The population of western Europe was falling because of an
alarmingly low birth rate.
The working population as a percentage of the total population was declining even faster, as people were living longer after retirement.
A declining number of wage earners was working to support
a growing number of people (mainly old people) who did not work.
A recipe for economic disaster.
The first major measure taken to combat this problem was
the encouraging of women, especially those with (young) children, to join the
labour market.
For example, in the 1990s many children's day care centres were built in the Netherlands
and the building and operational costs were subsidized.
Unfortunately, the influx of more women into the labour
market did not have enough of the desired positive effect.
The second measure taken was the raising of the
retirement age. A logical step: More people working and paying taxes, and less
people living off the paid taxes.
However, raising the retirement age is politically
speaking a very sensitive issue. Therefore, it will only be raised gradually
and the (limited) positive effects will only be felt in the distant future.
The aforementioned measures were piecemeal.
There was one simple solution, or so people thought. Import younger migrants,
especially from countries with a high birthrate.
Germany was the country that needed younger migrants the
most.
The Bertelsmann Institute warned, in a report in 2015, that
within the next 15 years half of all German workers will become pensioners.
Furthermore, without migrants, Germany’s labour pool is likely
to shrink from its current 45 million people to 29 million by 2050.
According to the Bertelsmann Institute, Germany needs
500,000 migrants a year until 2050.
Three economic cheers for the refugee crisis then?
Unfortunately no.
The main presumptions of the advantages of importing young
labourers, are that they have the skills the economy needs and that they will enter the labour market. This was the case with the “guest
workers” of the 1950s and 1960s.
However, these workers did not need any special skills and they had to work or they would be sent
back to the countries they came from.
Many of the non-Western migrants who have entered Europe in recent years do not have the skills the current economy needs, and their continuing residence in western Europe is not
dependent on having a job.
In fact, the welfare society in western Europe gives little incentive for choosing to work in low paid jobs, instead of living from benefits.
In fact, the welfare society in western Europe gives little incentive for choosing to work in low paid jobs, instead of living from benefits.
Recent statistics from the Dutch economy highlight the
problem.
First and second generation migrants in the Netherlands with a "non-Western" background make up 12.7% of the population. Yet they receive 49.9% of all social
assistance benefits.
The solution of importing non-Western migrants to solve the economic problem
of a low birth rate and an ageing population has backfired.
The lack of labour participation by these migrants has exacerbated the economic problems.
Then there are the social problems.
Many of the migrants from non-Western Muslim countries do not support the basic tenets of a parliamentary democracy. They are misogynists, homophobes and anti-Semites.
This has led to conflicts and polarization. It could lead to the destruction or implosion of the pluralist democracies of western Europe.
Then there are the social problems.
Many of the migrants from non-Western Muslim countries do not support the basic tenets of a parliamentary democracy. They are misogynists, homophobes and anti-Semites.
This has led to conflicts and polarization. It could lead to the destruction or implosion of the pluralist democracies of western Europe.
Somehow reason and common sense didn't make it into the decision-making process in Europe. No one wants to be seen as an un-PC monster...
ReplyDelete