000			01843cam a2200229 4500500
005			20250121114718.0
041			_afre
042			_adc
100	1	0	_aBlanchet, Didier _eauthor
700	1	0	_a Touzé, Vincent _eauthor
245	0	0	_aLongevity, hardship and the new imperative of sobriety: What impact on the choice of retirement age?
260			_c2024.
500			_a71
520			_aThree arguments have traditionally framed the debate on the retirement age: 1) the idea that longer life expectancy logically requires a proportional increase; 2) the fact that the hardship of work argues to the contrary for limiting this increase; and 3) the fact that, incidentally, we have long been able to combine increased life expectancy with a reduction in time worked, and that this could continue to be the case. Environmental urgency introduces a fourth argument that seems to go in the same direction. If less pollution means less production, then we need to work less rather than more. But this sobriety argument is not as one-sided as it seems. Fossil fuels have generally made possible the past decoupling of life expectancy and retirement age: it is by polluting more that we have been able to live better by working less. Can we do without these fossil fuels without having to make use of more labour? A simple heuristic model can be used to set out the main elements of the debate. The choice of retirement age has to strike a balance between constraints that do not all point in the same direction.
690			_aProductivity
690			_aHardship
690			_aLongevity
690			_aRetirement age
690			_aClimate transition
786	0		_nRevue de l'OFCE | o 184 | 1 | 2024-07-26 | p. 157-190 | 1265-9576
856	4	1	_uhttps://shs.cairn.info/journal-revue-de-l-ofce-2024-1-page-157?lang=en&redirect-ssocas=7080
999			_c547367 _d547367