The Push to Raise Retirement Beyond 70 — Immigration Isn’t Enough
UN projections expose the demographic reality: migration can slow population decline, but only higher retirement ages can sustain ageing societies.”
Housekeeping: This is an academic breakdown without comment. But it isn’t good. International immigration was no accident post Covid, and neither will be working until we’re 75. We’ve roughed out some simple graphics to go with this breakdown. Full report at bottom. —
Replacement Migration and the Demographic Challenge
Introduction: The Issues
The United Nations Population Division monitors fertility, mortality, and migration trends globally to produce official demographic estimates. Two dominant patterns are now visible in advanced economies: shrinking population sizes and rapid ageing. These twin dynamics raise the central question: can international migration offset the declines in working-age populations and maintain economic balance?
The study defines replacement migration as “the international migration that would be needed to offset declines in population size, the declines in the population of working age, as well as to offset the overall ageing of a population”.
Scope and Countries Covered
The study examines eight national cases—France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, and United States—as well as two regional aggregates, Europe and the European Union. The time frame is 1995 to 2050.
Projected Declines and Ageing
Italy is projected to decline from 57 million people in 2000 to 41 million by 2050. Russia shrinks from 147 million to 121 million, and Japan from 127 million to 105 million.
Ageing intensifies the challenge. In Japan, “the median age of the population is expected to increase by some eight years, from 41 to 49 years. And the proportion of the Japanese population 65 years or older is expected to increase from its current 17 per cent to 32 per cent”. Similarly, in Italy “the median age of the population increases from 41 years to 53 years and the proportion of the population 65 years or older goes from 18 per cent to 35 per cent”.
The Five Migration Scenarios
The study models five demographic futures:
Scenario I: Medium-variant UN projections (baseline).
Scenario II: Zero migration after 1995.
Scenario III: Migration required to maintain total population at peak size.
Scenario IV: Migration required to maintain the working-age population.
Scenario V: Migration required to maintain the potential support ratio (PSR).
The authors conclude that “maintaining potential support ratios through migration alone seems out of reach, because of the extraordinarily large numbers of migrants that would be required”.
Quantifying Migration Requirements
The report shows the magnitude of inflows required varies sharply by scenario.
Under Scenario III (constant total population), Italy would need 12.6 million immigrants (251,000 annually) versus only 0.3 million under the baseline. The European Union as a whole would require 47 million migrants, compared with 13 million.
Under Scenario IV (constant working-age population), Germany would require 24 million migrants by 2050, or 487,000 annually, compared with 17 million under Scenario III. Italy’s requirement grows to nearly 19 million.
Under Scenario V (constant PSR), “the total number of migrants in Japan is 524 million, or 10.5 million per year. For the European Union, the total number is 674 million, or 13 million per year”.
Relative to population size, Italy and Germany would require the highest per capita inflows to sustain their labor forces—6,500 and 6,000 annual immigrants per million inhabitants, respectively. By contrast, “the United States would require the smallest number of immigrants, approximately 1,300 per million inhabitants to prevent the decline of its working-age population”.
Major Findings
The central findings of the study are stark:
“During the first half of the 21st century, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of below-replacement fertility and increased longevity”.
In the absence of migration, declines will be sharper and ageing faster.
Fertility is unlikely to recover to replacement levels, making population decline inevitable.
For France, the UK, the United States, and the European Union, “the numbers of migrants needed to offset population decline are less than or comparable to recent past experience”.
For Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Europe, “a level of immigration much higher than experience in the recent past would be needed to offset population decline”.
The migration required to maintain working-age populations is significantly larger than that required to maintain total population levels.
“The levels of migration needed to offset population ageing (i.e., maintain potential support ratios) are extremely large, and in all cases entail vastly more immigration than occurred in the past”.
Policy Implications
The study concludes that replacement migration cannot serve as a singular policy solution. Instead, it should be considered alongside domestic reforms. As the report emphasizes, “the new challenges being brought about by declining and ageing populations will require objective, thorough and comprehensive reassessments of many established economic, social and political policies and programmes”.
This includes:
Adjusting retirement ages in response to longer life expectancy.
Revising the scope and sustainability of pension and health-care systems.
Encouraging higher labor-force participation among older workers and women.
Developing integration policies for large inflows of migrants and their descendants.
Conclusion
The United Nations report frames migration as a partial and conditional response to demographic decline and ageing. While migration can stabilize population size and maintain working-age cohorts in certain contexts, the levels required to sustain support ratios are prohibitive. Governments will therefore need to combine migration policy with structural reforms in retirement, healthcare, and labor markets.
The central message is clear: demographic transition in advanced economies will reshape societies regardless of the path taken, and migration alone cannot solve the ageing problem.
Appendix: Major findings of this study-notes
During the first half of the 21st century, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of below-replacement fertility and increased longevity.
In the absence of migration, the declines in population size will be even greater than those projected and population ageing will be more rapid.
Although fertility may rebound in the coming decades, few believe that fertility in most developed countries will recover sufficiently to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future, thus, making population decline inevitable in the absence of replacement migration.
The projected population decline and population ageing will have profound and far-reaching consequences, forcing Governments to reassess many established economic, social and political policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.
For France, United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, the numbers of migrants needed to offset population decline are less than or comparable to recent past experience. While this is also the case for Germany and the Russian Federation, the migration flows in the 1990s were relatively large due to reunification and dissolution, respectively.
For Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Europe, a level of immigration much higher than experience in the recent past would be needed to offset population decline.
The numbers of migrants needed to offset declines in the working-age population are significantly larger than those needed to offset total population decline. Whether those larger numbers of migrants are within the realm of options open to Governments depends to a great extent on the social, economic and political circumstances of the particular country or region.
If retirement ages remain essentially where they are today, increasing the size of the working-age population through international migration is the only option in the short to medium term to reduce declines in the potential support ratio.
The levels of migration needed to offset population ageing (i.e., maintain potential support ratios) are extremely large, and in all cases entail vastly more immigration than occurred in the past.
Maintaining potential support ratios at current levels through replacement migration alone seems out of reach, because of the extraordinarily large numbers of migrants that would be required.
In most cases, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.
The new challenges being brought about by declining and ageing populations will require objective, thorough and comprehensive reassessments of many established economic, social and political policies and programmes. Such reassessments will need to incorporate a long-term perspective. Critical issues to be addressed in those reassessments would include:
(a) the appropriate ages for retirement;
(b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health-care benefits for the elderly;
(c) the labour-force participation;
(d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health-care benefits for the increasing elderly population; and
(e) policies and programmes relating to international migration, in particular replacement migration, and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
They promoted lower birth rates for 50 years. Now they’re importing people to make up for the lower birth rates. Unbelievable. Everything they do is just a new fuck up compensating for the last fuck up.
I think we need a new economic model not expecting government to take care of us. If we have more free time perhaps we could go back to a small agrarian model like in early America instead of being consumers in a massive welfare state. That’s why we are losing our freedom. Mass immigration is only serving people who want to control everything.