French President Macron Raises Retirement Age by Decree

[Mayhem]

You have a point, but then how do we define what productivity even is?

Gee, if there just was something that dictated what words mean we could call it a dictipedia or dictionary or so idk, that would be immensely useful so we don't have to define what words mean with every other gnorl.

Is a doctor who sees one patient and gets paid $500 for that 15 minutes more productive than a burger flipper who makes maybe 30 burgers in the same time but gets paid like $5 for that effort? I'd like to think productivity is related to how much economic value an activity has versus something so boring as "how hard someone is working in relation to their theoretical maximum work capacity" because that means someone who is stupid but works to 99% of their potential is more productive than someone who is capable of far more intelligent and valuable tasks but maybe only does 10% of their theoretical max.

yeah impossible to think someone that does just the bare minimum is considered less productive despite obviously being able to be more productive, boggles my mind as well

Breaking it down in wow terms, is some noob in shit gear who does gray parses overall but has orange parses *for their ilvl* more productive than someone in top tier gear doing orange overall parses but maybe only purple or blue for their ilvl?

I inherently tie value to productivity, but maybe I should just start saying "I don't give a damn about how 'productive' someone is and care more about the value they add"

if someone does orange parses for their ilvl they are no noob, gear alone doesn't determine how good of a player someone is or how much they can bring to the party

knowing how to play your class doesn't automatically make you understand every other part of the game

that's like saying they play mage on an insane level therefore they must know how to tank every fight

As a raid leader, I used productivity and value not just one or the other, I certainly didn't give a shit if you had orange parses every other fight but can't be trusted to stop and help or play mechanics on the other side I also don't give a shit if you're the guild master or an officer

and now as a guild master but not a raid leader I understand that others who are doing better at a fight get to be in the raid instead of me

[unfilteredJW]

You have a point, but then how do we define what productivity even is?

Is a doctor who sees one patient and gets paid $500 for that 15 minutes more productive than a burger flipper who makes maybe 30 burgers in the same time but gets paid like $5 for that effort? I'd like to think productivity is related to how much economic value an activity has versus something so boring as "how hard someone is working in relation to their theoretical maximum work capacity" because that means someone who is stupid but works to 99% of their potential is more productive than someone who is capable of far more intelligent and valuable tasks but maybe only does 10% of their theoretical max.

Breaking it down in wow terms, is some noob in shit gear who does gray parses overall but has orange parses *for their ilvl* more productive than someone in top tier gear doing orange overall parses but maybe only purple or blue for their ilvl?

I inherently tie value to productivity, but maybe I should just start saying "I don't give a damn about how 'productive' someone is and care more about the value they add"


Sorry bud, I'm a programmer who grinds with my hands on the keys doing actual work every day (though people do try to waste time with meetings more than I'd like).

Sure you are lol.

[BeepBoo]

Gee, if there just was something that dictated what words mean we could call it a dictipedia or dictionary or so idk, that would be immensely useful so we don't have to define what words mean with every other gnorl.

Except that definition makes no attempt to quantify comparisons between two different types of output. Just singular things.

yeah impossible to think someone that does just the bare minimum is considered less productive despite obviously being able to be more productive, boggles my mind as well

Just because they aren't maximizing THEIR PRODUCTION doesn't mean their comparative production value isn't higher.

if someone does orange parses for their ilvl they are no noob, gear alone doesn't determine how good of a player someone is or how much they can bring to the party

To be good, you still have to actually bring the performance (i.e. the throughput). To that end, a mediocre player in top tier gear who might not be as mechanically skilled, but doesn't die, does mechanics, and puts out better ACTUAL dps is more valuable. That's my point. They're more productive to the goal of the raid taking out the boss. Same is true IRL. If you do things more important to humans that's harder, but you don't work to 100% of your potential, I'd still say you're more productive to the goal of "making society better."

[Glorious Leader]

They are feisty tonight

123 police wounded, Bordeaux city hall on fire, atleast entrance

A social media video from local news outlet Rue 89 Bordeaux shows a fire blazing at the entrance to Bordeaux City Hall on Thursday night after a day of protests in the city, followed by firemen arriving to tackle the blaze.

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2...pension-reform

Its popping off. Good for them.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd say investing any form your resources take into creating something else is productivity, yes. Productivity isn't simply "I actually toiled with my body in some way, shape, or form"

It isn't i agree. The actual work being done is important. To that end the guy flipping hamburgers is feeding the people. Thats important and socially necessary work. The hedge fund manager is a financial parasite who contributed nothing necessary to social reproduction or public good. He is simply a parasite.

