Pension reform and immigration. On these two major subjects of government news, the French are against, and perfectly contradictory. More than two thirds of our compatriots say they are resistant to the pension reform project, which intends to raise the legal retirement age to 64 years. 70% also consider that France already has many foreigners and that welcoming additional immigrants is not desirable. Do not work longer and close the borders to migratory flows: either the butter and the butter’s money on the demographic level.
Find the best of our Ideas and Debates articles every Sunday in “Expression”, our newsletter
There was a time when demography was a French passion. With its Research and considerations on the population of France (1778) Jean-Baptiste Moheau is considered one of the founders of the discipline. In the 19th century, Achille Guillard gave a name, “demography”, to this scientific field. We know the formula attributed to Auguste Comte: “demography is destiny”. But today, the French prefer to focus on the amount of Bernard Arnault’s estimated fortune rather than on the latest INSEE report, which reveals that the share of over 65s in the population is growing rapidly (21 %). The ratio between contributors and retirees has gone from 4 in the 1960s to 1.7 in 2020, a figure which could drop to 1.2 in 2050. What weigh heavily on a pay-as-you-go system, based on intergenerational solidarity.
The oldest nation in the world, Japan has opted for cultural homogeneity, so praised by Eric Zemmour. In return, the Japanese work a lot and for a long time. The legal retirement age is set at 65, but the employment rate among 65-70 year olds is 48%. This labor of the seniors does not prevent a sluggish growth in a country, which for lack of consequent immigration, began its demographic decline for nearly twenty years. How far away the era of the early 1990s, that of the bestseller Sunrise of Michæl Crichton and American fears that Japan will become the first world power…
The illusions of pronatalist policies
This Wednesday, Gérald Darmanin must present his bill on immigration, with a section on the establishment of a residence permit for “jobs in tension” which is already giving hives to the right. In reality, immigration to meet economic needs, workers and foreign students, is growing strongly. If the impact of immigration is debated in terms of security and the cultural cohesion of a country, economists are unanimous: it is largely positive both for growth and innovation and in terms of contributions social. Mostly young, in good health and of working age, immigrants are an asset for reducing public finances. Still, in France, the current flows, which are already arousing strong hostility from part of the population, will be quite insufficient to finance pensions.
Last demographic solution, prized by the conservative or identity right: the rise in the birth rate. “Making babies today means financing pensions in twenty years” highlights the National Rally. It is the workhorse of a Viktor Orban who, with generous aid for large families, wants to encourage Hungarians to have babies at all costs, even if it means getting women out of the labor market. If Hungary succeeded in raising its fertility rate from 1.2 at the beginning of the 2010s to 1.55, the curve is stagnating today, very far from the renewal of generations. With a rate of 1.8, France remains the most fertile nation in the European Union.
But as explained by Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson, authors of empty planet, once families with one or two children become the norm, societies do not turn back. Linked to urbanization, education and feminization, the decline in births is a worldwide phenomenon. The rise of ecological concerns about an overpopulated planet only reinforces it. It would therefore be illusory to believe that a Marine Le Pen could encourage us to repopulate our cradles in order to stop the aging of the country.
Working longer, increasing economic immigration or having more children… Faced with our destiny, we will have to act well.