Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China Businesses

China Raises Retirement Age For First Time Since 1950s (bbc.com) 153

Posted by msmash from the tough-times dept.
China will "gradually raise" its retirement age for the first time since the 1950s, as the country confronts an ageing population and a dwindling pension budget. From a report: The top legislative body on Friday approved proposals to raise the statutory retirement age from 50 to 55 for women in blue-collar jobs, and from 55 to 58 for females in white-collar jobs. Men will see an increase from 60 to 63. China's current retirement ages are among the lowest in the world.

According to the plan passed on Friday, the change will set in from 1 January 2025, with the respective retirement ages raised every few months over the next 15 years, said Chinese state media. Retiring before the statutory age will not be allowed, state news agency Xinhua reported, although people can extend their retirement by no more than three years. Starting 2030, employees will also have to make more contributions to the social security system in order to receive pensions. By 2039, they would have to clock 20 years of contributions to access their pensions.

China Raises Retirement Age For First Time Since 1950s More | Reply

China Raises Retirement Age For First Time Since 1950s

Comments Filter:

  • Better deal than the US (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I bet they get a pension there, too.

    • Re:Better deal than the US (Score:4, Interesting)

      by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Monday September 16, 2024 @11:03AM (#64790257)

      - We still have social security last time I checked.
      - We have SSI or SSDI for people who are disabled
      - We have temporary welfare for people who lose their jobs

      The only thing the US fucks up on is we don't have free housing cabins for the homeless. Our homeless shelter system is horrible. We need to have designated homeless cabin villages about 20 miles of every city periphery. (Far away enough that you'd still be motivated to keep trying to get a job, near enough that the bus can take you into the city center in 45 mins).

      • We need to have designated homeless cabin villages

        Some homeless don't want them. They just keep moving back to their favorite patch of sidewalk.

        • Yeah make that illegal. And after repeated violation, fuck it, subject to cold water spray.

          • Then what?

            • Hm, so about 10% would stay after being told repeatedly to move to the homeless village or find a friend/relative that would take them in, then about 10% of those would stay even after cold water spray (which I was kidding about -- as we know the city will be sued if they catch pneumonia even though they literally invited it upon themselves) by such action are clearly either mentally ill or deliberately violating the ordinance put them in a mental health facility until they can demonstrate sanity to the maj

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

                It seems you're not cognizant of the worldwide shortage of mental health specialists.

              • Re: Better deal than the US (Score:5, Interesting)

                by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Monday September 16, 2024 @02:47PM (#64790949)

                Unfortunately Ronaold Reagan in his infinite wisdom decided to shut those asylums down with no real replacement.

                Here’s how Reagan’s decision to close mental institutions led to the homelessness crisis [sandiegouniontribune.com]

                This I would say is a clearcut difference in the attitude of trying to reform/improve something versus just scrapping it or rampant "deregulation". There were absolutely problems with the asylum system in the 60's and 70's but when something that is necessary isnt working getting rid of it with no real plan isn't the answer.

                You have to believe in institutions in the first place in order to reform them. Ther government has to be a final backstop for people with mental health issues, there is nobody else to do it.

                Like I actually agree with the "cold-water-spray" in that we can and should be draconian about street living, it's incompatible with society, but if we want to enact that we have to be willing to fund the services and housing people who have noplace else to go need. Doing one without the other just creates the mess we are currently in with regards to homelessness.

                • It was bipartisan [politifact.com]. The hospitals weren't great, forced institutionalization was horrible, and the hospitals were unpopular among voters.

                  • Sure but even in the fact check they put some emphasis on Reagan, twice in fact However, fiscal conservatives also played a crucial role, including Reagan, who signed landmark bills, first in California and then for the nation. Other key players in the policy shift included the U.S. Supreme Court and governors and legislators from both parties who saw an opportunity to save money by closing inpatient institutions.

                    I put a bit more on Regan because right before leaving office Carter passed a bill trying to fo

                    • Ok, so I get the anti-reagan hate, but he's been dead a long time. We aren't going to bring back forced asylums. We aren't going to throw all the homeless people in jail either. We already spend a lot of money on homelessness, at least in many states. You can have subsidized mental health care in California and Oregon. What changes would you like to see, besides just complaining about a dead president?

                    • Never too late to hate Reagan, he's been whitewashed by conservatives for a long time and the influence of his presidency reverberates through today, there are people that still believe in supply-side economics and massive tax cuts as stiumulus today due to the lessons. Guy is still a huge figure in political operators today. This is a country that still debates over the decisions made by people 200+ years ago we can still discuss what a guy a mere 40 years ago did.

