and by The Johns Hopkins University, which continue to be a teacher.
And according to the study most cited English international scientific literature of the Lauder Institute of Management and International Studies of the University of Pennsylvania, I, along with economists Jordi Galí and Andreu Mas Colell, economist (and in my case, too, a political scientist) most quoted in international scientific literature . I apologize to readers for this biographical note, which is inconvenient for me to write, but the level of meanness of that right in this country are capable of is enormous. Instead of referring to the arguments, try, always, with no ethical barrier, to attack the place, lying and falsifying information.
Well, one of which mobilized over the collection of signatures from economists in support of the manifesto, and had greater role in preparing the paper, Mr. Jesus Fernandez Villaverde, answer me (without mentioning my name even once) with all kinds of insults, characteristic of rights in this country. (Believe neoliberalism economic ideology of the right in Spain) When will learn to respond to criticism without insulting? As a rule, do not respond to this type of intervention, which occur with great frequency, "but I believe that the importance of the subject required to respond, because, in this culture, silence is misinterpreted as agreement or acceptance of criticism.
in predictable style, Mr. Jesus Fernandez Villaverde (from now JFV), insulted me, saying "I do not understand much about economics." I come from a family and a culture that frowns talk about yourself. But as I am accused of ignorance in economics, I should clarify that I have been for more than forty years Professor of Public Policy, an area of \u200b\u200bknowledge that is based in Economics and Political Science, at The Johns Hopkins University (one of the best universities in the USA), having been proposed as an Extraordinary Professor of Applied Economics at the Complutense University, and later having won, in contrast, a Chair Applied Economics at the University of Barcelona, \u200b\u200band later, another, also in opposition, Social and Political Sciences (University Pompeu Fabra) directing the joint program in Public Policy sponsored by this University and by The Johns Hopkins University, which continue to be a teacher.
And according to the study most cited English international scientific literature of the Lauder Institute of Management and International Studies of the University of Pennsylvania, I, along with economists Jordi Galí and Andreu Mas Colell, economist (and in my case, too, a political scientist) most quoted in international scientific literature . I apologize to readers for this biographical note, which is inconvenient for me to write, but the level of meanness of that right in this country are capable of is enormous. Instead of referring to the arguments, try, always, with no ethical barrier, to attack the place, lying and falsifying information.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PRODUCTIVITY SUSTAINABILITY OF PENSIONS
But let us now turn to what is most important arguments. The manifesto and JFV in reply underestimate the important role for the sustainability of the pension system has the annual productivity growth by adding, in an alarmist tone (which characterizes the manifesto and the response of JFV), "growth productivity from 1997 to 2007 was virtually nil. " This is not true. According to productivity data comparable known and respected Groningen Growth and Development Center in Spain productivity (labor productivity per hour worked, labor Productivity per hour worker) grew by 6.4% between 1997 and 2007, and 10% between 1997 and 2009. But a better way to see the variations of productivity changes is to choose longer periods, since the great variability of economic growth, the ups and downs that have characterized the English economy makes it advisable to see the changes in productivity over the long time periods are considered large.
Well, between 1979 and 2009, hourly labor productivity grew by 77%, which is a respectable figure. And pessimism is overstated believe that productivity will not increase in numbers comparable or even higher during the coming years.
The evolution of productivity is a key factor to see if we have resources to finance the needs of citizens, including pensions. Forty years ago was required that 18% of the adult population worked in agriculture to feed the entire English population. Today, with only 2% is produced more food than forty years ago produced 18%, and that as a result of a farm worker now (due to productivity growth) does what he did forty years ago 9 farmworkers. Notice the ridicule that would have meant that one hundred forty years economists have alarmed the population indicating that within forty years the population in Spain would starve because the people working in the field was declining.
Well, take out food and put pensions and see how ridiculous the assertion made by 100 economists that pensions can be paid in forty years because it reduces the number of workers per pensioner.
But let us now turn to what is most important arguments. The manifesto and JFV in reply underestimate the important role for the sustainability of the pension system has the annual productivity growth by adding, in an alarmist tone (which characterizes the manifesto and the response of JFV), "growth productivity from 1997 to 2007 was virtually nil. " This is not true. According to productivity data comparable known and respected Groningen Growth and Development Center in Spain productivity (labor productivity per hour worked, labor Productivity per hour worker) grew by 6.4% between 1997 and 2007, and 10% between 1997 and 2009. But a better way to see the variations of productivity changes is to choose longer periods, since the great variability of economic growth, the ups and downs that have characterized the English economy makes it advisable to see the changes in productivity over the long time periods are considered large.
