One Hand Clapping
RSS/XML | Add to My Yahoo!| Essays | Disclaimer | Main Page | My Bio | | Archives | Backup Site

Monday, March 21, 2005


Europe trending gloomy
Europe watchers have known for a long time that the continent is heading toward a demographic cliff. I reported almost two years ago, for example, that

One study by William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution in Washington, predicts that the median age in the United States in 2050 will be 35.4, only a very slight increase from what it is now. In Europe, by contrast, it is expected to rise to 52.3 from 37.7. The likely meaning of this "stunning difference," as the British weekly The Economist called the growing demographic disparity between Europe and the United States, is that American power - economic and military - will continue to grow relative to Europe's, which will also decline in comparison with other parts of the world like China, India and Latin America.

That post pointed out some hard realities for Europe to face, among them:

  • The leveling and looming inversion of the worker to retiree ratio,

  • A steady lowering of the age at which Europeans retire. Governments' suggestions to raise the pension-eligibility age are strongly resisted.
    "In reality, a legal retirement age of 80 is what we should aim at," Erich Streissler, an Austrian economist, wrote in a newspaper article.
    But more than half of men across Europe stop working between age 55-65.

    Comes now Eurobserver with more grim news:
    The European Commission's paper, to be published on Thursday (17 march), points to the serious consequences of an ageing population on Europe's economies.

    In terms of the workforce, the EU will need to exceed its target employment rate of 70 percent because of the rate that people will drop out the job market. The working age population is expected to fall by almost 21 million in the next three decades.

    The paper points out that whilst immigration can help the situation, it is "no substitute for economic reforms", including modernising the pension systems, raising the retirement age and getting more people into jobs. [link]
    Now, most of this is old news to Euro-watchers, but this line caught my eye:
    ... the EU will need to exceed its target employment rate of 70 percent
    Here in the USA, voters start talking about a regime change in Washington when the unemployment rate drops much below five percent, but in the EU, the unemployment target rate is 30 percent! To be fair, that target is an aggregate EU-wide figure that includes member states that were formerly communist, states that have a very high unemployment rate now. Yet even in industrialized France, the unemployment rate for 2003 (last year data are available) is 9.6 percent, a rate not seen in America even in the "malaise" days of Jimmy Carter's waning days in office, when the jobless rate topped at 7.7 percent.And that is a perfect segue to the next point. Tim Blair reports,
    How far behind the US is Europe? They're still in the disco era:
    The US economy is 20 years ahead of that of the EU and it will take decades for Europe to catch up, according to an explosive new study published on Friday.

    The survey, unveiled by pan-EU small business organisation Eurochambres, is intended as a sharp wake-up call for EU leaders as they gather on 22 March for a summit on how to boost growth and jobs in the EU economy.

    The EU's current performance in terms of employment was achieved in the US in 1978 and it will take until 2023 for Europe to catch up, the report shows.
    As the EC's report points out, Europeans simply are not having enough children to energize the economy and immigration can't fill the gap.

    Heck, Europeans aren't having enough children for the continent simply to stay European!
    Driven largely by prosperity and freedom, millions of women throughout the developed world are having fewer children than ever before. They stay in school longer, put more emphasis on work and marry later. As a result, birth rates in many countries are now in a rapid, sustained decline.

    Never before -- except in times of plague, war and deep economic depression -- have birth rates fallen so low, for so long.

    What was once regarded universally as a cherished goal -- incredibly low birth rates -- have in the industrial world at least suddenly become a cause for alarm. With life expectancy rising at the same time that fertility drops, most developed countries may soon find themselves with lopsided societies that will be nearly impossible to sustain: a large number of elderly and not enough young people working to support them. The change will affect every program -- from health care and education to pension plans and military spending -- that requires public funds.

    There is no longer a single country in Europe where people are having enough children to replace themselves when they die. Italy recently became the first nation in history where there are more people over the age of 60 than there are under the age of 20. This year [1998 - DS] Germany, Greece and Spain will probably all cross the same eerie divide. [link]
    This trend - trend? it's a runaway train now - has been decades in the making and won't be reversed by a Commission study, which also addressed the issue:
    More babies wanted
    Europeans have fewer children than they would actually like, according to the report, which also argues that public authorities should provide better conditions for Europe's citizens in terms of family benefits, child care or parental leave provisions.

    Of the five largest member states, only Britain and France are set to grow in population in the coming years, while in some countries, the population will start falling by 2015, with a drop of more than 10-15 percent by 2050.

    Across the EU, only Ireland, France and Denmark approach the fertility rate necessary to renew the population.
    Europe's future is not bright, but alarming.

    Update: Dr. Stanley Tillinghast emails,
    I believe that the 70% employment figure in today's post does NOT mean 30% unemployment. Unemployment, as you know, is based on the number of people seeking work or working. I think the 70% employment figure means that 70% of the working-age population is working--not staying at home and NOT seeking employment. In other words, there need to be more housewives out there working! Of course, that means they would be even less likely to have babies....
    Good point, and it illustrates the "two steps forward, three back" problem Europe faces. They need more births, but that takes women out of the work force - and for longer than it does here, because of Europe's generally very generous labor-welfare rules. But taking women from the work force also decreases the tax revenue the state needs to continue propping up its welfare system.

    Let us assume for argument's sake that the welfare-near-crisis states achieved a substantial jump in birth rates starting next year. They will probably go broke sooner than they will now because it will be basically 20 years before next year's babies become taxpayers and for those two decades they simply increase the welfare load by using government-provided services.

    Can Europe bail water faster than the gunwales will go awash? I don't think so, but I hope I'm wrong.

    by Donald Sensing, 3/21/2005 07:16:00 AM. Permalink |  





  • Feedburner RSS/XML readers online:


    Home