                      What would I like to see? Glad you asked

                    • So you want something like what Texas is doing? http://amarillohousingfirst.or... [amarillohousingfirst.org]

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by dryeo ( 100693 )

                      I wouldn't be too sure about not bringing back asylums. Here in BC where we're having an election, both the current parties are pledging to start doing forced treatment and generally the people are in favour of reopening the asylum. Too many stranger attacks by the mentally ill not to mention the crime etc.

                    • Pretty much,! I want to say Salt Lake City had some success with a similar policy. Honestly "red" states are better on housing policy in general than the more liveral ones.

                      I think we can leave the fine details to the local towns since this is very much a local problem but I want some directives and financial support to come from Congress, let's make a real concerted effort and really encourage more towns to start some public housing projects for this and in general. A lot of this

        • Re: Better deal than the US (Score:5, Insightful)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday September 16, 2024 @11:35AM (#64790329) Homepage Journal

          I can't imagine why anyone would be suspicious of a purpose built ghetto they were forced to move to.

          To fix homelessness, you need to address the causes of it. Health issues, lack of affordable housing, poverty in general. It's cheaper and better for everyone to do that.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by HBI ( 10338492 )

            Substance abuse is mostly the issue. It gets conflated with mental illness, but both are present in most on the streets. If you have an actual solution i'm all ears. Closing down the mental institutions mostly just put people on the streets, a lot of whom (but not all) ended up in jail.

            And please don't say "harm reduction". Might as well distribute lethal injections at that point, it's the same net effect. Consequences change people, making it easy to remain an addict consigns them to a slow (or fast) d

            • Re: Better deal than the US (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Monday September 16, 2024 @11:50AM (#64790381)

              >Substance abuse is mostly the issue. It gets conflated with mental illness, but both are present in most on the streets. If you have an actual solution i'm all ears. Closing down the mental institutions mostly just put people on the streets, a lot of whom (but not all) ended up in jail.

              Very true, but what people really don't like to acknowledge is that some of the people who end up on the streets and abusing alcohol or drugs didn't have to end up that way. They were effectively guided in that direction as they had few options that all seemed impossible to them until they finally gave in and gave up. We know this is true because the percentage of people ending up in that condition changes over time but people, genetically, have not.

              That should never happen in societies as wealthy as ours.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Portugal had a lot of success by decriminalizing drugs and instead treating them as a health problem.

              • Portugal had a lot of success by decriminalizing drugs and instead treating them as a health problem.

                Portugal has at least 4,800 child sexual abuse victims [bbc.com] thanks to the Catholic Church, and more than likely thousands of others.

                Apparently that isn't a problem for them. How many of those abuse victims went on to use drugs to mask the horrors they endured?

                • Portugal has at least 4,800 child sexual abuse victims [bbc.com] thanks to the Catholic Church

                  Absolute numbers are useless for this kind of metric. You need to use a relative metric, say, number of victims per 100,000 professionals (priest, in this case) per year, to then compare different formal religions against each other, as well as to non-religious activities such as schools, clubs, or whatever.

                  Last time I checked something like this, years ago, the Catholic Church was below average, not above it. Evidently it'd be much preferably they were at 0, but that's an unrealistic expectation, to say th

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by AvitarX ( 172628 )

                And it's worth noting, a health problem taken seriously.

                Portland decriminalized drugs and didn't follow up with support and it went poorly.

                Portugal decriminalized and made sure that anyone that wanted to stop had support and something to do.

                They actually spent the money for the second part in Portugal and that's why it worked out.

                This may be obvious to you, but it wasn't obvious in reading your post how much effort they put into it, and leaving that part out leads to half assed efforts (sort of like how we

          • There are aspects of poverty that cannot be addressed in modern society without directly giving people stuff. If a person is unable to get work or unwilling no matter how bad his standard of living becomes or unable to perform profitable work or works but spends every penny on drugs the options are to feed and house her or let her be homeless. "have her provide for herself" isn't an option. A lot of people prefer to believe that it's actually possible for literally anyone to feed and house himself. What we

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Nothing wrong with giving people stuff based on need. I'd much rather live in a society where someone who is disabled and can't work can still live a decent life, and contribute to society in other ways. It's not like there is a shortage of money to pay for it.

          • The drug addiction should be treated in a mental health facility. I am not opposed to that, you're the one opposed to that.

            The villages are for people who lost their job and couldn't pay their mortgage/rent. Get off the sidewalk where you're intruding on foot traffic and ruining businesses (thereby causing even more homelessness). Who is forcing anyone into camps?Fuck off with that rhetoric bro. The cabin village which people are not only free to but also encouraged to exit at any time. In fact it should ha

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by MBGMorden ( 803437 )

          Some homeless don't want them. They just keep moving back to their favorite patch of sidewalk.

          Yeah - a lot of them basically are of the mindset that if they're homeless they're at least going to be homeless near a nice beach or something.