Well, between 1979 and 2009, hourly labor productivity grew by 77%, which is a respectable figure. And pessimism is overstated believe that productivity will not increase in numbers comparable or even higher during the coming years.
The evolution of productivity is a key factor to see if we have resources to finance the needs of citizens, including pensions. Forty years ago was required that 18% of the adult population worked in agriculture to feed the entire English population. Today, with only 2% is produced more food than forty years ago produced 18%, and that as a result of a farm worker now (due to productivity growth) does what he did forty years ago 9 farmworkers. Notice the ridicule that would have meant that one hundred forty years economists have alarmed the population indicating that within forty years the population in Spain would starve because the people working in the field was declining.
Well, take out food and put pensions and see how ridiculous the assertion made by 100 economists that pensions can be paid in forty years because it reduces the number of workers per pensioner.
MORE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE MANIFESTO OF THE HUNDRED NEOLIBERAL
But what is even more incoherent, JFV is that states that the fact that in 2050 GDP will be 2.25 times larger the irrelevant. I find this statement surprising. If so, why the manifesto presented as alarming is the fact that pensions be 15% of GDP in 2050? Of not caring about the size of GDP, then that is spent 15% or 9% of GDP should also be irrelevant.
The fact, however, is that far from being irrelevant, is a hugely important figure, because if society is much richer (as it will), means you will have many more resources for non-pensioners and for pensioners, in the same way today that Spain has far more resources than it had forty years ago. As I said before, today we spend more than triple the GDP on pensions than forty years ago, and it does not mean that pensions are worse or have fewer resources to non-pensioners. Considered as alarming that in forty years we spend 15% of GDP and then say that the size of GDP is irrelevant is a huge inconsistency, to put it in a kind manner.
But what is even more incoherent, JFV is that states that the fact that in 2050 GDP will be 2.25 times larger the irrelevant. I find this statement surprising. If so, why the manifesto presented as alarming is the fact that pensions be 15% of GDP in 2050? Of not caring about the size of GDP, then that is spent 15% or 9% of GDP should also be irrelevant.
The fact, however, is that far from being irrelevant, is a hugely important figure, because if society is much richer (as it will), means you will have many more resources for non-pensioners and for pensioners, in the same way today that Spain has far more resources than it had forty years ago. As I said before, today we spend more than triple the GDP on pensions than forty years ago, and it does not mean that pensions are worse or have fewer resources to non-pensioners. Considered as alarming that in forty years we spend 15% of GDP and then say that the size of GDP is irrelevant is a huge inconsistency, to put it in a kind manner.
ITEM IS NOT INCREASE TAXES OR NOT, BUT WHEN AND HOW TO INCREASE
But it seems that what matters most to the manifesto and JFV is that the growth of public pensions rise from 9% today to 15% in 2050 , which means an increase of 6 percentage points of GDP in taxes and social contributions in forty years, we doubt that the economy can produce. So they choose not to raise this percentage (by a drastic reduction of pensions) and retirements are delayed two years. Apparently, JFV not realize that making workers work two more years, represents a huge increase in taxes and social contributions. The question to ask is what people prefer: going to pay these contributions, which will increase as a consequence of increased wages and productivity and retire at age 65, or not to increase their social security contributions and in turn delaying the age of retirement in two years, paying taxes and social contributions for two years? Or in other words, what people prefer, which will gradually increase social contributions (results the increase of wages and productivity) for forty years and retire at 65, or receive less pension, delaying the retirement age two years and continue to pay taxes and social contributions for two years? All the information we have indicates that the population in most OECD countries prefer the first solution.
