The demographic shift in the European Union is set to take place in 2029. In that year, the population of the Old Continent will begin to decline inexorably. This will be the first time since prehistoric times, excluding epidemics or wars. In a report on this upheaval published on Tuesday 14 July, the European Commission considers it futile to try to reverse the trend but necessary, however, to adapt public policies to the considerable impact that this new reality will have not only on economic growth potential but also on the labour market, healthcare, housing and the public finances of Member States.
Currently standing at 450.6 million – almost 100 million more than in 1960 – the population of the EU-27 is set to reach its all-time high of 453 million in three years’ time. It will then begin a slow decline, falling to 445 million by 2050 and dropping below the 400-million mark by 2100, according to the document entitled ‘The Demographic Transformation of the EU’.
This decline is accompanied by structural changes that are profoundly reshaping Europe. The proportion of people aged 65 and over will more than double: from one in five Europeans today, it will rise to one in three by the end of the century. The median age will rise from 44.9 years in 2025 to 51.5 years in 2100. Life expectancy at birth will increase to over 90 years for women and at least 86 years for men by the end of the century, compared with 84.1 years and 78.9 years respectively today. The number of babies will remain low in the long term, as the fertility rate will stay well below the level required for generational replacement, which is 2.1 children per woman of childbearing age. It currently stands, on average, at 1.34 children per woman in the EU.
Invented by Europeans, the welfare state was designed for a relatively young and steadily growing population. It is based on the transfer of wealth from the working population to pensioners, children and the unemployed. The demographic revolution is already intensifying intergenerational tensions, the report warns: pension systems are under severe strain, demand for care for older people is rising, and housing is becoming less affordable for younger generations. These generations will face unprecedented obstacles to entering the labour market and starting a family. The tax burden will weigh increasingly heavily on the working population, particularly in Member States that prioritise labour taxation.
Encouraging immigration: a false hope
Projections from the European statistical office Eurostat predict that the EU’s working-age population (aged 15 to 64 inclusive) will fall by an average of 1.2 million people each year until 2050. And even this figure takes into account continued immigration. But for the Commission’s experts, having more children or boosting immigration are illusory solutions. “Demographic challenges cannot be addressed by measures relating solely to fertility or migration,” the report states.
Experience shows that government measures designed to encourage childbearing (such as extending parental leave, providing childcare for pre-school-age children, or even offering financial incentives) have only very limited effectiveness. The report cites the example of the countries of Northern Europe which, despite a sophisticated welfare state, pioneering gender equality and strong public support for families, are experiencing a fall in birth rates just like other countries.
Similarly, increasing immigration would not be a panacea, quite apart from the issue of its acceptability to the local population. “Positive net migration can slow the rate at which the population is ageing but cannot alter its trajectory,” the document states. For although the migrant population may be relatively young and fertile, within one or two generations its reproductive behaviour aligns with that of the host population. On the other hand, the report suggests changing the structure of migration flows, as highly skilled migrants account for only around 20 per cent of new arrivals in the European Union, compared with 56 per cent in Canada, 41 per cent in Australia and 39 per cent in the United Kingdom. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that 40 per cent of non-EU nationals working in the EU are in jobs below their qualifications.
As a result of the above, economic growth will need to be underpinned by an increase in the productivity of the workforce, the Commission emphasises. This requires increased investment in lifelong education and vocational training, but also measures to encourage people who are not in employment (around 20 per cent of the population aged 15 to 64) to enter the labour market. This mainly concerns women (whose average employment rate is 10 percentage points lower than that of men), people with few qualifications, migrants, the long-term unemployed, as well as the youngest and oldest members of this age group.
A study by Commission experts thus shows that if Sweden’s employment rate – the highest among Member States – were applied across the whole of the EU, the negative effects of an ageing population could be almost entirely offset. In this optimistic scenario, the European workforce would lose only 5.9 million people by 2070, whereas without change, the figure would be five times higher.
In any case, the demographic revolution “is not a temporary disruption, but a permanent transformation of the conditions under which European societies evolve”, warns the Commission. “This reality means that policies must adapt to these fundamental changes rather than seeking to reverse them”.
Degrowth is a good thing. Our population simply has to shrink to what can fit in earth’s carrying capacity. Aging, then shrinking is an increadibly good thing. It challenges our assumptions and institutions, but that too is good, they were killing us on an extinction speedrun.
Brother there is enough earth for all the humans, the problem is the greed of the few not the hunger of the many
this is wrong
Brother there is enough earth for all the humans.
Brother, I wasn’t just talking about the humans.
https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/biodiversity/biodiversity/
https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html
Just as with growth, it’s only good if the proletariat benefits from it.
We will just mimic the Chinese and substitute people with robots.
On one hand I really don’t care if the global population just gets smaller and we become less of a strain on each other and the world, on another hand this will probably be replaced by a few feudal tech lords and a few of us will be allowed to live just for genetic diversity and entertainment.