[LeGin v3]

I always thought retirement was for old cunts then discovered golf and, actually, I can now see the attraction.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I always find amusement in watching people who think rich people are "productive" share their opinions. In (meritocratic) capitalism, which is what right wingers SUPPOSEDLY believe in, those who bring the most value to society. But the modern right seems to believe that wealth inheritors, patent thieves, labor thieves, and robber barons deserve their billions/millions because... they bring the most value to society?

If those people disappeared tomorrow, nothing would change. The actual people doing the work and bringing value to society would still be productive.

If the work force disappeared, society would collapse.

So knowing that, who is REALLY bringing value to our society/economy?

[BeepBoo]

I always find amusement in watching people who think rich people are "productive" share their opinions. In (meritocratic) capitalism, which is what right wingers SUPPOSEDLY believe in, those who bring the most value to society.

Where did you hear that? I believe in laissez faire capitalism.

But the modern right seems to believe that wealth inheritors, patent thieves, labor thieves, and robber barons deserve their billions/millions because... they bring the most value to society?

Nope. However, take someone like lebron. All it means when his kids inherit his wealth is that he was SO productive in the entertainment industry that he did multiple peoples' worth of work. They don't need to be productive because he was already 10000 times more productive than some scrub min-wage worker will ever be and his kids get to skate on that because he chooses to let them. They might not be worth it, but lebron gets to make that judgment, and HIS work WAS worth it.

If those people disappeared tomorrow, nothing would change. The actual people doing the work and bringing value to society would still be productive.

Sure, so lets just kill off all old people when they can't work any more because all they are is a drain, even if they've managed to secure enough personal wealth to hit that critical mass of self-sustainment.

Offloading your personal toiling productivity onto assets you own still makes it YOUR productivity by virtue of the fact that you own it and that is your capability.

You can't separate the wealth and assets from the owners. If you disappear them, you disappear all the stuff they own as well and make those people have to start from square one. Unless you actually do want to entertain just killing people to seize their stuff because you could be more productive with it than they are and ownership means nothing to you.

[Nymrohd]

Productivity is very much defined as added value. An organization's activities are usually defined and costs and added value allocated per department and if possible per position. Increases in value per unit (normally labour hours) would be productivity.
Which is not really an exact science. First, it leads to the idea that some activities do not add value (and the standard of cutting their costs more liberally) which can backfire. Also allocation is just not simple to do. A classic example is middle management. Yes, a lot of middle managers are crap and produce little value or even negative value by impeding productivity. But are they needed and is the role inherently unproductive? There is an observable cap to how many people most managers can effectively manage (about 20). Flatter organizational structures can overwhelm upper management to the point that certain departments will just go unmanaged which may mean people could stop being productive not because of some malicious intent but simply because they are not assigned the right tasks and the right resources (and management is not just about control, if anything that is the least function of management).

Now on whether capital holders simply assigning capital to tasks is productive. The idea is that the added value is the risk of investment.
I've seen many of the left leaning posters here complete scoff at the idea of the risk of investment. For many capital holders it is an extremely real risk. First off, not everyone lives in countries with stable and growing economies. The risk of investment on the less table developed countries, let alone in developing countries, is vast. And in most places in the world the majority of employment is produced by SMEs or at best nominally large companies; they are not going to be protected by the banking or the political system if they fuck up, they will simply lose everything and still be indebted for life.
Now obviously for corporate entities things are very different but the issue there is far more political than it is tied to the economic system.

[PosPosPos]

Now on whether capital holders simply assigning capital to tasks is productive. The idea is that the added value is the risk of investment.
I've seen many of the left leaning posters here complete scoff at the idea of the risk of investment. For many capital holders it is an extremely real risk. First off, not everyone lives in countries with stable and growing economies. The risk of investment on the less table developed countries, let alone in developing countries, is vast. And in most places in the world the majority of employment is produced by SMEs or at best nominally large companies; they are not going to be protected by the banking or the political system if they fuck up, they will simply lose everything and still be indebted for life.

Yawn, more of the "privatize the profits socialize the deficits" drivel I am hearing, just thinly-veiled. But better think of the poor rich people.

[Nymrohd]

Yawn, more of the "privatize the profits socialize the deficits" drivel I am hearing, just thinly-veiled. But better think of the poor rich people.

And I am just seeing someone who doesn't understand the vast gulf between small entrepreneurs and corporations. Or economic realities in countries where opening a business is vastly harder.

[Endus]

I've seen many of the left leaning posters here complete scoff at the idea of the risk of investment. For many capital holders it is an extremely real risk. First off, not everyone lives in countries with stable and growing economies. The risk of investment on the less table developed countries, let alone in developing countries, is vast. And in most places in the world the majority of employment is produced by SMEs or at best nominally large companies; they are not going to be protected by the banking or the political system if they fuck up, they will simply lose everything and still be indebted for life.
Now obviously for corporate entities things are very different but the issue there is far more political than it is tied to the economic system.