But it seems that what matters most to the manifesto and JFV is that the growth of public pensions rise from 9% today to 15% in 2050 , which means an increase of 6 percentage points of GDP in taxes and social contributions in forty years, we doubt that the economy can produce. So they choose not to raise this percentage (by a drastic reduction of pensions) and retirements are delayed two years. Apparently, JFV not realize that making workers work two more years, represents a huge increase in taxes and social contributions. The question to ask is what people prefer: going to pay these contributions, which will increase as a consequence of increased wages and productivity and retire at age 65, or not to increase their social security contributions and in turn delaying the age of retirement in two years, paying taxes and social contributions for two years? Or in other words, what people prefer, which will gradually increase social contributions (results the increase of wages and productivity) for forty years and retire at 65, or receive less pension, delaying the retirement age two years and continue to pay taxes and social contributions for two years? All the information we have indicates that the population in most OECD countries prefer the first solution.
NEOLIBERAL BIAS IN THE DEFINITION OF EQUITY
But where JFV shows more insensitivity and reflect their neoliberal bias is your definition of fairness and justice, which is missing the concept of solidarity, not only intergenerational (seems to ignore the polls showing that children do not want to cut labor and social benefits, including pensions of their parents), but social class. In fact, their proposals would increase still further the huge disparities in social benefits (including pensions) and social class. In Spain, a bourgeois lives ten years longer than an unskilled worker with more than five years of unemployment. And the first pensions are more generous than the last. It is deeply unfair to oblige the latter to work two more years to pay pensions to the bourgeois who survive ten years.
In the U.S., an economist who has worked more on the pension issue, just published a report "The Impact of Income Distribution on the Length of Retirement." "Center for Economic and Policy Research. Oct. 2010, which shows the growth of life expectancy in the U.S. population by income level for different cohorts. And shows that most of the growth of life expectancy from 70 years has focused on higher incomes, being such a relatively weaker growth in lower income. In fact, Dean Baker shows that for these rents, the extension of retirement age to 67 means a considerable reduction of time of retirement, so retirement will have a time even less than their grandparents. There are no data that would allow Spain to do these studies in cohorts from different periods, but it is very likely that the situation is similar, since Spain is, together with the U.S., the country with greater income inequalities and mortality among countries OECD (the club of richest countries in the world).
But where JFV shows more insensitivity and reflect their neoliberal bias is your definition of fairness and justice, which is missing the concept of solidarity, not only intergenerational (seems to ignore the polls showing that children do not want to cut labor and social benefits, including pensions of their parents), but social class. In fact, their proposals would increase still further the huge disparities in social benefits (including pensions) and social class. In Spain, a bourgeois lives ten years longer than an unskilled worker with more than five years of unemployment. And the first pensions are more generous than the last. It is deeply unfair to oblige the latter to work two more years to pay pensions to the bourgeois who survive ten years.
In the U.S., an economist who has worked more on the pension issue, just published a report "The Impact of Income Distribution on the Length of Retirement." "Center for Economic and Policy Research. Oct. 2010, which shows the growth of life expectancy in the U.S. population by income level for different cohorts. And shows that most of the growth of life expectancy from 70 years has focused on higher incomes, being such a relatively weaker growth in lower income. In fact, Dean Baker shows that for these rents, the extension of retirement age to 67 means a considerable reduction of time of retirement, so retirement will have a time even less than their grandparents. There are no data that would allow Spain to do these studies in cohorts from different periods, but it is very likely that the situation is similar, since Spain is, together with the U.S., the country with greater income inequalities and mortality among countries OECD (the club of richest countries in the world).
I will expand on each of these points and others in response to the manifesto of the hundred economists Juan Torres, Professor of Economics at the University of Sevilla and I will publish the collection Attac, a continuation of a previous book, entitled " are endangered public pensions? ", ATTAC, 2010.
One last observation. The manifesto of the hundred neoliberal economists has been tremendous media exposure in Spain, as a result of the huge domain that is neo-liberal thinking in the culture media of the major means of information and persuasion of the country. I have lived in several countries (Sweden, Britain and the U.S.) over my exile, and none is so little ideological diversity in the media and in our country, which grows as choking on economic issues. The lack of visibility of critical voices of conventional wisdom is a result. In reality, the censorship and marginalization of these voices is constant. Hence, the unfairness of the claim Ignacio Sanchez Cuenca, in his article "Yes, but ..." El País (28/10/1910) make the observation that "it is shocking that in Spain we have a local Krugman." Sánchez Cuenca ignores that we have. Spain has excellent critical thinking neoliberal economists: Juan Torres, Professor of Economics at the University of Seville, Carlos Berzosa, Professor of Economics at the Complutense University and Rector of that University, and many others, have been widely criticized the neoliberal dogma. But they are banned in most broadcast media in their business pages. And it's easy check. Look at the number of articles that have appeared in media and see that no one appears with his signature, and not because he did not have written. Gramsci said that the rule of the bourgeoisie was made through the hegemony of bourgeois thought has controlling means, which are the majority. The visibility of the neoliberal manifesto, funded and sponsored by banks (the group's most powerful factual) not due to his intellectual strength (which is low), but it reflects that hegemony in media that promote it.
