Immigration could help offset potentially devastating birthrate deficiencies in developing countries

Two weeks ago the Wall Street Journal published an article by Nina Adam headlined "Migrants Offer Hope for German Workforce." In it she discusses that "Germany's population is shrinking and aging at one of the fastest rates in Western Europe, with ominous consequences for pensions, health care and future economic growth." Some analysts are estimating that Great Britain is on course to eclipse Germany as Europe's biggest economy by 2030, thanks in part to its large numbers of young, energetic immigrants.

This is an interesting angle about a topic many developed countries have been facing for some time. Not too long ago the world confronted a concern about high fertility rates and a rapidly growing population, culminating in the, now quiet, zero population movement. The tide has turned, and the worry now is about too few births and a falling population. Over 80 countries have fewer births than required to replace the number of individuals who die each year. Academics tell us that the total fertility rate (TFR), which equals the average number of children born to women over their lifetimes, needs to be at the replacement rate of 2.1. An estimated 48% of the world's populatioon lives in countries where women have children below the replacement rate. Europe and Asia lead the way. This is a significant concern. Retirement incomes, medical care and other social services are largely financed by taxes on the younger working population. Low birthrates eventually lead to fewer men and women of working age and a shrinking tax base. Aside from economic consequences, governments are concerned  about other future demographic shifts. Left unchecked, Russia's population, currently at 144 million, could go below 100 million by the year 2050. One demographer claims that in 1,000 years the Japanese could be extinct. Japan's TFR currently stands at 1.39. In 2012 Japanese toiletries company Unicharm reported that sales of its adult diapers slightly surpassed baby diapers for the first time.

There are a number of reasons why birthrates have been shrinking: Greater access to health care and education; more opportunities for young people, particularly women; enhanced income levels in developed economies, and government regulated birth control - like China's one child policy - are at the top of the list. Whatever the reasons, many countries are now faced with the dilemma on how to encourage higher, or at least replacement-level fertility rates.

Countries with seriously and moderately deficient TFRs, based on 2014 estimates, include: Italy - 1.42; Austria - 1.43; Germany -1.44; Spain - 1.48; China - 1.55; Russia - 1.61 and Denmark - 1.73. Many of these and other countries are openly promoting increasing fertility rates. Denmark has been running an ad campaign asking Danes to book a romantic city holiday and "Do it for Denmark!" Singapore, with an FTR of 0.7, promotes "National Night," a campaign to let "patriotism explode." The audio portion of the ad states: "I am a patriotic husband. You are my patriotic wife. Let's do our civic duty, and manufacture life. The birthrate ain't going to spike itself." Singapore spends $1.3 billion per year on trying to convince its citizens to get busy. Russia, in 2007, declared September 12 as the "Day of Conception," in the hopes that giving couples the day off to do their civic duty would result in a baby spike nine months later on Russia's National Day, June 12. Women who gave birth on National Day could win refrigerators, money, even cars. Without a lot of hoopla France actually managed to improve its TFR from 1.74 in 2002 to 2.08 in 2014, thanks to a variety of pro-natalist initiatives such as tax deductions for dependents and paid maternity leave financed through its national health insurance system .

The highly charged political discussion about immigration, both in the U.S. and Europe, would benefit from assessing the effects today's discussions will have on the not too distant future. Some of Germany's industries face severe labor shortages. During the second quarter of this year it had almost 1.1 million job vacancies. Without immigrants, economists warn, Germany could soon struggle to pay pensions and care for its elderly. About one-third of Germany's population will be older than 65 by 2060. By comparisson our own TFR hovers around a relatively healthier 1.99. Much of this has been attributed to a more robust influx of immigrants. Immigrants have an outsized role in U.S. economic output because they are disproportionately likely to be working and are concentrated among prime working ages. Despite being 13% of the population, immigrants provide 16% of the labor force. The share of immigrants who own small businesses, 18%, is higher than the comparable share among U.S. born workers.

