For the economist and Renaissance deputy Marc Ferracci, former adviser to Emmanuel Macron and Jean Castex, it is essential that the French work “more numerous and longer” in order to support the colossal investments which await the country. Interview.
L’Express: The Pensions Orientation Council, of which you are a member, tells us that the reform just enacted will not restore balance to the current system. Do we already have to prepare for the next one?
Marc Ferracci: I was a supporter, in the previous five years, of the universal point system. I also tabled during the debate in the spring an amendment to the National Assembly which asked the government for a report on the convergence of all pension schemes with a view to a more universal system. This amendment was adopted, then rejected by the Senate and it was not taken up within the framework of 49.3. We must continue to reflect on this system, which is explicitly mentioned in the program of the President of the Republic. The convergence of schemes, transparency on what are the rights acquired by each worker in all the pension schemes are very legitimate objectives. Today there is anxiety about retirement. And part of that anxiety is that it’s hard to know where we are in terms of rights, especially when we’ve had different funds. However, professional transitions, between trades, sectors and different regimes, tend to increase. There are fewer and fewer linear careers. The universal pension system provides clarity.
In addition, there is a financial argument which pleads for him. The postponement of the effective retirement age to 65, and the solution that was finally chosen, namely 64 for the legal age and an acceleration of the Touraine reform, are equivalent in terms of performance in 2030. But in 2035, there is a difference of 11 billion euros: the 65-year-olds bring in overall, between less pensions and more contributions, an additional 33 billion euros per year compared to a situation where we would do nothing . And the solution adopted, 22 billion. So we gave up something very significant.
Marc Ferracci, economist and Renaissance deputy.
/ © National Assembly
Can we put this subject back on the table?
Before the end of the five-year term, it seems difficult to me. We paid to see that it was a very delicate reform to carry out. However, the next few months could allow us to put in place certain conditions that would make a change of this order more acceptable. We were told a lot that the recent reform was understandable in view of demographic changes, but that it was too harsh in view of the difficulties that many people experience on the professional level, whether it be physical wear and tear, boredom, lack of autonomy or reduced quality of life at work. What the French system lacks, compared to the Scandinavian countries, for example, which have made it socially acceptable to work longer, is quality social dialogue that is more constructive, less confrontational, particularly in companies, to talk dispassionately about all these subjects. We need to improve this dialogue and restore leeway to company negotiations before considering any other reform.
The advantage of postponing the effective retirement age is to increase the employment rate of seniors. With consequences that do not only concern additional contributions, but all of the public accounts through the collection of taxes. It is a key element. The government probably abandoned this argument too quickly, in favor of maintaining the integrity of the pay-as-you-go system. We need to work more and longer, to create the wealth that will allow us to prepare for the future. Because the investments that await us, in ecological transition, industrial sovereignty, nuclear power or public services, are very heavy.
Should we introduce a dose of capitalization into our system?
We can discuss it. But it’s a bit like the universal system. These are complicated, abrasive subjects on which it is essential to unite a political majority. Let’s give ourselves time.