It seems to me Europe as a continent is a lot more resistant to automation than China and the US, but I dunno…
This is interesting; it makes me think about demographics. Often, you will see reactionary and hateful people argue that demographic decline is a problem. But for whom? For the labourer or the capitalist? It’s a bit of both. Let’s go through some cases, see what the solution is.
What is a healthy demographic graph?
In a population graph, the ages are sorted by amount of births; young is at the bottom, old at the top.What is healthy, depends on whom you ask. The gynaecologist will say it’s shaped as a pyramid (🔺 ), the gerontologist chooses the inverted triangle (🔻with a tiny peak on the top), and the short-term interested capitalist will say it’s an onion (🧄), with a small elderly population and a bit more (but still few) young, and a large worker population. But in the long term, none of these are stable. A pyramid is only stable as long as mortality is high (suggesting terrible life standards). An inverted triangle is unsustainable for getting people to have children. An onion will turn into an inverted triangle, if policies fail.
So then, on the long term, the ‘healthiest’ population graph would be a straight bar that ends as a pyramid in the top, basically like this:
🔺
🟥This way, costs for elderly care are low, and there is a large worker base. While more people do need to take care of the young than in the onion-style graph, on the long term this population can sustain itself.
So, what are the ways in which countries deal with ageing? Let’s start with the US and Israel.
US, Israel: decline despite religion
In both the USA and Israel, despite their radically religiously exploitative population, the pyramids have shown to be ageing. While the most religious do give birth to more children, even they experience declining birth rates. Still, it is problematic if people get too many children, as it is impossible to take proper care for all descendants beyond a certain amount. To rectify this, it should be discouraged to have more than three children. At the same time, having no or only one child should be less attractive than having two or three, which should be encouraged. But to what extent?
Romania: temporary reversal
Ceaușescu’s Decree 770 prohibited all forms of abortion (sound familiar?), and had monthly controls on people of childbearing age with a uterus. This decree temporarily did increase birth rates, but at the cost of gaining a lot of orphans, mistreatment and neglect, brutal repression of women’s rights, and a lot of people dying who could otherwise have given birth of their own accord. Every single aspect of that created more problems. What Texas does, is not a solution, but a man-made problem that will kill people.Let’s look at it from the other side of the pyramid.
South Korea: extreme decline
Onto the hilly South Korea we see it has a well-educated populace, which helps in advancing its population. However, it also has a highly aged graph. Its pyramid about one for one represents the inverted triangle. Very few children, a large elderly population. A lack of provisions for euthanasia, high wealth&income inequality, and unaffordable housing. Unsurprisingly, people are overworked and job suicide rates are extremely high.For the employment rate to be raised, it is necessary that wages rise, in conjunction with buying power to offset inflation. Or that at least, methods of production are cheaper, while prices do not rise as much as wages do. Barring wages rising, legalising euthanasia, and drastically increasing childcare benefits and housing affordability (all but euthanasia being measures which most elderly homeowners oppose, as it contradicts their interests), I do not see much happening to aid this. So where has it fared better?
Iceland and France: halted decline
Properly taxing the oligarch class and preventing their capital and human flight would help a lot. Let the proletarian travel, but not the capitalist until he has paid back all that he stole.Just as extreme religion, reactionarism, or outlawal of abortion does not help, just as do secularism, progressivism, women’s and queer rights, proletarian-friendly policies help. Take a look at Iceland and France, for example, which have a strong position of independent trade unions, combined with progressive laws, very generous policies towards childcare and child benefits. They have fairly healthy demographics, although those only halted the decline for a bit.
Faroe Islands: a true youthing
However… there is more. On the rugged Faroe Islands, they maintain a fairly robust population pyramid and even managed to return from a lower birth rate to higher.A key is the following:
- one year of paid family leave (ie., for all parents!)
- heavily subsidised childcare
- affordable housing
That together with good interconnection, helps a lot to avoid braindrain.
The Netherlands: need for a wholesale policy
A similar analogy is the Netherlands, which has a generous childcare policy (95% is reimbursed), its infrastructure is highly focused on pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit.But there is still a difference. It does not have a Nordic nor market socialist model, nor is housing that affordable there, nor is paid leave that long nor equal (being ‘only’ 2 weeks for the non-birthgiving parent and 16 weeks for the birthgiving parent).
So, it seems that multiple things have to add up.
Conclusion
Social and economic cohesion is crucial. Strong trade unions with a large membership will help attain this cohesion, alongside changing ownership patterns towards worker co-operatives and therefore market socialism, so that housing, childcare, and family leave can be generously improved.Therefore ironically, if the capitalist wants to profit more, he has to accept giving up capitalism, and embrace market socialism and council communism. And that is truth: none can truly reap the rewards without doing so for each other’s benefit.