          And the reality is that 80-90% of homeless people are either struggling with substance abuse or have psychological problems. For the others homelessness tends to be a temporary situation that you can work out of eventually (or they never end up there as most well adjusted people have some number of friends or family that will let them stay with them to keep them of

          • A good fraction of the people who are addicted are beyond helping with rehab. They'd literally rather die than quit their drugs.

            Maybe better than mandatory rehab is a clean supply of drugs and a place they can die in better conditions than the street. If they have access to their drugs without doing crimes, it's safer for the rest of us.

            If they can be addicts and still contribute to society in a positive way, then so much the better--help them manage it.

            I just can't see a way to get people to do mandatory

        • Which of course should beg the question, what was so bad about those "cabin villages" that the sidewalk was preferable to them?

          Note, that was a rhetorical question. I don't want to hear your answer to it. Nor any other USian's chosen quip.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by spitzak ( 4019 )

            The problem actually is that the "shelter" that is proposed is beds in a huge facility. It is pretty obvious that even one layer of ripstop nylon tent is better than the air-only protection and privacy offered by these facilities, and choosing to remain in a tent on the street is a no-brainer.

            Claims that they are turning down "cabins" are wrong. I know for a fact that homeless are actively working on schemes to get themselves assigned to a "tiny home" without getting assigned to a motel or shelter. They nee

            • Exactly! We could have UN cabins aka Relief Housing Units. They cost about $1000 and are secure. Here's a link to their specification: https://bettershelter.org/reli... [bettershelter.org] Security is important, so there should be external surveillance of the facility to catch anyone attempting to break into any cabin, and there should be an anti-loitering, cleanliness, and anti-hoarding policy as part of the agreement to stay there. If someone can't abide by basic rules then they should be in a mental health facility or, if

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by spitzak ( 4019 )

                Pretty much this is what I was thinking of. The cost is a lot more than $1000/unit because you need the land to build it on, and that land has to be within walking distance of places the homeless want to go, like work and family and restaurants. Also there is some expense with a foundation and the support buildings. My guess is about $60,000 per unit.

                I think a potential job for them is to work as security and janitors, ie employ the homeless to actually look after their place. Provide a large and easily-acc

        • Re: Better deal than the US (Score:4, Insightful)

          by flink ( 18449 ) on Monday September 16, 2024 @12:40PM (#64790551)

          That's because shelters often treat their tenants as children, with curfews and mandatory drug searches. Also the sleeping arrangements and limits on what can be brought in mean they have to worry about what little they have being stolen.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by PPH ( 736903 )

            That's because shelters often treat their tenants as children

            They don't want a tiny home either.

            I suspect that what they _do_ want is a residence within a few yards of where their dealer does business.

          • So in the streets they don't have to worry about things being stolen? And btw, that could be solved with surveillance, but then you'd cry about privacy.

        • Most homeless don't use them because they have drug alcohol use policies that they cant or wont abide by so they either can't get into them or quickly get kicked out of them.

      • Now do healthcare.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rskbrkr ( 824653 )

          Now do healthcare.

          "Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a regulated Class B large medical equipment, which is widely used in clinical practice. Its configuration has increased from 1.28 units per million people in 2009 to 5.02 units in 2017"
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

          It's 38 per million in the US.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        > Our homeless shelter system is horrible.

        There are shrinking towns in the rust-belt. Why can't we locate more there instead of stuff everybody into the coasts? That's not logical, humans!

        China would allocate smarter.

        • By far the cheapest way to deal with homelessness is to send the homeless to another city or state, preferably while preaching about personal responsibility and how the places you're sending them to are commie idiots. If the city or state that refused to take care of their own were forced to pay the place that took in their refugees, suddenly taking care of your own would become very popular.

      • "Our homeless shelter system is horrible" And people wonder why people will brave subfreezing temperatures rather than just "go to a shelter". Have they seen most of those places? Open human warehouses filled with lice and bedbugs, and people who are violently mentally ill. And rampant theft. "They just don't want to follow the rules". Imagine being rousted at 4am and kicked out by 5am, rain or shine, sleet and snow. And then you have to come back at ridiculous times such as 2pm and wait in a long line, us

      • "We still have social security last time I checked.
        - We have SSI or SSDI for people who are disabled
        - We have temporary welfare for people who lose their jobs

        The only thing the US fucks up on is we don't have free housing cabins for the homeless."

        Have you seen what these benefits actually pay? They aren't enough to live on in most of the country. The COLA just hit and it's roughly Jack.

        • Social Security was never intended to be a full up retirement plan. It is a last ditch effort to keep people from having to eat cat food.

          • Social Security was never intended to be a full up retirement plan.

            OK, but you do see how that is bullshit, right?

            Right?

