Questo articolo è stato pubblicato il 13 aprile 2012 alle ore 05:57.
L'ultima modifica è del 13 aprile 2012 alle ore 03:53.
An issue of method and one of merit. The method: a technical committee designed to shed light on the affair of the mass worker exodus—better yet, those who need to be safeguarded—as the communiqué released yesterday by the labor minister defines those who, nearing retirement, risk losing both their salaries and any pension funding. We expected a technical committee (requested, no less, by a technical minister) to provide a “technical” response. A precise quantification of those potentially affected.
A quantification that would take its lead from the list indicated in the reform measure (the “save Italy” decree, together with the adjustments in the “Milleproroghe” decree): how many workers over the long and short terms? How many drawing on solidarity funding? How many in voluntary prescription? How many are part of a true “exodus”—in other words, workers who are motivated to leave work because pensions are fading further away? And little by little all the other situations that continue to be governed by the “old” pension regulations.
None of this arrived (or, at least, none of it has been communicated). In terms of method, this isn’t exactly a shining example of transparency. Taking a closer look, it would have been reasonable to expect that this technical table would be farsighted enough to quantify those situations—and there are a lot of them—that can be considered borderline, consisting of workers who currently have no safeguards yet who find themselves in the same condition as the others: they risk being left with no paycheck and no pension. But here as well, nothing but fog as thick as pea soup.
As far as the issue of merit, more than of solutions, is concerned, what was delivered yesterday seems to be a “quick fix.” The minister tells us that roughly 65,000 people are safeguarded for the next two years. Fortunately that’s exactly the number for which the reforms have already set aside the resources necessary to cover (more than 5 billion through 2019). Unfortunately, just one day earlier, Italy’s INPS communicated far different numbers: 130,000 people affected in four years; more than 1.4 million in “voluntary prescription.” You don’t have to be an accountant to understand that something’s not adding up, as the minister’s communiqué seems to be implying when, toward the end, it affirms that they are identifying solutions appropriate for situations not covered by the current regulations. So what was the review for?
It’s a shame that an opportunity for clarification has been lost. Numbers aren’t everything, but in this case there are real people behind the numbers. There are real stories, real drama: if someone had paid a little more attention, it would have at least represented a sign of respect.
HONG KONG – Too often, debate about the relationship between the state and the market casts them as opposing forces locked in a zero-sum struggle. But this simplistic approach quickly turns ...
STANFORD – The recent controversy over errors in a 2010 paper by the economists Carmen Reinhart and is a sad commentary on the demands of the 24/7 news cycle and the politically toxic ...