The war of the generations. For power. For the money. For employment. For some, everything was confiscated by the older, baby boomers too greedy. For others, at the height of their power and their wealth, young people have to work more: more toughness and less than RTT. He n y qu´a see this song from the enfoirés really very up-to-date.

The feud has always existed. Skews Pascal criticized already in the middle of the 17th century, the youth he had only 39 years old. In addition, the advantage of l´age was on since everyone was assured to enjoy only by virtue of the time. Youth is, by definition, only a transient state. That we enjoy money or power that with maturity had nothing shocking, because the March of time you had to do this. It was enough to wait.

But that all changed. In a few decades, simultaneously in most countries developed as that of the old Europe or elsewhere. The younger generation, born between 1980 and 2000, are taken trapped, while their predecessors benefited from much milder planets. By the effect of economic conditions, the upheavals of the company and the demographic revolution as the lengthening of the duration of life in good health.

 

1. a State-providence biased

The France is one of the OECD countries where the gap between the 10 per cent richest and poorest is the lowest. Yet here 20 years than the poverty rate for young people (income below 60% of the French me¬diane) is higher than that of all other age groups, including seniors and the very elderly. This gap is unique in the history of our societies. Until the end of the 20th century, the old were always the poorest, because they had more activity. In 1970, for example, the poverty rate of 75-79 years was three times higher than that of 18-24 years.

Of course, one of the explanations is the rise of the retirement insurance. At the point where it gave its full power in the 1990s, economic growth has slowed, penalizing the less advanced age classes. A scissors effect that has not been patched, not even by the pension reform, since it took place largely at the expense of future seniors and not those of today. Involved a huge deficit.

Therefore, transfers between generations, carried out silently by our welfare State, are unbalanced. The recent work of three french economists are revealing: the annual contribution of a french asset to the welfare State is half higher than that of a German (13 600 euros per year, against 9100), and our french retirees receive a greater redistribution of 2 points of GDP compared to their counterparts across the Rhine. A difficult situation for the assets.

Of course, seniors such as youth are not a homogeneous category. There are also number of poor pensioners. And overall, the 70s worked much more than current generations to 35 hours. Fifty years ago, the "English week", closed by the full weekend of rest, was not so common. And the unskilled working conditions were harsh. However labour existed, which is no longer the case today with evidence for massive unemployment degrading working conditions.

 

On the other hand, the imbalance of public transfers is mitigated by private transfers. It is not uncommon that seniors help their children or grandchildren: according to Insee, in 2004, latest data known, one out of two households helps her children, mainly while in school and during their installation. Are predominantly executives and the intermediary professions that do because the classes still below can not do because too narrow financially.

 

2. a selective labour market, see very bad

 

If we consider the population 15-24 years who entered active life, one on four points to Pôle emploi, or more than twice the French average, all active generations (10.4%). And more low unemployment over the last twenty years, in the 2nd quarter of 2001, they were still more than 15% to look for a job, then the mean national was 7.8%. There are two explanations for this. Firstly, the labour market is cruel with young people. Young, by definition without experience, are abused because their relative price is too high. As it should train them, frame, companies can easily find a better quality-price ratio on a market where the demand for labour exceeds the supply. Among 700 000 young people who complete their initial studies in 2010, 2 out of 10 have more than the national diploma of the patent (DNB), 4 a diploma of the second cycle of secondary education and 4 Diploma of superior.
More diploma, the higher the rate of activity is important and the low unemployment rate. Thus, end of 2010, the unemployment rate of young people recently out of the education system amounted to 45% for graduates of the DNB or without a diploma. It is 27 per cent for graduates of a CAP or a BEP, 18% for high school graduates and 10% for the top graduates.

More graduates have a lower unemployment rate regardless of economic conditions. This has again been the case during the economic crisis of 2008-2009: more graduate unemployment rate increased by 5 points, while it rose 10 points for the graduates of secondary and 13 points for young holders at most of the DNB.

