France's Youth Protest Amid Education and Job Crisis: What Future for South Korea?

French youth are taking to the streets, shouting, "Tomorrow is canceled!" This desperate cry reflects a profound disillusionment. Tomorrow symbolizes hope; it is the belief that despite today's struggles, a better future awaits. Yet, when a nation's youth declare they have no tomorrow, it signals a deep-seated distrust in the system.

The student protests that erupted across France in the fall of 2026 began as a response to teacher shortages, outdated school facilities, and unequal educational opportunities. These issues were compounded by rising living costs, job insecurity, and a growing distrust in the political establishment. On October 6, approximately 266,000 people took to the streets, according to the French Interior Ministry. As the protests continued, some areas experienced violence and controversy over police responses.

The French government has promised improvements to school facilities, increased university enrollment, and reforms to the admissions system. However, the anxieties of the youth remain unresolved. Their concerns extend beyond when school facilities will be upgraded; they question whether hard work will lead to good jobs, if diligence will ensure a stable life, and if they can expect a better future than their parents.

As we observe the turmoil in France, we must confront a critical reality: if a government focuses solely on meeting the demands of the current generation at the expense of future generations, no matter how impressive the welfare system, it cannot be sustained.

France boasts a well-developed social security system, with achievements in pensions, healthcare, education, and worker protections. However, as the population ages and economic growth slows, the costs of maintaining these systems are rising.

Pension systems, in particular, are fraught with intergenerational conflicts. France allocates a significant portion of its GDP to public pensions. While it is the state's responsibility to protect retirees, without a social consensus on who bears the costs, the system becomes unstable.

In 1982, the government of François Mitterrand lowered the legal retirement age from 65 to 60, believing the economy and demographics could support it. However, with increasing life expectancy and declining birth rates, the situation has changed.

Since then, France has repeatedly attempted pension reforms. In 2023, a reform was enacted to gradually raise the legal retirement age to 64, but it faced fierce backlash. Ultimately, some aspects of the age increase were postponed until 2028 under the 2026 Social Security Finance Law.

This illustrates how challenging pension reform can be in a democratic nation. Adjusting established rights requires public trust, persuasion, and a fair distribution of burdens across generations.

However, the causes of the youth protests in France cannot be attributed solely to pensions. Insufficient investment in education, barriers to entering the labor market, housing costs, and disparities between regions and social classes also play significant roles. The mere existence of high welfare spending does not directly explain the educational crisis.

The essence of the problem lies not in the existence of welfare but in the government's fiscal capacity, policy priorities, and the balance of burdens across generations.

Switzerland serves as a comparable case to France. In June 2016, a referendum was held in Switzerland on a proposal to provide unconditional basic income to all citizens. The result was approximately 23% in favor and 77% against.

The Swiss populace did not reject social welfare outright; Switzerland also has social safety nets, including pensions, health insurance, and unemployment benefits. What was rejected was the specific proposal for universal and unconditional basic income.

The key issues raised during the process included the feasibility of funding, the impact on the labor market, and the relationship with existing welfare systems.

The lesson from Switzerland is straightforward: no matter how noble the intent of a policy, without sustainable funding and an implementation structure, it is difficult to gain public support.

Switzerland's political system is deeply rooted in direct democracy, allowing citizens to assess both costs and benefits when deciding on major policies.

Of course, Switzerland is not superior to France in every aspect. The two countries differ in industrial structure, population, political systems, and welfare frameworks. However, the approach of considering future burdens when making policy decisions is one we should take seriously.

Good welfare is not about making grand promises but about ensuring sustainability.

The chaos in France is not a distant issue for South Korea.

South Korea faces rapid aging and low birth rates. As the working-age population declines, spending on pensions, healthcare, and caregiving will inevitably rise. Slower growth will weaken the revenue base.

Ensuring the long-term sustainability of public pensions, including the National Pension, civil servant pensions, military pensions, and private school pensions, is an urgent task. The finances of health insurance and long-term care insurance must also be examined.

Additionally, the increasing national debt, local government financial burdens, and debts of various public institutions complicate the situation.

Politicians often promise new subsidies and welfare expansions during elections. However, explanations about how to fund these initiatives and who will bear the costs in 10 or 30 years are often insufficient.

The government and the National Assembly must transparently disclose fiscal projections, intergenerational burdens, and long-term economic impacts when pursuing welfare policies. Responsible policies should take precedence over popular ones.

At the same time, cuts to future investments in education, research and development, and youth employment under the guise of fiscal soundness should not be made indiscriminately. Distinguishing between reducing immediate expenditures and enhancing the nation's future growth capacity is essential.

The most pressing question raised by the anger of French youth ultimately revolves around jobs and opportunities.

While it may be necessary for the government to provide living and job-seeking support to youth, subsidies alone will not create stable jobs. It is crucial to foster an industrial environment where businesses can invest, grow, and hire new talent.

The same applies to South Korea. Young people desire more than one-time support; they seek a society where they can secure jobs based on their abilities, receive fair compensation, and plan for housing, marriage, childbirth, and their futures.

To achieve this, it is essential to improve the dual structure of the labor market and enhance productivity and working conditions in small and medium-sized enterprises. Connecting university education with industry demand and creating quality jobs in emerging sectors such as AI, semiconductors, biotechnology, robotics, and energy is vital.

Education reform must also go beyond merely changing college entrance systems. It should focus on developing creativity, problem-solving skills, and adaptability for the AI era.

The most important welfare that the state should provide to youth is the ability and opportunities to carve out their futures.

The contrast between France and Switzerland presents three challenges for South Korea's politics and administration.

First, intergenerational equity assessments should be integrated into all major fiscal policies. It is essential to clarify how current benefits translate into burdens for future generations.

Second, reforms in pensions, healthcare, education, and the labor market should not be pursued in isolation. Aging, productivity, youth employment, and fiscal soundness are interconnected. A long-term national reform strategy at the government level is necessary.

Third, sustainable fiscal principles and social consensus must be established that can endure beyond changes in government. If policies that shape the nation's future are overturned with each change in administration, it will be challenging to gain public trust.

Political parties must also move beyond the divisive ideological battles surrounding welfare. Expanding welfare and maintaining fiscal soundness are not mutually exclusive. Designing systems that adequately protect those in need while ensuring sustainability is a hallmark of effective governance.

The nation's finances are not an infinite treasury. They are a shared asset created from the hard work of citizens. This asset impacts not only the current generation but also the lives of future generations yet to be born.

The cries of French youth declaring a "canceled tomorrow" serve as a warning of what happens when a government fails to uphold its promise to future generations. Switzerland's referendum highlights the importance of democratic judgment that considers both goodwill and fiscal responsibility.

South Korea must learn from both examples. It should strive to be a warm nation that protects the vulnerable while also being a responsible nation that does not deprive future generations of opportunities.

Good politics is not about winning applause today but about safeguarding hope for tomorrow.

Good welfare is designed to ensure today's happiness while being capable of bearing tomorrow's burdens.

And a true advanced nation is not evaluated solely on the prosperity enjoyed by the current generation but on how well it bequeaths sound finances, quality jobs, good education, and a healthy natural environment to the next generation.

We must heed the cries echoing from the streets of France as a warning for South Korea's future.

Our youth's tomorrow must never be canceled.

Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.