We scoff because it isn't real risk, for the most part. Even with small entrepeneurs, you generally have a minimal investment to put forward and that's money you can afford to spend, or you wouldn't be able to spend it. For the wealthy investing in companies, it's basically just fucking play money they can toss around with no real risk whatsoever; they can lose everything and still be wealthy.

Compare that to actual risks, like the miner who keeps going into the dark despite the constant health impacts and the very real chance that he'll die down there. The fisherman who keeps going out into the North Atlantic despite boat-capsizing storms. The single mom who has to be super careful with how she conducts herself and performs because she can't afford to lose this job because if she does her kids don't eat.

That's "risk". I couldn't give less of a fuck if someone worth $50m invests $2m into a startup and loses all of that investment. Calling that "risk" is a fucking insult.

[Nymrohd]

That's "risk". I couldn't give less of a fuck if someone worth $50m invests $2m into a startup and loses all of that investment. Calling that "risk" is a fucking insult.

SMEs are worth 50m now? Are we in the same galaxy?
Outside the upper half of OECD countries, liquidity to fund an SME is nearly non-existent. There are no angel investors, many forms of SMEs simply never qualify for loans or venture capital; others can only gain loans at predatory rates. In developing countries, venture capital and angel investors don't even exist. Most SMEs are funded by people liquidating whatever one decent asset they have or taking loans to begin a business, usually by underwriting their primary residence if owned (or a parent cosigning with their residence in line). Many are family businesses that they work themselves with a few or no employees. Often when such business go under, people lose everything, their homes included. SMEs have historically been the way for underprivileged classes to earn a living; immigrants, minorities and women often start small businesses usually in hospitality, retail or blue collar service because they simply will not be hired at large companies or local companies. 90% of all companies are SMEs. 60% of all employment is provided by SMEs.
I've dealt with people in bankruptcy that were employees and that were small entrepreneurs. By design unless you live in a deregulated mess like the US where someone can land into massive debt due to a medical issue, employees or laborers usually have manageable debt. In contrast, failing small businesses, especially in retail, can generate generational debt that is often impossible to cover, especially if certain assets are not recoverable outside normal operations. The first group of people go through great hardship and if they manage to live on a limited budget for a few years they can recover. The second group? They often lose everything and leave massive debts for their children.

[Endus]

SMEs are worth 50m now? Are we in the same galaxy?
Outside the upper half of OECD countries, liquidity to fund an SME is nearly non-existent. There are no angel investors, many forms of SMEs simply never qualify for loans or venture capital; others can only gain loans at predatory rates. In developing countries, venture capital and angel investors don't even exist. Most SMEs are funded by people liquidating whatever one decent asset they have or taking loans to begin a business, usually by underwriting their primary residence if owned (or a parent cosigning with their residence in line). Many are family businesses that they work themselves with a few or no employees. Often when such business go under, people lose everything, their homes included. SMEs have historically been the way for underprivileged classes to earn a living; immigrants, minorities and women often start small businesses usually in hospitality, retail or blue collar service because they simply will not be hired at large companies or local companies. 90% of all companies are SMEs. 60% of all employment is provided by SMEs.
I've dealt with people in bankruptcy that were employees and that were small entrepreneurs. By design unless you live in a deregulated mess like the US where someone can land into massive debt due to a medical issue, employees or laborers usually have manageable debt. In contrast, failing small businesses, especially in retail, can generate generational debt that is often impossible to cover, especially if certain assets are not recoverable outside normal operations. The first group of people go through great hardship and if they manage to live on a limited budget for a few years they can recover. The second group? They often lose everything and leave massive debts for their children.

And we're still talking about relatively minor "risks" compared to the health and safety risks millions of workers undertake daily.

Also, "generational debt"? Debt's paid by the estate when you die most places I'm aware of. No more value in the estate? Debt doesn't get paid. If your parents die with an over-mortgaged house, the bank'll foreclose but any remaining balance after selling the property will only be taken from any remaining value in the estate; if they have nothing else, it doesn't fall to their kids. The only way an SME is establishing "generational debt" is if the SME itself is the entity in debt and the subsequent generations are continuing to run that SME. Which, sure, people do, but they're opting in at that point. The same way you can take on the mortgage on your family home to prevent foreclosure, in many cases. But the banks generally can't just shift that debt to you against your will, not unless you're a co-signer on the loan or something.

[Forogil]

82 for rich people, not really for poor/middle ones.



Translation : At 35, an executive can hope living 34 more years without physical problems, 47 years total. A worker ? 24, making him/her 59.

