• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

.Detective.

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,678
Italy's active population is shrinking at a rate not seen since the days when World War One and a deadly pandemic were wiping out people by the thousands, the latest figures from the national statistics office show.

Italy is set to become one of the few countries in the world to experience a so-called demographic recession, a significant drop in the size of its working-age population, Istat said in its 2019 state of the nation report, released on Thursday.

By 2050, the statistics agency estimates, 15-64-year-olds could make up little more than half of Italy's total population, or 54.2 percent. That would be a drop of around 10 percent from an already low level today, or more than 6 million fewer potential workers, with potentially drastic consequences for productivity and demands on welfare.

It represents "a true numerical decline whose only precedent in Italy's history is the long-ago period of 1917-18, an era marked by the Great War and the dramatic effects of the Spanish flu pandemic", said Istat's president Gian Carlo Blangiardo.

At the heart of the imbalance is a plunging birth rate, which has been declining for years at the same time as more Italians are living longer. Some 439,000 births were registered in Italy last year, according to Istat, a decrease of nearly 140,000 compared to 2008. By 2016 nearly half of women in Italy aged 18-49, 45 percent, didn't have any children at all.

The decline has been stalled in recent decades by the arrival of immigrants, who have helped shore up Italy's working-age population as native Italians emigrate or retire – as well as being more likely to have kids. While foreign residents make up less than 9 percent of Italy's total population, their children constitute 13 percent of the population under 18.

But the number of new immigrants arriving has declined in recent years, as has the birth rate among Italy's foreign residents. Meanwhile the nature of immigration to Italy is also changing, as more newcomers arrive in emergency circumstances and fewer choose to settle here.

At the same time, Italy loses hundreds of thousands of residents to emigration: 420,000 people in the decade from 2008-18, half of them aged between 20 and 34.

Those in that age group who choose to stay in Italy remain dependent on family for longer. More than half of Italy's 9.6 million 20-34 year olds – 5.5 million of them – are single and live with at least one parent.

China, Japan, South Korea..... now Italy too? Mamma Mia...

 

anamika

Member
May 18, 2018
2,622
Surprised at the lower birth rates. I guess I was suffering under the misconception that being strongly catholic, Italians would not be having this problem.
 

VectorPrime

Banned
Apr 4, 2018
11,781
This would be a prime opportunity to admit more refugees and migrants to spur demographic and thus economic growth but lol that's not happening.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
If there's one silver lining to all this, it's that ethno-nationalistic countries will literally destroy themselves through the inexorable processes of economics and demographics.

Fascism cannot really win in the long run even if it can do a lot of damage in the short term.
 

Cor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,463
as the article mentions

At the same time, Italy loses hundreds of thousands of residents to emigration: 420,000 people in the decade from 2008-18, half of them aged between 20 and 34.

oh gee, i wonder why people are leaving that country in droves and refraining from breeding. Surely poor economical prospects dont factor whatsoever.
 

KingSnake

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,999
Don't worry, far right will make sure that they're fewer, with lower or no pensions but pure Italians.
 

smurfx

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,578
Surprised at the lower birth rates. I guess I was suffering under the misconception that being strongly catholic, Italians would not be having this problem.
all countries that have higher standards of living generally have less kids. mexico for instance is barely above replacement levels. lots of hispanic countries are also trending down as standards of living keep going up. even though they are all catholic and were once known for having a ton of kids.
 
Oct 25, 2017
21,466
Sweden
The eurozone has done a lot of economical damage to italy by forcing the country into too deflationary fiscal policy. an interesting (but wonkish) read about how EU policy has kept the country well below capacity can be found here

of course the poor economy leads to brain drain and loss of productive people. and all this stagnation leads to unrest and fascism. it's all very depressing because it didn't need to be this way
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
The eurozone has done a lot of economical damage to italy by forcing the country into too deflationary fiscal policy. an interesting (but wonkish) read about how EU policy has kept the country well below capacity can be found here
This sounds totally clownshoes.
If an economy is growing rapidly, as the eurozone was before 2008, potential output will be revised upwards. As economies like Ireland and Spain were booming, the estimates of their potential output became more generous, making their actual growth appear less excessive. That in turn meant that their fiscal stance was judged to be adequately tight. Expertise helped to reinforce excessive optimism.

