This house would abolish compulsory retirement - Opening Speeches

First Proposing Speech

Dear readers, welcome to this debate where we are going to show you why we should abolish compulsory retirement. First of all, what does the word retirement mean for us? We are simply going to define it as the act of leaving your job to start collecting your pension. We hope there is no need to define compulsory or abolish, that all readers know these terms without problem...

First opposing speech

In this debate, me, and then my teammates from the opposing team, are going to show you that abolish compulsory retirement would be a huge mistake.

I think the words of the motion don’t need to be explained. Indeed, this motion takes part in the burning issue of what should we do to save our retirement system in France. And this is for this reason that I will particularly consider the French political and economical context (nowadays, in France, unless you are self-employed, you must retire at the age of sixty.)...

First Proposing Speech

Dear readers, welcome to this debate where we are going to show you why we should abolish compulsory retirement. First of all, what does the word retirement mean for us? We are simply going to define it as the act of leaving your job to start collecting your pension. We hope there is no need to define compulsory or abolish, that all readers know these terms without problem.

Our exposition, will be divided in two axes: we think that compulsory retirement is not just bad for the state, which has to pay the bill of the pensions of the retired people, but is also a nonsense for those people, like doctors, physicians or other specialists who are in the best moment of their career and who want to continue their job, because it’s their passion, and because they can offer a lot to the society, thanks to their knowledge and their experience.

Financial and demographic flaws of the retirement system

Fixed retirement age is a kind of anachronism today. We do not have as an enormous labor force as we did on the 50’s and 60’s, when our retirement system was introduced. The demographic conditions have clearly changed: we live longer and better, we have fewer children, and our working environment has improved, so it comes up that a reform of the retirement system would just be natural, and necessary, and that the old system of compulsory age of retirement should be questioned.

Moreover, the cost of the current system strains the state. The bill of the actual retirement system is huge, and we are not able to assure the future of the pensions of our children anymore. Besides, we should look at the reforms that the other countries are introducing nowadays. In Spain for example, the retirement age is a right, but not an obligation, and it has been replaced by the age of 67. Germany changed the age of retirement some months ago to make it 2 or 3 years longer. In the United States, compulsory retirement at the age of 65 was practiced during the 20th century and was abolished due to age discrimination. So, at this point, let me ask the reader: how long is it going to take until the systems cracks, if we do not abolish compulsory retirement, just like many have countries successfully done?

People’s opinion and brain drain

Now, tell us: why should we pay oversized amounts of money to finance the retirement of a person who maybe wanted to continue working, because it would allow him to earn more, or simply because this person likes his job? Imposing a retirement age is implicitly saying that your job is necessarily a burden for you, and that the goal of every worker in the country is to stop working as soon as possible! However, because working conditions have improved, and because the average level of study has increased, many people do like their job, and are not especially in a hurry to leave it. Besides, retiring does not always mean starting an exciting period of funny holidays: retired people often don’t earn enough to be able to fulfill their dreams of travels and other exciting experiences, and just start boring, and thinking only about old age, illness and death, while going on working would have allowed them to keep a real social life, recognition and stimulating activities.

We talked about finance and the economy of the state, but you also have to consider people and their needs. Although retirement has to be part of our social system to prevent workers from exploitation and assure the living conditions of the elderly people, a compulsory age of retirement is not the solution because it comes up to introduce a brain drain. We already said that many people liked their job, and did not want to leave it. In particular, there are plenty of examples of great Scientifics who left their country because it was imposing them to retire, to go to another country where they could work as long as they wanted to. Doctors that made a reputation during all their life are forced to leave their own country, which loses a great intellectual potential.

It’s for all these reasons that the compulsory retirement is a discrimination of age and damages the society and the perception we have of our government and of work generally. So, if you like to be free to take your own decisions and to manage your life as you want, vote for us.

Clarisse and Javier

First opposing speech

In this debate, me, and then my teammates from the opposing team, are going to show you that abolish compulsory retirement would be a huge mistake.

I think the words of the motion don’t need to be explained. Indeed, this motion takes part in the burning issue of what should we do to save our retirement system in France. And this is for this reason that I will particularly consider the French political and economical context (nowadays, in France, unless you are self-employed, you must retire at the age of sixty.).

To begin with, I am going to make a rebuttal to a common argument that I fear to read. Indeed, I do not want it to become the centre of this debate because I think it does not fit the motion. Do not tell me that, nowadays, considering all the problems we have in France to find money for retired people, it would be ridiculous to prevent people from working older. Actually, in this debate, I am not going to defend that we should not increase the age of compulsory retirement, because I think it would be a good thing to save our system. I will only promote that we still have to maintain an age of compulsory retirement, and I am now going to tell you why.

Firstly, in Europe, we live in a society where the number of old people keeps increasing. All the wise men, and there are a great many wise people in the staff of Centrale Paris School, defend that the future is built on innovation. So, I am asking you, dear readers, do you think that it is a good thing to let people work very old? And, do not make me say what I am not saying. I am not trying to convince you that old people cannot find innovative ideas. I just want to say that as we get older we become less confident in the future and in the consequences of our decisions, and then we have a tendency to preserve our small humdrum routine. On the contrary, as an example, a young person fired from a society because he had made the wrong choice knows he has time to recover his reputation and save his career.

Furthermore, dear readers, we all know the plague of unemployment allowances in France. They are ruining the nation and permit a lot of unemployed people to take pleasure (Do not think I am saying that every people out of job is like that, because I know it is wrong), earning approximately the same as someone having a menial job. Thus, I think that by imposing an age of compulsory retirement we will let the place for those who seem not able to find a job. People are asking for more work? Let us give them a job, and you will allow the older ones to enjoy their retirement instead of permitting younger ones to enjoy their unemployment. In addition to that, I know that our population is getting older, but for those who enter the working world, it would be good to know that some places are still vacant.

For the values of national growth and work that my teammates will continue to defend, dear readers, make the right decision, and vote for us.

Paul R.