13

11 comments

I think women should get to retire earlier. We work harder. Women do 2/3 of all labor on the planet. We do all the caring labor for parents, we care for our children, we care for grandchildren. We're also the ones who do the volunteering for charity.

When women retire they're still watching their grandkids and their parents and possibly doing charity work.

In Switzerland there are some jobs where you have to retire at retirement age. Even if you have a great pension it will be lower than your salary.

[–] Lipsy 14 points Edited

Of course the story doesn't mention or even hint that this change was driven—at least in part—by a succession of men self-IDing as "female" so as to retire at 64 rather than 65.

Self-ID went into effect Jan. 1 of this year. The first such retirement hustler declared his DeEpLy FeLt JeNdUr fEeLs on Jan. 5. You do the math.

(Actually, the math is worse. Jan. 1 was a Saturday this year, pushing the New Year's Day government holiday to Jan. 3. And Berchtold's day, a national holiday commemorating the founding of the city of Bern, was Sunday Jan. 2 so everything was closed on the 4th, too.
b0i had all his paperwork in order by the first business day.)

As for why they didn't just push the men's retirement age down to 64 to match the Women's—There's actually a competing proposal currently under discussion to raise both ages to 67 (...tracking an uptick in life expectancy I think; i don't know exactly how it works), so the winds are alrdy blowing in the direction of upping the figure. Also, like Social Security, the system may not be sustainable for much longer without workers (who are living longer than ever) paying in for a couple more years.
They might not even be doing a whole-ass misogyny! Holy wow!

Of course the story doesn't mention or even hint that this change was driven—at least in part—by a succession of men self-IDing as "female" so as to retire at 64 rather than 65.

Self-ID went into effect Jan. 1 of this year. The first such retirement hustler declared his DeEpLy FeLt JeNdUr fEeLs on Jan. 5. You do the math.

Thanks for this context! I had no idea and this background is everything.

Why wait until your male retirement age when all you have to do is to say that you are a woman and get to do it sooner!

Yes, agreed, it should be the same age for men and for women. This deal is ripe for TRA misuse.

[–] Lipsy 2 points Edited

Brazil has a much larger gap between retirement ages, which, perhaps surprisingly, has had enduring popularity for quite a while (it's been a thing since not all that long after the military junta was ousted in '85). Please see my response to infinitenumber in this thread for details.

having a different retirement age for men and women was going to cause backlash eventually. I know at least MRA's have been using this an example of men being mistreated because men have lower life expectancy, and they should of got the lower retirement age.

[–] Lipsy 4 points Edited

In Brazil there's long been a five-year gap—with Women able to collect a pension at 55, men not until 60. ((ed: this is changing, see below))

The reasoning given behind the differential made heavy use of medical experts' testimony regarding sex differences in the effects of aging on the heavy physical work that most rural Brazilian workers perform on the job. To be a bit simplistic (but fundamentally accurate), the legislature had credible testimony to the effect that, owing to postmenopausal changes in things like bone density and muscle strength, the risk of severe injury to rural Women workers over 55 was pitched enough to justify the decision.

I have no idea how much the measure was motivated by actual concerns centering poor rural workers, vs. how much of it was just cold financial accounting of credits vs. debits to Brazil's public health system, i.e. something like "govt hospitals in the rural north are spending so much money and resources to treat injured Women between x and y ages, that the public treasury would actually save money by just letting Women retire earlier and tossing them a pension").
As an American, I'm floored either way that an entire piece of consequential legislation—especially one as potentially divisive as a 5-year pension gap—was limned around poor, rural, Female agricultural workers. That's so... aspirational.

On a chat app with a Brazilian friend just now, I asked her about this and she said the Bolsonaro government was able to pass reforms raising the ages to 62 (F) and 65 (m).

She says that the need for reform was pretty dire—as in, because of longer life expectancies (it's a pay-as-you-go system like Social Security), the public pension system could have collapsed in the next ten years had this reform not gone through. Apparently, the 55/60 system was so popular—especially in the (arch-conservative) rural northern states—that 4 previous attempts to change it failed. Again, just wow.

Friend says that Argentina, too, has a five-year gap (Women's pension age is 60, men's is 65). She doesn't know if the reasoning is the same, nor whether any reforms are coming down the pike.

That's interesting.

Women do not always live longer than men (it's just an average) and the fact that women are more prone to injuries if working physical jobs after menopause is a very convincing argument.

They should have kept the retirement age of 55 for women who do physical work. (That's not very many people in Europe - I don't know about Brazil - but they aren't usually able to pay much, so I think it is more important to raise the retirement ages of the people with office jobs who earn a lot of money.)

I have no problem with this. Women live longer than men anyhow.