Here's the age pyramid including forecasts which gives some context as to why Germany desperately needs to make their population younger or increase age of retirement.
https://service.destatis.de/bevoelkerungspyramide/index.html
https://service.destatis.de/bevoelkerungspyramide/index.html
If I was a nationalist in any country with roughly the demographic shape of Germany (so, most of the wealthy ones), I would regard open immigration as the highest possible leverage move, to the point, where I (not, in fact, being a nationalist) actually feel bad about the devastating effects this is ultimately going to have a few years down the line for the countries these people are leaving behind.
Bar an AI miracle, everyone is going to need bodies, and the bodies they are going to produce, to avoid societal breakdown. By current looks, it is potentially the scarcest resource of the future.
I understand that immigration of unskilled people is a little off from the "skilled immigration" pipe dream and less convenient, but are people really that confused about the slightly longer term and exponentially scarier cost of no immigration?
These countries have a system that, while not perfect, is the most excellent at creating skilled enough humans. Letting anyone willing and able to produce a child in the country, that you can then pump through that system, is the absolute cheapest and most realistic way you are ever going to get the amount of bodies you are going to need to avoid a total demographic disaster.
So it isn’t like opening the immigration floodgates is a magic bullet. There are definitely growing pains and it ideally is something that is phased in rather than a sudden reaction to a problem that should’ve been foreseen for decades.
It is not painless, but, for all intents an purposes, it is magic. Chemotherapy. Right now it really sucks, but, bar an actual (as far as I can tell) unforeseeable miracle, it is the only thing that is going to keep your system alive in a few years,
Either you do the chemo now, or you are going to have a really bad time later. Right this second you might not feel the cancer, while the drug hits you hard. But are people really that confused about what it is going to happen if they refuse?
The west can obviously always hope for wars to rage on, to at least have people at the then open door. Fingers crossed. But People will not be so super excited to leave Africa in, oh I don't know, 10 years or so. Living conditions are improving and people are actually not that excited about leaving a country, if everything is pretty okay in that country.
Of course you are right, that does not make it easy and it could have been a lot simpler. That would have required foresight. Not our forte. Alas.
Also, Denmark has studied this issue extensively and found that "non-Western" immigration actually imposes additional burdens on the state, costing over $10k per year per migrant. Having a young population that doesn't work is even worse than having an inverted population pyramid, and that's without getting into the qualitative damage to social cohesion and trust caused by mass migration.
https://www.thelocal.dk/20211015/denmark-says-non-western-im... https://archive.fo/DU17J
> an oversupply of labor, as demonstrated by stagnant real wages and weak labor force participation rates
How do weak labor force participation rates indicate an oversupply in labor?
> How do weak labor force participation rates indicate an oversupply in labor?
It means people either can't find work, or the work available is so unattractive that it is preferable not to work. In a tight labor market employers will offer better pay, flexibility, hire less desirable workers, etc.
OECD stats linked below, for ages 24-64 it's under 80% for OECD countries on average. And that includes part-time and underemployed workers.
https://data.oecd.org/emp/labour-force-participation-rate.ht...
Reports from the Open Society Foundations show that instead of finding protection and relief in Europe, refugee women and children have often been trapped in makeshift camps that lack adequate food, sanitation, water, or safety. These camps sometimes resemble prisons, and the inhabitants, especially women, live in fear of sexual violence, smuggling, and trafficking. Legal and medical access is also a significant issue for them.
According to USA for UNHCR, 40% of individuals arriving in Europe by sea in 2019 were women and children. In 2022, over 159,000 people risked their lives trying to reach Europe by sea, with more than 2,400 reported dead or missing.
> It means people either can't find work, or the work available is so unattractive that it is preferable not to work.
I disagree with your interpretation, but let's not also get into that.
Sorry, billionaire advocacy organizations aren't credible sources on the issues they are trying to influence.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/08/02/4-asylum-seeke...
73% male, 83% under 35 at the peak of the migration crisis. I think my characterization was pretty fair.
> According to USA for UNHCR, 40% of individuals arriving in Europe by sea in 2019 were women and children. In 2022, over 159,000 people risked their lives trying to reach Europe by sea, with more than 2,400 reported dead or missing.
That number should be 0. Guess how we can make it 0? Eliminate pull factors that incentivize migrants and allow NGOs to aid and abet human trafficking. Australia had a similar issue with migrants arriving via ship, but through effective policy they have virtually eliminated both arrivals and deaths.
You will notice (in sofar you are willing to do so) that I was at not debating your claims about the prevalence of males among asylum seekers. That is because I do not disagree. I just don't think it's terribly important. I was just irritated by your characterisation of life in migration camps.
The earlier assessment still applies. Short sightedness aside, I fail to see how anyone can confuse immigration for not being the lesser of two issues.
> I understand that immigration of unskilled people is a little off from the "skilled immigration" pipe dream and less convenient, but are people really that confused about the slightly longer term and exponentially scarier cost of no immigration?
In the case of Germany (and Europe more broadly) the unskilled migrants typically arrive as asylum seekers. So when we look at the data and the facts on the ground for how unskilled migrants integrate into society, and if they make a positive economic contribution or not, the population being studied will largely be asylum seekers from MENA countries.
So far it has been a bit of a disaster. Sweden has done a 180 on immigration policy, Denmark has tightened its rules, Merkel tarnished her legacy with her complete mishandling of the migration crisis, etc.
> Reports from the Open Society Foundations show that instead of finding protection and relief in Europe, refugee women and children have often been trapped in makeshift camps that lack adequate food, sanitation, water, or safety. These camps sometimes resemble prisons