The reform of social insurance is about to be put in place by the Prime Minister Gabriel Attal. In a context France suffers from a great deal of debt, and growth is not very high, it looks relevant at first sight to get money from wherever it comes. This approach looks serious and responsible. However there are great drawbacks that make that idea non relevant.
Putting money off unemployed people in fragile situations to look more responsible, while on the other side not taking enough big companies look to be strong with the weak and weak with the strong. If it is a good thing, in my opinion, to encourage and control the fact unemployed are really looking for a job or working can be a solution, it is on the other side necessary to have a generous system for the unemployed as well. Investing more money on training for the unemployed to prepare for the jobs of the future, as in Germany, can be a much better solution. It can cost more in the short run, but in the long run get more people out of precarious situations.
Moreover this question is a false one, to the extend there are many other ways to get more money than handicapping the most precarious people. Encouraging more work from the population overall looks to be a better solution, protecting at the same time the most precarious. It looks more profitable in the long run to encourage work, which can at the end of the course be a lot more profitable, than cutting funds for the unemployed.
This is the reason why the real question looks more to be the amount of work the general population is willing to do than some money that can be brought. To this extend society of work should be more encouraged. Encouraging entrepreneurs can be a better solution as well : for instance Manuel Valls proposed in 2017 to harmonize social insurance of auto entrepreneurs and salaries. This measure can be efficient to encourage the unemployed to create their companies and to stay more connected with the job market. It is the reason why it looks necessary to encourage work, not punishing the unemployed for their situations.
The Nordic model looks to be more relevant than the French one. But it can work if society is willing to work a great deal. Maybe the real debate should be about the real amount of work people want to do to prepare better the future. Cutting such insurances looks more a communication posture, with few positive effects compared with the negative ones it can bring to many people in precarious situations.
The observer 