The second reason is the rules of the french labour market. Those who are stationed in TDCI outside the period d´essai for a very large majority, enjoy high protection and often generous submitted system in severance it attaches. At least as far as the cost, is the unpredictability of the courts that deters the businesses to hire. Recruiters "rebill" this uncertainty to newcomers, youth, in the form of precarious contracts, CSD or acting so as to limit their risk. Almost all of the hiring is now done in contracts of this type. More than half of 15-24 years at work are in CDD, interim or learning, the rest is in TDCI. In addition the Intern came artificially inflate the power of work, sometimes up to 15% of the permanent workforce without pay, without contributions, without tickets restaurants… C´EST become a generation stage.

While 90% of 24-49 years are into contracts of indeterminate duration. The short contract became the main route of access to employment. In the 1980s, 77% of young people were in TDCI, against 45% in 2013. For the rest of the population, these figures have remained stable.

To tell the truth, the main beneficiaries are not baby boomers. Because them if they are still at work, are discriminated against for the reasons that young people: their quality-price ratio is not good, because their salary is higher than those of the quadras while their productivity is not better. Companies therefore dismissing them bluntly. The french labour market has built a strong protection for only one generation, the 25-50 years, raising children who is the real winner, when comparing his situation to that of its counterparts in neighbouring countries. It is indeed not good d´etre young as lack d´experience resulting unemployment causing lack d´experience.

3. an inaccessible estate (see my thesis)

Baby boomers have taken advantage of a powerful movement of home ownership: the generation born in 1950 bought its housing on average in 34 years, while it was 56 years for those who were born in 1910. In addition to access to housing, note l´Insee, the quality of housing has also made progress with the generalization of the sanitary facilities. From 1950, the average age of the accessing the property has stabilized. And he has even begun to reassemble. Or, more precisely, from the owners continued to increase among seniors, it is packed in the 45-55 years and collapsed among youth, especially among workers and employees. She resumed however in the early 2000s due to the decline in interest rates, a key factor for young people, for which the share of the debt is unusually important in an acquisition with credits that are getting longer.

It is, of course, the price of real estate that is in question. Since 1996, the prices of old dwellings in metropolitan France increased by 147%, while over the same period, the average income per household rose from 32 000 and 37 €000 per year, or an increase of 15.6% only for reminder income is normally highly correlated with the price of l´immobilier, or rather l ´inverse because it determines the capacity maximum d´un buyer. Those who were already owners before the big rise c´est-IE in majority more than 50 years have seen their assets grow, while others remained on the sidelines. The surge in real estate increased the difference in standard of living and wealth between generations.

4. a system favourable to capitalists

 

In the conduct of economic policy, inflation is a powerful power that allows to spread the wealth between generations. High inflation erodes the capital and reduces the cost of debt. Clearly, it penalizes pensioners and holders of capital, in majority more than 50 years, and benefits those who constitute their heritage by debt by buying real estate at credit, typically the young so that, as in the ' 70s, wages follow higher prices.

More high inflation often means full employment (see what l is called the magic square in Economics). Low inflation produces exactly the opposite effect. The great world break from the beginning of the 1980s, which saw prices stabilize in almost all countries, therefore caused a significant redistribution in favor of the wealthy. He there qu´a see the quote from Warren buffet, who said that if he had been in another time and another place, never it would become one of the largest fortunes in the world.

Breaking consolidated by the choice to realize the European monetary union and to make independent central banks, to make them more effective in the fight against inflation, and only the latter purpose. From 1970 to 1980, prices were increased in US 156%. Over the past ten years, they have progressed that 15.7%, of course prices felt much more increased, because the level of wealth almost not increased individual n´a.

Public debt was "manufactured" artificially, including through the combination of 3 factors: money creation by the credit, the fractional reserve system and article 123 of the Lisbon Treaty

This animated film explains the magical effects and the perverse effects of the current system of "debt money". The debt of Governments, businesses and households has reached astronomical proportions and swells more disproportionately from day to day.
Where does all that money? How can there be so much money to lend? If everyone is in debt, or has the money gone?

The truth is that money doesn't really exist any more, it has become entirely virtual. Banks manufacture money at will. The banking system, this is the biggest scam of all time. The pillar of the economic dictatorship.