Since 2008 we have confronted the reverse effect. Due to the working of the econometrics the prolonged recession in the eurozone has depressed the commission's estimates of potential output. This has the effect of narrowing the gap between actual and estimated potential output. As expectations were diminished and lower growth and higher unemployment were redefined as normal, the case for corrective fiscal policy stimulus was weakened. The apparent fiscal room for manoeuvre diminished.
 

SpitztheGreat

Member
May 16, 2019
2,877
Demographic trends and their impact on economics are very interesting to me. While increased immigration would help offset these recessive trends, I tend to think that the more long-term solution is examining our economic models. Clearly errors were made in how we set up our economic models because they figured a certain level of growth in perpetuity, but I wonder if the mistake was assuming the post-war growth was normal when instead it has proven to be abnormal. With the bubble of post-war babies (the Boomers here in the US) now aging out of the work force, it will take decades for the system to correct itself as the generation passes away. Finding the historic patterns and accounting for the abnormality that was the post-war boom must be a nightmare for researchers.

The real long-term view should begin to ask questions about areas of Africa and the Middle-East that have seen large population booms and have a young population. While that may be a good thing now, the lesson from the rest of the world is that a demographic boom today means that you will have a boom of old people later.
 

bane833

Banned
Nov 3, 2017
4,530
Good. Italy like most of Europe and the World is overpopulated. And with the rise of automation in the future less and less workers will be needed.
 

sfortunato

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,740
Italy
If there's one silver lining to all this, it's that ethno-nationalistic countries will literally destroy themselves through the inexorable processes of economics and demographics.

Fascism cannot really win in the long run even if it can do a lot of damage in the short term.

Silver lining?

Not all Italian people are fascist. Many people living in the country will suffer (and are suffering!) from ethno-nationalism.

The eurozone has done a lot of economical damage to italy by forcing the country into too deflationary fiscal policy. an interesting (but wonkish) read about how EU policy has kept the country well below capacity can be found here

of course the poor economy leads to brain drain and loss of productive people. and all this stagnation leads to unrest and fascism. it's all very depressing because it didn't need to be this way

The causes of Italian failure are mostly internal. The country has always used monetary policy to spur growth (before Euro) and fiscal policy to make inefficient public expenditure. Like, allowing people to retire at 40 yo, funding dead industries (horse riding), paying too much managers within the PA. No growth has been caused by the short-sightedness of the State.
 

Jean Valjean

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
898
Italy prefers to give citizenship to people like me than to African or Asian immigrants.

I have exactly one Italian ascendant, that came to Brazil in the 1800s. But no problem to the Italian state, according to their laws I can get Italian citizenship at any time! The beauty of ius solis...
 

signal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
40,198
Lower populations seem good for the environment at least.

I find it weird that despite the obvious economic hardships that follow a declined population, the concept is always portrayed negatively online. Is the human population meant to forever increase? Doesn't seem very sustainable.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Lower populations seem good for the environment at least.

I find it weird that despite the obvious economic hardships that follow a declined population, the concept is always portrayed negatively online. Is the human population meant to forever increase? Doesn't seem very sustainable.
It's usually financially bad for most developed economies, is why it's also portrayed negatively. It's hard to spin "this is going to make you poorer" as a positive thing unless it's austerity or Reaganomics.

Because most (all?) developed economies have not figured out how to grow their economies without a growing population.

Also 'growth is good', 'no growth is bad'.
 

Ether_Snake

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
11,306
Less religion pressuring women into pumping out babies.
Less need for families to rely on their own children as labour.
Raising kids properly means dedicating more time and resources to their well-being, something people often could not afford to do 100 years ago.

There's plenty of positive factors explaining the demographic shift we are seeing globally.
 
Oct 30, 2017
707
Once everyone starts dying in the next century and economic models begin to adjust appropriately, there's probably going to be another boom period as wealth gets shifted around and there's more sustainable conditions for young people. Then population growth will start chugging along again.