A review of the predicament many developing countries find themselves in should give us pause. Barring other methods of enhancing, or even maintaining, our fertility rate, immigration appears to be one of the elements that could provide a revenue enhancing labor force that may help us prepare for the care of an imminently aging population. However, chances are that our political pundits won't be convinced to make that argument for us.

EUROPE'S MOMENT OF TRUTH - OR IS IT?

Aylan Kurdi might have been killed during the battle for Kobani between ISIS and the Pershmerga a year ago. However, he escaped with an estimated 400,000 refugees searching for a safer and more receptive place, only to be found floating face down in the Aegean Sea a little over a week ago. His father brought his body and that of his brother and mother back to be buried in his hometown, or whatever is left of it after 70% of the city was destroyed. And the world is asking: "What is Europe doing to remedy this refugee problem. After all, it is all taking place on its doorstep."

This begs the question of what the world was doing to help prevent the carnage leading to the tragic migration of desperate people literally running for their lives when the Syrian civil war broke out, and, relative to Europe, how is it alone going to cope with the overwhelming mass migration which, at this point, appears unstoppable.

Since the war broke out over 4 million residents of Syria have been uprooted, being barrel-bombed by their own government, killed by ISIS, and caught up in the cross-fire between competing factions - their lives and livelyhood uprooted forever. Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon absorbed the first waves of refugees. Turkey housed 2.1 million migrants, Jordan 1.4 million and Lebanon 1.2 million. These countries are saturated and underfunded. The World Food Program has had to cut one-third of refugees in these host countries from their voucher program . Lebanon and Jordan currently receive only $14 perperson per month to help feed these refugees.

Enter Europe as a logical destination of choice. Although generally known to be receptive to helping people in need, this choice comes with multiple probems.

Sheer mass - During all of 2014 265,000 migrants entered Europe. By July 31 of this year the number had already reached 326,000 people. Greece alone processed 35,000 during all of 2014. As of July of this year it has had to accommodate 350,000 refugees.

Distance - Although Europe looks close on anyone's map, Germany - a destination of choice - is 2,000 miles from Syria. Traffickers promise to take people there. However, the journey is not only long and expensive ($400 to $2,500 per person), it is dangerous. This year so far 2,600 migrants are known to have died crossing the Mediterranean to reach Europe.

Processing - According to E.U. rules refugees need to register and apply for proper documentation in the country they land in when getting ashore. Given the geography, these countries are Greece and Italy, two countries attempting to cope with a five year debt crisis. They are the least economically viable alternatives for migrants desiring to move on to more stable Northern European countries.

Xenophobic nationalist movements - Most migrants don't want to register in countries they don't want to reside in. Many of them are intelligent professionals caught up in a civil war they did not ask for. They know what they want. Hence, Germany and more receptive European countries are the ones they aspire to. To get there they need to travel through countries not exactly excited to accommodate them. A typical route runs from Turkey to Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary and north from there. Several of these countries harbor politically substantial movements with strong anti- Islam and anti-ethnic sentiments. Viktor Orban - Hungary's Prime Minister, the man some have dubbed the "Donald Trump of Europe," has stressed that he intends to defend Hungary's borders against the mostly Muslim migrants. He plans to construct a razor-wire fence along his country's border with Serbia. Other countries with significant nationalist elements are also calculating the anticipated political backlash when deciding to what extent to follow Angela Merkel's suggestion about sharing the burden of settling refugees.

Security - Many countries have suggested that this mass exodus contains significant security issues. Isis and other organizations could easily infiltrate the unprocessed masses with devastating effect for vulnerable targets.

Domestic immigration policies - The European Commission in Brussels is slated to compose an E.U.-wide response to the challenge. However, individual countries can, under E.U. rules, adopt their own immigration policies. Germany has committed to accept 800,000 refugees this year. France, the U.K. and Sweden have agreed to lower numbers.

The root cause of this problem lies with the civil war in Syria. The Europeans are not able to correct  this. World powers like the U.S., Russia, China, and perhaps Iran and Saudi Arabia need to get involved to settle Syria. In the mean time helping to process this mass movement will take some of the pressure off, and keep us more secure.