This animated film explained clearly and simply (duration: 52 minutes)
Even as inflation fell, most of the country, and the France in particular, have embarked on the massive public debt, another form of transfer. Our welfare State, seen, oriente redistribution more to seniors, while its expenditures are largely financed by the deficit, i.e. the assets of tomorrow, or the youth of today ' hui… In 1980, the French public debt accounted for only 21% of GDP; she approaches 100% today. We are indebted
Normally the State ends for debt by several methods such as no longer reimburse etc: see here http://richesse-et-finance.com/la-dette-dans-lhistoire-comment-cela-se-finit-il/
Generations born in the post-war period are therefore entered in the work at the time of the employment market, they were able to build a real estate by repaying their credits in currency of monkey, thanks to the rise of the prices of the 1970s. And, arrived at the age of maturity, they benefit from a return on capital of more than their elders with the disappearance of inflation… For sixty years, the macroeconomic situation has changed significantly, but still in a favourable way for baby boomers! At the expense of the following.

5. the young people? A secondary political target.

Young people are proportionately in the population, fewer and less voting. And that they will be less, due to the lengthening of the duration of life, which is aging our countries. Then because what they vote less than their elders. In the first round of the presidential election of 2012, forbearance has been 20.5%, but 27% among 18-24 year-olds, with very close figures up to 45 years. Beyond this age, forbearance strongly, fall to 14% only age 60 and over.

These two phenomena have made the most important vote of seniors what to the it n is in l´economie. To be elected, need to please them. A "young candidate" would not likely, nor a policy for young people if it is financed by transfers at the expense of seniors. Ultimate paradox, because young people are l´avenir. And aging d´Europe, experiencing the same evolution do this in all countries. An example with David Cameron, the British Prime Minister soon candidate for re-election, thus multiplies the promises to seduce the old electorate, while it has reduced social benefits of 10 billion euros for the assets and increased by as much those of retirees. Young people are poor and so anyway they have harder to support a party. You can educate yourself on this topic, this s´appelle the theory of public choice.

 

6. the inheritance passes from very old… the old

Another consequence of the lengthening of the life, it inherits more in later. And young people are deprived of financial benefit that often helped their parents or their grand-parents at the same age. Some 340 000 estates taxed (greater than € 50,000) in 2006 were weighed approximately EUR 60 billion before taxes, according to the Ministry of finance. These amounts ploughed first seniors heritage: 78% of Inheritors have more than 50 years and 30% more than 70 years… In total, 54% of inheritors are retirees and that n´ont so no need d´un such heritage. Donations benefit averaged more young people, since 50% of those who receive less than 50 years. And they come in very large majority of seniors who had given, always in 2006,40 billion euros before tax. Only donations are more taxed.

This image illustrates perfectly that if it is too (over 50%) of the population benefiting State it is almost impossible to escape.

7. the explosion of families

If young people are in difficulty, it is not only because of the choices of economic policy and biological developments such as the lengthening of the duration of life. There are also sociological changes relating to lifestyle, and in particular the family. In a Masterful book published was mid-March, "Our Kids. The American Dream in Crisis, American sociologist Robert Putnam returns to the places of her childhood, to Port Clinton, Ohio, to try to explain the progression of the inequalities that affect young people. He tells the company experienced in the 1950s. The social mix was that children from different backgrounds played together, lived together, went to the same 5 schools, fell in love with each other and thus cultures mingled.

The social ascent of his comrades was. Now with the segregation that prevails today, materialized by a border. "invisible and yet impossible to cross between Port Clinton hoopoes, blown by the rise in real estate, and districts 011 prevalent unemployment" drugs and violence, with one of the highest crime rates in the country, opportunities reduced yet.

That has happened, asked Putnam, that the American dream is so broken? Among the different causes that it explores, it is an essential according to him: the dramatic erosion of the traditional since 1970 family. Almost all of the baby boomers were raised by both biological parents, this, said sociologist, had given a stable framework to their childhood, both psy¬chologique and financially. This is not the case for their successors, who are divided into two camps: one-third the more wealthy, where the family has not only resisted, but reinforced, just as marriage. And the remaining two-thirds, where it is is on the contrary lay, the number of children living with a single mother moving as the social level drops or l´inverse. In the first third, children are the result of a deliberate project and enjoy a considerable emotional and financial investment, which gives them the best chance. This is not the case in the remaining two-thirds, which is often, he said, school failure and social slump.

