Change is crucial. But what should change and how?!?

New York Times Article "Forget Who'll Win in France, Change Is a Loser.

This article about “Change Being a Loser” points out the American perspective of the European welfare System and its economic and social impact. When reading this article I inevitably recalled an article about unemployment which is ought to be bound to the social system and unwillingness of Europeans to move where the jobs are. Only downsides, which by the way are not at all proven, were presented producing a backward image of Europe. In fact, I believe, it’s not Europe who should take an example at US politics and US economics but, if anyone should look for a role model, it should be the other way round (yes, this is a very chauvinist point of view).
Anyway, to put it in a nutshell this article describes France, French politics and the French people in itself as a nation not willing to change, as a nation rejecting radical change, as a nation were change needs its time to evolve. The article is not at all negative, the image produced is by far more positive than I expected at first. Basically it says that the French are so well off that it is hard to let the people understand that change is necessary to boast the “sluggish”(kriechend) economy.
The most interesting aspect of the article, however, are the comparisons made between France and the US. There is the degree of violence in the suburbs in 2005 which were exceptionally brutal and seemed threatening for European standards. The author of the New York Times compares these riots to similar situations he has observed in the US and states that the level of violence was not that high after all. The same is done with the health care system, the working hours per week and the comfortable life people live in France everyday.
I can only agree with the author’s impression on life in France compared to the situation in the US. Although I’ve only been to the US once, I consider myself capable of judging the general quality of life there compared to France. Therefore I believe strongly that the welfare system, the 35-hour workweek, the state funded pension system, the lunch voucher etc. are essential achievements which should not be given up easily for a little more (uncertain) economic growth.
At this point I feel urged to say that it is not enough to have “one of the best health/educational/pension/… systems,” but that it is crucial to remodel, modernize and adapt these systems as to increase social equitability and collective wealth. In my vision of society the state is supposed to stand for a collective, to stand for every single individual of a nation’s collective. It is supposed to balance out social inequalities produced by the repartition of wealths as it is today. Why should inhabitants of European states be satisfied with what they have? Why shouldn't they improve their life quality even more? Be careful, I said "life quality" not economic wealth!
What is a six-digit income good for in a world undergoing major climatic changes which might affect your life, your children's lives and your friend's lives?