I remember a far-right Canadian publication trying the same argument.
“Back when the retirement age was set, it was X years below life expectancy. Now life expectancy is higher, so we should raise the retirement age back to X as well. The serfs aren’t supposed to enjoy things!”
“Vanguard of the non-working class” sounds like a red triangle thing
is the economist trying to portray china as bourgeois? if not then why is it saying this
This is kinda an old article from 2021. Eventually China will have to raise the retirement age due to an aging population.
The pushback would be horrific. The younger generations probably aren’t going to be very happy to hear that others before them get to get out and enjoy the fruits of their labor at 54, but they have to toil away till 60 or, most likely, older.
People said the same thing about the raising of retirement age in various European countries but in the end what little pushback there was didn’t matter. If a government wants to do something it will find a way to do it. I just hope that China’s government will decide against it.
France has quite literally been on fire for over 15 years at this point, all over raising the retirement age by four years. What are you talking about, there has absolutely been massive pushback. Unions keep striking and massive protests keep breaking out every few weeks.
Also China is above striving to act like the decrepit capitalists states in the EU. Its best they decide against it. Workplace efficiency drops off like a stone past 58-60. No one should be working against their will at that age.
I would say !notthechinabadtimes@lemmygrad.ml but The Economist is literally !thechinabadtimes@lemmygrad.ml incarnate