          • It pretty much is when a vast majority of workers who aren't white collar office workers don't have access to 401k plans, nor have the funds to put into an IRA due to their low pay.

        • If you make it so that people can live comfortably without ever doing any work, how many people would work? Who will haul garbage or work with sewage as a hobby? Sure there might be a few people willing to do that as a hobby because they're bored watching Netflix at home and hanging out, it won't be nearly enough. How many jobs do you think people will do at low cost, if they didn't need to work? We have the numbers on that, how many millionaires work in retail? I'm sure a FEW do, but it'll be a very very s

          • If you make it so that people can live comfortably without ever doing any work, how many people would work?

            We get social security because WE PAY INTO IT.

            It would be ETERNALLY SOLVENT if we would REMOVE THE CONTRIBUTION CAP.

            Everything you think you know about Social Security, you learned from Fox News. Fuck right off with your reich wing mainstream media (Fox is over 50% of all news stations, they ARE the MSM) talking points immediately.

            • Read each word that I wrote.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by GlennC ( 96879 )

                So what you're saying is that everybody is a lazy moocher who wants to lay around all day and get a free house, free money, and free food and not have to work.

                Everyone except for you that is. Is that what you're trying to say?

              • Read each word that I wrote.

                I did, and they were all fucking stupid.

                • If you read it, the where did you get the idea that I said people who work shouldn't get decent social security?

    • Re:Better deal than the US (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Monday September 16, 2024 @01:21PM (#64790703) Homepage Journal

      China has a pension system, but it's threatened by slowing population growth (and now a population decline) and the very early retirement age, especially as life expectancy has shot up. China's life expectancy didn't get above 50 until 1966, but it reached 60 by 1972 and 70 by 1996. It's now around 77. That's a very, very long time to be covering pensions. A three-year extension on retirement age is going to help a little, but ultimately, they're going to have to come in line with other countries that have pushed well up into the 60s.

  • Why do women retire at a younger age than men, especially when they are likely to live longer than men ?

    I suppose that men tend to marry women who are younger than them, so this means that they are more likely to retire at the same time. But is it fair ?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by znrt ( 2424692 )

      Why do women retire at a younger age than men, especially when they are likely to live longer than men ?

      it's an old policy because women tend to work twice as hard as men, since they have to run family and house too. that's expected to change, though.

      But is it fair ?

      society in general is still very unfair to women everywhere in the world, this is a drop in the ocean.

      • You do not create a path towards equality and fairness by taking unfair, unequal actions and giving advantages to a group and then somehow pseudo-balancing it against the rest of the world.

      • We are talking about China. So they are not going to have the same values as us "westerners". Honestly, I'm a little surprised China even has a defined retirement age

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by JBeretta ( 7487512 )

        it's an old policy because women tend to work twice as hard as men, since they have to run family and house too.

        Ah. You're an idiot. Women work twice as hard as men? Yeah.. all those women in coal mines, oil platforms, sewer systems, construction, road building, rail building (and my favorite) roofing in the summer..... and every other back-breaking job that requires actual sweat and muscles....

        Jobs that are actually physically demanding are nearly absent women.. You might see a couple of bull-dykes (for you assholes who are about to have a stroke - that's what they call THEMSELVES), or the odd outlier, but that's

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

        Well, it's their own damn fault for believing the old hags when they told them being a strong, independent woman was the best thing ever.

        Just some food for thought: Both my wife and I are autists and she used to be a housewife... of her own choice, might I add. Let's just say both jobs can get overwhelming some days....

        Point is, I help her out with hers but she can't help with mine.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by znrt ( 2424692 )

          if it's a free choice that's fine. but choice is only free if the options available are fair to begin with.

          life and nature are unfair by definition, but in an egalitarian society everyone should have the option to be independent as far as ability allows. if there is a cultural obstacle because of gender, or it comes with strings attached (like having to work double), that's gender discrimination, plain and simple. this has been normal for thousands of years, but we're supposed to be transitioning away from

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jjn1056 ( 85209 )

      If you go back to around the time of the Cultural Revolution and the period right before that, lots of women finished school after 8th grade and started working, often in dangerous factories. And then they got married and raised families while working. By the time they are 50 they are actually pretty worn out and not capable of doing more.

    • This no longer works: my retirement age is 67. Iâ(TM)m six years older than my wife, but her retirement age is 68. I can claim my pension for seven years before she can claim hers. Weâ(TM)re in the UK.

  • What if the finish line gets pulled even further ahead before many people can reach it? :-/

  • The Communist Hell-hole has a flexible retirement age between 50 and 60! What a brutal burden on the oppressed slaves of this pitiless totalitarian dictatorship. Fortunately they have seen the light and are moving towards the more enlightened Western standard of 65 years.

Slashdot Top Deals

He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.

Close