The lack of media visibility of critical voices reflects not only the lack of ideological diversity of the largest media and persuasion, but also their limited democratic culture. And hence it seems, even a scholar as knowledgeable of the English reality, as Mr. Sanchez Cuenca unknown.
more - http://www.vnavarro.org/?p=4896
Viceniz Navarre: January 2011:
be worth analyzing the cases that hold the positions that say "bankruptcy" of pensions _ Consider the data.
One last observation. The manifesto of the hundred neoliberal economists has been tremendous media exposure in Spain, as a result of the huge domain that is neo-liberal thinking in the culture media of the major means of information and persuasion of the country. I have lived in several countries (Sweden, Britain and the U.S.) over my exile, and none is so little ideological diversity in the media and in our country, which grows as choking on economic issues. The lack of visibility of critical voices of conventional wisdom is a result. In reality, the censorship and marginalization of these voices is constant. Hence, the unfairness of the claim Ignacio Sanchez Cuenca, in his article "Yes, but ..." El País (28/10/1910) make the observation that "it is shocking that in Spain we have a local Krugman." Sánchez Cuenca ignores that we have. Spain has excellent critical thinking neoliberal economists: Juan Torres, Professor of Economics at the University of Seville, Carlos Berzosa, Professor of Economics at the Complutense University and Rector of that University, and many others, have been widely criticized the neoliberal dogma. But they are banned in most broadcast media in their business pages. And it's easy check. Look at the number of articles that have appeared in media and see that no one appears with his signature, and not because he did not have written. Gramsci said that the rule of the bourgeoisie was made through the hegemony of bourgeois thought has controlling means, which are the majority. The visibility of the neoliberal manifesto, funded and sponsored by banks (the group's most powerful factual) not due to his intellectual strength (which is low), but it reflects that hegemony in media that promote it.
The lack of media visibility of critical voices reflects not only the lack of ideological diversity of the largest media and persuasion, but also their limited democratic culture. And hence it seems, even a scholar as knowledgeable of the English reality, as Mr. Sanchez Cuenca unknown.
more - http://www.vnavarro.org/?p=4896
Viceniz Navarre: January 2011:
be worth analyzing the cases that hold the positions that say "bankruptcy" of pensions _ Consider the data.
First, it is true that there is consensus among experts on the need to delay the mandatory retirement age.
True no consensus among experts who have AHEAD and other major media and persuasion. They include, for example, Mr. José A. Herce and colleagues at Fedea (Economic Research Foundation funded by the big banks and big businesses in the country) , which have little credibility, both in their estimates and in their projections about the future of pensions.
Mr. Herce has been predicting the "collapse" of Social Security for many years. Thus, in 1995, Mr. Herce had predicted that the public pension system in 2000 would have a deficit of no less than 0.62% of GDP. Arrived in 2000, and this system not only had no deficit, but was in surplus.
This was no obstacle to the course later commentators predicted that the deficit would come in 2005. 2005 hit, and the system remained in surplus. Equally erroneous estimates were made by other pundits, and Piñera and Weinstein (who indicated that the collapse of the pension system would be in 2000, and later, to not be a collapse in that year, delayed to 2005), Barea (another catastrophic also noted in 2000, and later in 2005 as the year's collapse), coots, and Sáez, et al. (For a more detailed breakdown of the predictions failed, see Vicente Navarro, Juan Torres and Alberto Garzón, "Are public pensions in jeopardy? The questions we all do. The answers that we always hide", Attac 2010, pp 30-37). Now, among the experts who know the subject there is no such consensus. In fact, there are experts who question the thesis of unsustainable public pension experts argue that. What happens is that the former rarely appear in the media, which explains that neoliberal orientation experts who question such infeasibility are excluded.