The statistics was 'chez les hommes', so it's just him.

That is important - because it seems the socioeconomic impact on (healthy) life expectance is significantly more pronounced for men than for women.

Which means that statistically, at 59 he can't really work anymore, so he retires, and with the increase of the legal age for retirement, he/she'll have to deal with a shitty pension - it was already shitty to begin with due to the low wage during 40 years, now it's halved.

A partial solution to that is straightforward: STOP SMOKING as your life depends on it.

Basically people with low education are nowadays more likely to smoke (in France and in many other countries, including Belgium) - some estimate put it at more than 50% smokers with low education (compared to 20% among those with high education), and almost 20% of male deaths are tobacco-related. The numbers are smaller in Belgium, but the trend is similar. That reduces both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy.

France is ranked considerably less well on healthy life expectancy than on overall life expectancy in the EU, so instead of adapting the retirement age to the unhealty French way of life - wouldn't it be better to improve that?

Note that in Belgium the official retirement age is 65 (planned to increased to 67 in 2030)- which is higher than both the previous and the new retirment age in France, but in practice it is lower due to early retirement (which has some downsides).

- - - Updated - - -

SMEs are worth 50m now? Are we in the same galaxy?
Outside the upper half of OECD countries, liquidity to fund an SME is nearly non-existent. There are no angel investors, many forms of SMEs simply never qualify for loans or venture capital; others can only gain loans at predatory rates. In developing countries, venture capital and angel investors don't even exist. Most SMEs are funded by people liquidating whatever one decent asset they have or taking loans to begin a business, usually by underwriting their primary residence if owned (or a parent cosigning with their residence in line). Many are family businesses that they work themselves with a few or no employees. Often when such business go under, people lose everything, their homes included. SMEs have historically been the way for underprivileged classes to earn a living; immigrants, minorities and women often start small businesses usually in hospitality, retail or blue collar service because they simply will not be hired at large companies or local companies. 90% of all companies are SMEs. 60% of all employment is provided by SMEs.
I've dealt with people in bankruptcy that were employees and that were small entrepreneurs. By design unless you live in a deregulated mess like the US where someone can land into massive debt due to a medical issue, employees or laborers usually have manageable debt. In contrast, failing small businesses, especially in retail, can generate generational debt that is often impossible to cover, especially if certain assets are not recoverable outside normal operations. The first group of people go through great hardship and if they manage to live on a limited budget for a few years they can recover. The second group? They often lose everything and leave massive debts for their children.

That is also one of the reasons I personally have found that working for a larger company (with some billionaires among the primary owners) is preferably to a SME (especially the 'small' side) - as the obvious side-effect of those debts is that the owner really wants you to help reduce that risk (without giving you the real upsides, of course); whereas you rarely personally speak to the CEO in a big company.

- - - Updated - - -

You have a point, but then how do we define what productivity even is?

Is a doctor who sees one patient and gets paid $500 for that 15 minutes more productive than a burger flipper who makes maybe 30 burgers in the same time but gets paid like $5 for that effort? I'd like to think productivity is related to how much economic value an activity has versus something so boring as "how hard someone is working in relation to their theoretical maximum work capacity" because that means someone who is stupid but works to 99% of their potential is more productive than someone who is capable of far more intelligent and valuable tasks but maybe only does 10% of their theoretical max.

Productivity is complicated - especially in the developed EU-countries (a bit less in the US).

Basically it is seen as the value produced per something (normally per work-hour); but there are two big problems:
When we want to compare productivity now with a decade ago - but many technological products are getting better, without costing more - how do we account for that?
And then there's the public sector - we don't have a price for the product; so people normally just use the salaries; and hope that no-one notices.

Breaking it down in wow terms, is some noob in shit gear who does gray parses overall but has orange parses *for their ilvl* more productive than someone in top tier gear doing orange overall parses but maybe only purple or blue for their ilvl?

The way productivity is normally defined one wouldn't look at parses, but at cost of carries - and then realize that it doesn't make sense as the cost declines during the season, or look at the overall time to clear the raid.

I inherently tie value to productivity

Yes, that is the normal thing to do.

[Melius]

the concepts of pensione, paid leave, maternity leave or free access to medical care are alien to the american joe. not suprised. and good on the french for protesting. also good job boosting lepens party, really smart move

[Rasulis]

STOP SMOKING as your life depends on it.

Basically people with low education are nowadays more likely to smoke (in France and in many other countries, including Belgium) - some estimate put it at more than 50% smokers with low education (compared to 20% among those with high education), and almost 20% of male deaths are tobacco-related. The numbers are smaller in Belgium, but the trend is similar. That reduces both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy.

But the smoke filters the tear gas.