> for ever-increasing GDP and next bonus for CEOs.
Or healthcare and social systems not collapsing in a few decades? Europeans have three options: start having more children, start working well into your 70s or accept a lot of immigrants (who are consequently are also likely to have much more children due to their cultural & religious “values”).
The last one seems like the easiest option if you are a politician/voter in your 50s-60s+ since you won’t live long enough to see all of the outfall.
I agree and disagree with specific points in your reply.
Yes, Europeans should start having more children if they want to keep their way of living. But no, immigrants will not save demography, as data shows that migrants tend to have less and less children in subsequent generations (ignoring the fact that fertility rate is falling everywhere around the world, even in poorer countries). It is not a panacea, it is not even a palliative. Nobody can point to any country in Europe and say that mass immigration changed it for the better (some limited immigration may be beneficial, though). And this was my point - immigration benefits mostly those that own factories, capital etc.
You are right in your last sentence - gerontocracy is taking a future from their children. Everywhere.
I didn’t say that immigration is a longterm solution. It might delay the collapse of social security, healthcare etc. systems which is the main thing that matters to the people who hold the majority of political power in Europe (those in their late 50s and > 60). Expecting them to willfully sacrifice their personal wellbeing for a more sustainable longterm solution wouldn’t make a lot of sense. So we are pretty stuck…
> as data shows that migrants tend to have less and less children in subsequent generations
Depends. If they don’t assimilate and don’t abandon their religious and cultural practices that might not happen. e.g. the Haredi in Israel (not exactly immigrants in the same way but an example of how very high birth rates can be maintained. Unfortunately this type people are extremely unproductive economically and hold extreme political views..)
> And this was my point - immigration benefits mostly those that own factories, capital etc.
I don’t fully agree. From the economic perspective at least. Having a higher proportion of young/working age, productive adults in the population benefits everyone short to medium term.
US handled this specific problem much better than Europe overall though. First of all they managed to attract the most capable and productive emigrants (Europe is rarely the first option) and have done a much better job at assimilating them.
Consequently US is in a much better position demographically compared to Europe, China and the rest of the developed world.
Or healthcare and social systems not collapsing in a few decades? Europeans have three options: start having more children, start working well into your 70s or accept a lot of immigrants (who are consequently are also likely to have much more children due to their cultural & religious “values”).
The last one seems like the easiest option if you are a politician/voter in your 50s-60s+ since you won’t live long enough to see all of the outfall.