In 1960, only 6% of American children lived with only one of their parents. Today, half of them will go through such a period before their 18. Everything is correlated, according to Putnam.

8. the end of social elevators

 

At the time where social classes were more mixed, the wedding was a very efficient social lift for young people. Admittedly, still there was strong prejudices in affluent environments facing the misalliance of the heir who fell lovers d´un poor. But at least there's opportunities of encounters, and therefore social promotions for youth. Now, harder c´est. A study shows that marriages are now formed within a common environment and also outside. To prove this, researchers have "deconstructs" all marriages contracted in the United States in 2005. They have then combined men and women randomly, and not from personal choices as in reality. After the operation, economic inequality in the United States (as measured with the Gini coefficient) dropped 25%.

But the most troubling is not there. Researchers have made exactly the same experiment on the year i960: random wedding, and comparison of the heritage front and after. And the Gini coefficient has not budged, almost… I960 society married young about without bias, while the 2005 is much more selective.

Why the paths of the upper town are they so closed in half a century? The most likely explanation is the significant increase in women's work over the period and that of young women pursuing graduate studies. Fifty years ago, this is the man who had to support her family in the majority of cases. Grade therefore did not fall within his partner selection criteria. D´ailleurs asked business leaders or senior framework they will reply that they want a woman graduate, for conversation officially, but also to imbalance, framework sup/cleaning woman, it doesn't stick too well.

Today we met his partner during graduate studies more frequently than when women were rare in the universities. Normal, it is easier to dredge a woman in an environment where swarm partners and therefore the possibilities.

We live under the cruel reign of selective pairing, in the words of the American economist Gary Becker. The paradox is that this new inequality between young people comes from the reduction of another difference between men and women.

9. peace

The social elevator works better during wars, or just after, that during long periods of peace, as it is today. Firstly because a military conflict destroyed the capital. Of course, real estate capital, financial, since transactions will interrupt. It reduces inequality between the wealthy and the other, and so also are the generations. Then, because it upsets the social hierarchy of more efficiently than a revolution political and much more than in a peaceful society.

After World War II, much of the French elite has been recruited into the ranks of the surviving Resistance. After the first war, bleeding was such, in fighting, both french, that there was shortage of young men. Marriages of the 1920s enabled many survivors to marry "above of their condition". The harsh law of job and demand.
Conversely, more peace lasts, more inequality weigh with the reproduction of elites, most doors close for badly born young. In fact all persons with inheritable d a good place will try to lock the system by putting barriers. Europe thus has a century of peace, between Waterloo and 1914 with the exception of the short war of 1870 between U France and the Germany), which leads to one of the most unequal periods of history. It was then that one of the characters of Balzac, the Vautrin, advises the ambitious Rastignac only two methods to succeed at the time, sunset or kill.

If peace, despite immense dividends it provides to our societies, slowing down the social ladder, how then to explain the Trente Glorieuses, where it has not prevented prosperity, full employment and advanced social? Probably by the unusually strong character of growth at the time. It took, well, rebuild the economy of the continent after the wars and crises. And by putting in place of the modern welfare state.

Maybe our perception of inequality policy by this biased reference, a double historical exception, the succession of the disastrous thirty and the Trente Glorieuses, where young people have never had so much chance (at least those who survived two conflicts). A historical anomaly. a parenthesis, giving rise to a generation blessed by the stars, baby boomers. In this case, we would be back today in a situation of 'normal '. The world of Balzac, one of the 19th century.

