But there’s still a period in between – a period that becomes a bit longer with each decade – when they’re too old to work but remain alive. And during that period they have to be supported – by younger, working people.
No doubt, but how exactly does that translate into a soundly funded retirement-pension system?
Yes, I just wanted to add the same, the French fertility is close to replacement rate. Naturally this is probably skewed towards the poorer folks which happen to be immigrants, but this is the same as in America too. A lot of our fertility rate is driven by Mexican immigrants and such.
And how does an insular culture prevent immigration? Quite easy, actually. If you’re Muslim, you don’t fit in. That’s the simple matter.
According to this site it still seems to be declining, but at a slower rate (-3.11% in 2004 vs -1.32% in 2006). At best you could say its relatively stable. And according to the article you posted from the BBC, even that rate is considered less than replacement level. Also I’m wondering if there is a break down between the large muslim immigration population and the ‘native’ French wrt birth/fertility rate. I seem to recall that the immigrant populations in Europe tend to skew these sorts of numbers a bit, if the have relatively large populations due to the increased numbers of children born to such families vs the numbers born to native European’s in those countries. Anyone know for sure?
-XT
The following report from France’s national statistics organization indicates small but steady population growth : eg 2003 761,500 births for 550,000 deaths and net immigration of approx 105,000
NB 2003 had a record number of deaths as you will recall.
It’s hard to get any good data on this - the French census does collect data on nationality, but not on ethnicity which is basically deemed not to exist here. Foreign mothers in France do appear to have a higher birthrate than the national average, but only represent a small percentage of the population (these are primarily Chinese and sub-saharan African). Second generation immigrants may or may not have higher birthrates, but are statistically invisible. The only vaguely reasonable statistical proxy I can find for this is the rate of circumcision which is apparently low (saying this with plenty of reserve as I can’t find any good cites, don’t know what the practices are, and don’t want to hi-jack into a discussion of circumcision…) - and this wouldn’t address Potuguese immigration which was substantial in the 60’s and 70’s.
Conclusion, by European standards France has continued population growth, 2/3 ‘natural’ 1/3 immigration, but the population is aging, and the birth rate is way down from 20, 30 years ago.
The INSEE report does seem to imply that the rest of Europe owes it’s population growth entirely to immigration, but doesn’t offer any stats.
That wasn’t disinformation, although my information was a little old. According to the cite in one of the above messages, France’s natural birthrate is just below 2 children per woman - this is below replacement, which is generally considered to be around 2.1-2.2. So it’s true that without immigration France faces a ‘population crunch’. However, it’s not that severe, and certainly nowhere near the problem the rest of Europe faces.
I’m surprised that the birthrate has climbed back up, though. In 1993 it was only 1.66. Since Europe’s birthrate has been in steady decline, I had assumed that France had declined as well. Apparently not.
BTW, ‘disinformation’ is the intentional spreading of lies to confuse, distract and otherwise make it more difficult to determine the truth. Is that what you were really accusing me of?
Why is an ageing population a problem ?
If they get senile, they die
Because retired people have to be supported. When the ratio of working people to retirees get close, the working people have to give up a lot of their wealth to support the old people. Skyrocketing taxes will be the result. This is hard to do in a country where taxes are already very high without killing economic growth and making the problem worse.
There are two types of economic growth, one is from increasing the size of the work force and the other is from increasing efficiency.
Over a period of time we get more efficient due to mechanization, computerization, automation etc.
Over the last 50 odd years people have been getting healthier and living active lives for longer. Reaching retirement age does not mean a person becomes economically inactive.
With a static or declining population you don’t need to increase the housing stock and you don’t need so many schools. Moreover one would probably find that true and disguized unemployment decreases.
Think of it in terms of a small manufacturing company, does it really need to grow year on year ? The same thing goes for an economy but on a grander scale.
I would prefer slightly higher taxes to pay pensions, substantially lower housing costs, and lower taxes to build new infrastructure.
Having more old people makes you more efficient???
Just like everyone else. What matters are the differences. If France is competing against countries that share the same benefits, but have smaller retired populations and a younger, more vibrant work force, France will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Not economically ‘inactive’, but economically non-productive. They switch from producers to consumers. You don’t get wealthier by consuming more.
But your comment about retirement brings up another economic weakness of France’s - the low retirement age. Unless it’s changed since 2003, when this cite was published, France has a retirement age of 60, once of the lowest in the OECD. And people take advantage of it - in France, only 36% of the people between the ages of 55 and 64 are in the workforce, compared to 48% for other OECD nations. Wealth is created by people working. Wealth is consumed by people not working. France has a lot of people who aren’t working, and extremely generous benefits for them. That costs France in competitiveness.