Same thing happened in medieval Europe - fossilized agrarian societies couldn't support the population booms they were facing because established landowners clung to their land to the detriment of everyone else - and then the bubonic plague hit, everone died, and all of a sudden things were better for the people left over.

It won't be an immediately cataclysmic event in this case, but as old age starts shrinking the population, there'll be a point when the small number of young people will start filling in the gaps and it'll be roughly the same situation
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Once everyone starts dying in the next century and economic models begin to adjust appropriately, there's probably going to be another boom period as wealth gets shifted around and there's more sustainable conditions for young people. Then population growth will start chugging along again.

Same thing happened in medieval Europe - fossilized agrarian societies couldn't support the population booms they were facing because established landowners clung to their land to the detriment of everyone else - and then the bubonic plague hit, everone died, and all of a sudden things were better for the people left over
Yes but climate change. I feel population booms are over. There will never be a population boom again unless we invent magic science or leave Earth.

With feudalism, it was a case of potential agriculture not being exploited, but in the future we'll have less and less resources to exploit.
 

signal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
40,198
It's usually financially bad for most developed economies, is why it's also portrayed negatively. It's hard to spin "this is going to make you poorer" as a positive thing unless it's austerity or Reaganomics.

Because most (all?) developed economies have not figured out how to grow their economies without a growing population.

Also 'growth is good', 'no growth is bad'.
That's why I said "despite the obvious economic hardships"!! Though I guess that is central to most / all countries on earth, and I can't see any trying to spin a lower population + worse economy (for a time) as a good thing. At least not for a while.
 

Regulus Tera

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,458
All developed countries are gonna go through this at one moment or the other unless they take measures surrounding immigration. Italy going backwards in terms of ethno-nationalism is only gonna exacerbate the situation.
 

Jean Valjean

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
898
I'm learning Italian and I want to emmigrate, but I think it's not really fair to concede me citizenship and not to an African immigrant, for example, that is already working in the country.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I can't see any trying to spin a lower population + worse economy (for a time) as a good thing. At least not for a while.
When socialism happens and worker-ownership means you get a bigger slice of the pie when there's less people around, people will see it as a positive.
 

bane833

Banned
Nov 3, 2017
4,530
That's why I said "despite the obvious economic hardships"!! Though I guess that is central to most / all countries on earth, and I can't see any trying to spin a lower population + worse economy (for a time) as a good thing. At least not for a while.
There is no reason why a smaller economy needs to necessarily affect people negatively. Less people need less stuff.
 

Kaim Argonar

Member
Dec 8, 2017
2,271
The same is happening with Spain too. The truth is people can't afford to raise if they want to have and give their children nice lives. Most people don't want to have children if it's going to be a finantial struggle.

Money needs to be properly redistributed. Immigration is NOT a solution, it's barely temporary a patch. Two to three generations down the line the children of those immigrants will be fully integrated and their birth rates will plummet too.
 

Protome

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,687
That's why I said "despite the obvious economic hardships"!! Though I guess that is central to most / all countries on earth, and I can't see any trying to spin a lower population + worse economy (for a time) as a good thing. At least not for a while.
The issue isn't a smaller population, that would indeed be sustainable and fine. It's a shrinking working age population while the older population is still increasing and putting a strain on welfare services while less people are paying into said services because less people are working.

Welfare services are often propped up by younger workers who need the welfare less, who then age into needing it more and are subsidised by the next generation. If that next generation doesn't exist/is much smaller then the system becomes harder to run.
 

Copper

Banned
Nov 13, 2017
666
Most italian immigrants are going to EU states ( well , UK is the first destination, so technically...)

Country never had a good forward thinking policy, and more debts and less people will make people just leave in droves and the country fail. Immigration would be a stopgap measure, but it wouldn't solve much, especially when you consider that Italy already has one of the lowest educated workforces in the EU (and doesn't attract educated workers unlike the northern EU) and highest youth unemployment rates.

The country getting more right Wing Is also inevitable, with the few educated young emigrating and a huge Mass of old conservatives voting for clearly unsustainable policies like earlier pensions.
 

signal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
40,198
The issue isn't a smaller population, that would indeed be sustainable and fine. It's a shrinking working age population while the older population is still increasing and putting a strain on welfare services while less people are paying into said services because less people are working.