The two extreme ages of life are characterized in terms public d´argent by identical issues: what remedy mechanisms of solidarity and the resources of the families? What respective place of utilities and individual services? What 'choice' available to beneficiaries? Of course, the differences are obvious. The possible extension of the insurance cover of the dependency recalls it as well a risk, while child is before all a moment of existence that we are all. These two ages today require substantial efforts of public expenditure. In 2012, collective spending, all sources (social security, State, local authorities), are broadly equivalent. For less than 6 years, the community spends about 1% of GDP to crèches, family home of the young child benefits and the nursery school. For more than 70 years dependent, (derived from the same sources) financial mass also corresponds to 1% of GDP.

But the deal could well be changed. With unchanged legislation and an organization, support for the aged dependency could represent 1.5 point of GDP by 15 years. There is a mechanical effect of the increase in the number of elderly people with loss of autonomy. Population science has its truths. Overall, we know how many people will be more than 70 years in fifteen years. They were all born! But uncertainty is very high on the number of children under 6 years of age in fifteen years. None was born… The amounts and significant challenges in our context of hyper public debt, require arbitration. They were implicitly rendered in favour of the older (because them they vote). The aging France has made the choice of his elders. In a context where the poverty of the elderly, without having been eradicated, has ample declined, while increased child and young assets, it could have been another. Because retirees now have living standards at least equal to those of the assets while they bring nothing… Assets who aspire to better reconcile their professional activities and family responsibilities lack of power make a real career. It is not certain that the option of a focus on the dependence is most legitimate for children but also for the future. In fact tantamount to result in the future. It is desirable that solutions be found for old age, it is also desirable that the issue of childhood take place on the political agenda. And this in a very difficult context or we live above not with our means, but those of our grandchildren

10 l´epuisement of resources.

 

After the war there were few people to share the abundant resources, indeed of many resources exploitable only l´etaient more because of the war. For example fish that have not been fished for a time were able to reproduce. More lesser population for greater resources allowed to benefit from a double beneficial effect, the cake is bigger and it is fewer people at the table, and all the world with almost the same shovel following the destruction of the capital to collect the cake. Just the opposite today. Indeed we live on credit on our planet and we are more and more numerous. The cake thus decreases and guests are increasingly larger, some with a mini spoon and others that begin with a shovel which maintains a striking inequality. Look specifically at l´energie once prices which allowed a production unprecedented boost in our days, we are more efficient, but more dependent.

11 a scam organized?

It's simple, a worker of 2010 is much more productive than a worker in 1960 and a worker in 2050 will be much more productive than a worker in 2010.

If it is more productive, so it produces more wealth (that is the growth of the GDP) and therefore there is need of fewer workers to produce wealth to finance retirement more retirees… Yet a youngster is on average poorer than its parents at the same age.

This video gives me to think and to grind grain.

"You work more and harder to earn less and less. The game is rigged against you"
"Are there no need of austerity, no need of economic suffering, no need of poverty. There's no shortage. We are the victims of a theft of unimaginable proportion. The truth is that there is more than enough for everyone."

"60 years ago, productivity increased so rapidly that it predicted that, nowadays, whole families could live comfortably the income of a single person working only 10 hours per week… What is it happened in this dream? It was carried out, they were right. What used to take a week's work at the time can now be achieved in only 10 hours… We are now 100 times richer than in the 1950s, the only reason for which we do not have access to this wealth is that it has been confiscated by a criminal class and corrupted… They plunder for gigantic corporations in raising prices and lowering wages, stealing the fruits of our productivity"

"When a family prospered with a single worker, and even though the productivity is now 8 times, 2 parents must work and to struggle for the purposes of month".

sources:

 

• several articles which (sorry I found most all sources, I semlbe that this is the point for one)
• WWF
• Abbé pierre
• des enfoirés
• http://www.finanzaonline.com/Forum/Diritto-Fisco-tutela-del-Risparmio-e-Previdenza-legal-financial-Forum/1673514-Ma-come-fanno-ad-esistere-Ancora-Le-Pensioni-di-Guerra-2.html or https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/two-pictures-that-perfectly-capture-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-welfare-state/
• Mike Keefe appeared in The Denver Post, United States. (http://intoon.com/?)
• http://pilulerouge.over-blog.com/2015/01/comprendre-la-crise-et-la-Dette-et-10-lecons.html