Consider now the second error of the editorial of La Vanguardia, namely, that in forty years we will have a contributor per pensioner. To reach this ratio are a number of highly questionable assumptions. It says, for example, that the actual number of pensioners will double, but it is assumed that the number of contributors remain the same, which is absurd. Now the percentage of the adult working population and is listed is only 59.8% (2009) of the population, and that as a result of the low percentage of women in the labor market (one of the lowest in the EU 15). It is unthinkable that this percentage does not increase, because is more than likely that the percentage of women in the labor market will increasingly resembling the existing rate on the average EU-15 and thus the percentage of the adult working population and is listed in the Social Security arrives to be 70 or 75%. This means that the number of contributors per pensioner will be much greater than the publisher and experts predict.
In fact, the famous "experts" had predicted in 1995 deficits in public pension system in the first decade of this century to underestimate the growth of the contributors. Have predicted that in 2010 14.4 million members (contributors to Safety Social) and 8.7 million pensioners. In reality the number of pensioners was now 8.4 million in 2007 (a number very close to that which would exist had estimated in 2010), but the membership was 17.6 million, far larger than estimated by the doomsday. As a result, the rate went from 5.2 members per pensioner in 1995 to 2.55 in 2010, and this result of the entry of women and immigration in the labor market.
But, in addition to increasing the number of contributors (which ignored for La Vanguardia lead to its unsustainable thesis) should also consider increasing the prices (in case of continued funding pensions distribution systems) or taxes as a result of increased wages, a result of increased productivity, data also ignored the conventional wisdom reflected in this editorial. In fact, wealth (GDP) depends on the number of workers and their productivity. That explains the two have increased the GDP has been increasing in Spain (except in the latter years of the Great Recession).
However, the increase in productivity means that a worker produces more and more, and that can support more pensioners than now. If we add, thus increasing the number of contributors to the increase capacity of each contributor to be able to hold a pensioner, it is clear that the figures of the editorial of La Vanguardia is insufficient to reach the conclusion that the editorial comes. And we have evidence for that, if we look at what has been happening over the past 15 years. In 1995, the General Secretariat of Social Security Actuarial distributed an Economic Survey, entitled "Social Security in the twenty-first century."
This study made the following projections. It was estimated that in 2009 had 3,876,177 pensioners, and in 2030, 5,133,383. In 2009, instead of the projected 3,876,177 pensioners, there 5,182,747, a figure higher than had been estimated at 1997 to 2030. Imagine the media noise if they had projected financial figures that turned out to be the valid. Sure, the "experts" have assumed AHEAD Social Security collapse. Well, not only did not collapse, but in 2009 had a surplus. What had happened? Really easy. Although the number of pensioners has increased dramatically, GDP also increased significantly, so that if in 1995 Spain was 8.3% of GDP spent on pensions (and the prices reached 9.4% of GDP), in 2008 the GDP had risen much more so that cover meant that many more actually an even smaller percentage of GDP, 7.8%, while prices rose 9.6%. Social Security not only had not collapsed, but was in surplus.
Based on these data we can see the error of predicting the future alarmist tone. If productivity growth was 2% per year (the figure that the new Minister of Labour, Valeriano Gómez, used in his interview with El Pais, 12.12.1910), would be that GDP in forty years would be 2.2 times greater than now. If this is coupled with the increasing population, it appears that this percentage may be even higher. What then is the problem?
Mr. Valeriano Gómez, of course, missed again when he said that even if productivity increased by 2%, Spain could not hold 15% of GDP pension in 2050. This is not true and it is easy to show that the Minister is wrong. Raise the growth rate of 2% at 40 years and see that in 2050 GDP would be 2.2 times greater than today. This means that if GDP is now 100 (with 8 to pensions, and 92 to non-pensioners), in 2050 GDP would be 220, thus 15% (33) would be for pensioners and 187 for non-pensioners. Both pensioners and non pensioners have many more resources now. The fact that in 2050 15% off a pension, does not mean that non-pensioners had less resources. There would be more than now. Mr Rubalcaba said the numbers would not come to the government. If the government does not come out the numbers, would be wise to improve their calculators.
0 comments:
Post a Comment