Beijing battles demographic crisis and pressure on pension system by keeping population in workforce for longer
The retirement age will be raised for men from 60 to 63 over the course of 15 years. Women had more favorable conditions and also dependent on their employment as blue collar or white collar, but 63yo will be the oldest retirement age.
This marks the first increase since the 50s, and I assume they mean late 50s.
At that time the average age expectancy in China was 33 years old. It was quickly increased in the early years of the PRC of course, reaching 78 years old today.
15 years means that the CPC is once again planning long term, expecting higher increases in life expectancy over time, but perhaps also preparing for increased automation. The Chinese population ages like everyone else in the world, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they sometimes have to take decisions like these. There's a huge qualitative difference with a 3-5 years increase in the retirement age over 15 years and a 5 years increase for everyone over 3 years. Regardless of system. In the west, they increase the retirement age to funnel more money to capitalists. With no capitalists to finance in China, this money is going into pension funds for a 1.6 billion population. We can decry the need for pensions but that's how the system works the world over, so until they find a better system this is what they have.
I'm sure this decision displeases Chinese workers and it would displease me too, but consider also the CPC tracks back when needed. With a one party system they can cancel policies easily. Though at the same time those nearing retirement age now definitely remember harder times.
I say all that because I had this discussion not long ago on these news. I'm reminded of politzers words,
Among the many examples we could cite, let us take just this one. We are told: "A worker in the Soviet Union receives a salary that does not correspond to the total value of what he produces, so there is a surplus value, that is to say, a deduction from his salary. So it is stolen. In France, it is the same, workers are exploited; there is therefore no difference between a Soviet worker and a French worker.
Where is the metaphysical conception in this example? It consists in not considering that there are two types of societies here and in not taking into account the differences between these two societies. To believe that as long as there is added value here and there, it is the same thing, without considering the changes that have taken place in the Soviet Union, where man and machine no longer have the same economic and social meaning as in France. Now, in our country, the machine exists to produce (at the service of the boss) and man to be exploited. In the U.S.S.R., the machine exists to produce (at the service of man) and man to enjoy the fruit of his labor. The surplus value in France goes to the boss; in the USSR to the socialist state, that is to say, to the community without exploiters. Things have changed.
In the west, they increase the retirement age to funnel more money to capitalists. With no capitalists to finance in China, this money is going into pension funds for a 1.6 billion population.
What do you mean "with no capitalists to finance in China"?! There is objectively and obviously a Chinese bourgoisie, and this is therefore funneling money to them just like it would be doing anywhere else in the world.
What is quoted after is of course true of the USSR between the end of the NEP and the revisionists restoring capitalism, but we already have overwhelmingly widespread capitalism (privately owned MoP producing commodities, extracting surplus value through wage labor) in China, the two systems are extremely different.
Explain the mechanism by which the pension funds get funneled to the Chinese bourgeoisie in the PRC. Capitalists never touch public money in China, hence they are not financed by the PRC.
Ah, I see what you're saying now I think, so it would still be benefiting the capitalists (expanding the labor pool does that) but, in terms of direct finances, it doesn't really intersect with them.
Yeah, I was being very specific but I can see where the confusion came from. Thanks.
China's retirement age is one of the lowest in the world, by the way: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_age "The new retirement age was announced on 13 September 2024 and is now 63 for men, 58 for female civil servants and 55 for female workers. It will take effect on 1 January 2025. Previously, the retirement age was 60 for men, 55 for female civil servants, and 50 for female workers.[27] The 2024 change marked the first increase of the retirement age since the 1950s.[28] The retirement age will apply to men born in and after 1965, female civil servants born in and after 1970 and female workers born in or after 1975. The retirement age increase is based on the individual’s year and month of birth, as it increases by 1 month for every 4-month-block months of birth for males and female civil servants and 1 month for every 2-month-block for female workers until 2040. It is expected to be fully phased in for male workers born in September 1976, female civil servants born in September 1981 and female workers born in November 1984. The New regulation also stipulates that those affected by the change may voluntarily reduce their retirement age by up to 3 years if they have made the minimum length of pension payments, or delay their retirements by up to 3 years if permitted by the employer. The minimum pension payment period will also be increased from 15 years to 20 from 2030."
The gradual increase is good, means that nobody nearing retirement age will suddenly have to work more additional years they weren't expecting to, unlike in western countries which raise the age. Still not ideal but I'm sure the government looked at all possible alternatives in depth before coming to the decision.
As per CGTN the increase will take place over 15 years btw, I trust them over Wikipedia and assume at this moment that Wikipedia means the new policy will start taking effect in Jan 2025.
Understandable. 63 is a reasonable age for retiring and their population is aging.
Archive link: https://archive.is/20240913092333/https://www.ft.com/content/56d8151e-8373-469a-bea7-11c00eb3ed16