But with an aging population you need to increase hospitals and retirement homes. Old age is a very expensive time for the state when it provides all health care, free housing, and a pension that gives everyone 60% of their working salary.
Except when the economies around you are growing. In the 1970’s, France’s GDP was 25% higher than Britain’s - now it’s 9% lower. France’s competitors are simply working harder than are the French - people in the U.S. work 865 hours per inhabitant. In Britain, it’s 800. In France, it’s 617 hours per inhabitant.
The bottom line is that France is bookended by unemployed populations - the young face high unemployment due to restrictive job rules and high taxes that discourage hiring, and the elderly high unemployement due to a low retirement age and generous retirement benefits. That’s increasingly putting the squeeze on the people in the middle, and they’re getting older. It not a sustainable situation, and it’s one of the reasons a capitalist reformer won the election.
Well, you’re going to get your wish. Either taxes have to go up (in a country that already has very high taxes), or retirement benefits will have to be cut drastically in the next few years. As in, by 30% or more. Americans and Canadians worry all the time about whether our retirement programs are sustainable, and we’re in much better shape than France.
@Sam Stone I look at things from a British perspective.
France’s GDP is deflated compared with that of the UK - that is because the £ is grossly overvalued.
France produces more GDP per hour than the UK - they are more efficient.
To make judgements on the basis of international competitiveness is very dangerous, there is no way in which one can compete with places like China and India - trying to do so is pointless.
From observation the cost of living in France is a lot lower than the UK, and that is not just because of the overvalued £.
At present France seems to be doing pretty well, as older people drop out of the labour force there are plenty of people eager to take their places.
In the UK we have had a massive influx of immigrants, most are doing McJobs, reportedly a lot of them have brought young children with them which is putting pressure on our Local Government services - from an aesthetic point of view, I like the influx of Polish lasses, but I’m not sure that we are getting much nett contribution.
International GDP figures are not stated in local currency. Your point makes no sense.
No they aren’t. According to the Global Economic Forum, France’s competitiveness ranking is 18th. The U.K. is at 10. France has higher worker productivity, but this is not necessarily a good thing. Did you know that worker productivity tends to go up during a recession? When companies can’t afford to hire workers, the ones they do have are forced to work harder. France’s difficult job market may have also driven companies away from labor and towards more automation and towards less labor-intensive industries, which also makes the per-worker productivity figures look better. But the bottom line is that France is uncompetitive, its economy is stagnating, unemployment is around 10%, and Gross National Income (a measure of how much in salary French workers make on average) is only $22,751- 15th in the world, compared to the UK’s 24,486 - 9th in the world. A few years ago, France the UK were virtually identical. Now the UK is pulling up into the top 10 countries, and France is stagnating.
Huh? India is ranked at 43. China isn’t even in the top 50. What makes you think it’s impossible to compete with these countries? They have cheap labor, but in every other category they lag tremendously. France is far more competitive than either of those countries.
Are you factoring in the cost of having your car burned? 
More seriously, any comparison of things like rents and costs of goods has to compare the prices in comparison to taxes, since people pay for all these things with after-tax income. If Britons keep 10% more of their income, they can pay 10% more for all their goods and still come out ahead. Britain collects 36.1% of all income in taxes. France is at 43.7%. Incidentally, the Heritage Foundation’s index of economic freedom has France at 45th in the world. The UK is at 6th. As long as that continues, France’s economy will continue to lag Europe’s, and that in turn is going to lead to more social unrest.
BTW, here’s the group of countries France is in for Economic freedom:
The Slovak Republic
Latvia
Malta
Portugal
Hungary
France
Jamaica
Panama
Malaysia
Mexico
Thailand
Here’s the equivalent group for the UK:
Hong Kong
Singapore
Australia
United States
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Ireland
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Canada
Which group would you rather be in?
So many of them that over 20% can’t find jobs. So many that 500,000 young French people have moved to the UK to find work. In short, France isn’t lacking for young people right now - it’s lacking the regulatory environment that will allow them to find work. When your laws are so severe that employers see workers as liabilities instead of assets, you aren’t going to create jobs.
So France, which is seeing its own young people leave the country in search of work, is better than the UK, which has immigrants streaming in to take on actual jobs. And by the way, since when are ‘McJobs’ not valuable? As opposed to say, living in a ghetto, being unemployed, and burning cars for sport?