Welfare services are often propped up by younger workers who need the welfare less, who then age into needing it more and are subsidised by the next generation. If that next generation doesn't exist/is much smaller then the system becomes harder to run.
That's why I included the economic hardships caveat. I know that's an extremely major issue and can't just be brushed aside, but unless populations are meant to increase forever and space colonies start existing, that reality and solutions to that will have to be encountered at some point.
 

Deleted member 2254

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,467
The economy isn't horrible per se, wages are still fine and prospects are solid. Lack of certainty is what hurts the most: every other year there's a major change to taxation, to your money in banks, to pensions, to when you can retire, whether you can stay retired or you'd better come back to work, what kind of incentives do companies get for hiring young people, and so on. Everything keeps changing because we change governments so fast, there's all kinds of political plays and even one government easily changes his stance more than once.

Couple years back most people got an extra 80 Euros on their wage. Felt good to have. That is going away soon, but there's probably gonna be flat tax soon which may balance it out to an extent, though it's unclear how much it'll impact wages exactly. I've now got a fixed contract but that was postponed at one point because the regulations around determinate contracts were changing every couple months, so much that job agencies actually suggested to go for shorter contracts for a bit just so they can figure out where the law ultimately lands. There's the tax on your first house that keeps going back and forth. This "reddito di cittadinanza" (citizenship wage) bullshit gives free money to those who don't work, money that could have gone to actually create jobs or to cut the taxes to companies that hire, instead it'll bite us in the ass as the taxes will rise to sustain it. I know people above the age of 60 who haven't got a fucking clue about when they get to retire, as the age treshold keeps being pushed back and forth - and once they do retire, who knows what the exact pension will be, and will the current workers afford it for them?

It's all a giant fuckery at this point. I can't fault anyone for not wanting to make kids in this scenario of absolute uncertainty. A couple with two fixed contracts can definitely get by without excessive sweating (of course it depends on the contracts and the area, but still) and that's likely not gonna change for a while, but not knowing what the economy will bring in a couple months (let alone some years) casts plenty of shadows on those that want to make plans that go beyond a year.
 

GCX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
483
The current world economy is build around the huge population increase of the 1900s. That obviously isn't sustainable in the long run because the number of humans can't increase forever.

This a trend that will affect almost all developed nations at some point. In short term it will probably be painful but it's a necessary thing and the economies will adjust to the "new normal" sooner or later.
 

KillerMan91

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,355
isn't that a good thing in the long run? 60 million people is a lot.

No because while overall population decreases the share of elderly increases every year. This leads to increased pension and welfare costs for the state but less taxpayers to actually pay for those. Maybe if fertility rate would be only slightly under replacement level this wouldn't be a big problem but in many developed nations fertility rates have plummeted.
 
Oct 25, 2017
13,678
No because while overall population decreases the share of elderly increases every year. This leads to increased pension and welfare costs for the state but less taxpayers to actually pay for those. Maybe if fertility rate would be only slightly under replacement level this wouldn't be a big problem but in many developed nations fertility rates have plummeted.
that's a problem with the model
 

GCX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
483
No because while overall population decreases the share of elderly increases every year. This leads to increased pension and welfare costs for the state but less taxpayers to actually pay for those. Maybe if fertility rate would be only slightly under replacement level this wouldn't be a big problem but in many developed nations fertility rates have plummeted.
That's a big problem, but it's also one that needs to be addressed sooner or later. If we want to keep the world population under any control, we need to accept that sometimes it's ok to have the number of people fall. The current systems (pensions, etc.) are built around the assumption of continuous growth so the model itself needs to be re-adjusted.
 

Deleted member 2254

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,467
Not gonna happen.
Those are money for the rich.

Unfortunately that's true, but if the tax indeed goes down to 20% that could partially alleviate the loss of the 80 Euros, and maybe other services could become slightly cheaper.

Wishful thinking probably but I want to see the first post-flat tax wage of mine (assuming it happens) before drawing conclusions.