Purging Ourselves of Our Young - A Follow-Up

Oh, the trouble one gets into by pointing out the obvious.  There have been comments on the post, Purging Ourselves of Our Young, claiming that my factual reporting of the population fall in the youth age category of 15-24 was, to quote one commentator, ‘awful’ because I implied it was down to emigration.  I didn’t, and I didn’t mean to.  But I can see how it was read that way.  So let’s clarify.  Because no matter how you turn this thing upside down or right-side up, the extent and tragedy of youth emigration stares us in the face.

Basic numbers:  the previous post charted the rise of emigration in the 15-24 year age group.  This year, to April, it was 34,000. The post went on to show that there was a substantial fall in the age category of 15-29 – 224,000 or 21 percent.  I should have tied-off the post by relating the emigration with the demographic fall because that is where the confusion arose.

Eurostat gives a more relevant age breakdown but only goes up to 2011 so we’ll have to extrapolate for the last two years.  From the CSO we can assume that 48.3 percent of emigration since 2007 was recession-related for the age-group 15-29 (this is ascertained by comparing the percentage difference between emigration in the last five year with the previous five years for the age group 15-24)).  Using the Eurostat data we can find the following.

Between 2008 and 2013, there was, according to Eurostat, with some extrapolation based on CSO:

• a population decline of 207,900 in the age cohort of 15-29 years

• In this same period, 281,800 in this age group emigrated

• If we assume that 48.3 percent of this emigration was recession-related, then the recession-related emigration figure is 136,100

So nearly two-thirds (65.5 percent) of the decline in the key age cohort is due to recession-related emigration.

Even without the recession there would be emigration and even without the recession-related emigration, this age cohort would have declined owing to demographic factors.  But we can see the major driving force in the population decline is not demographic, it is emigration; substantially so.  It amounts to nearly 14 percent of this age group.

An additional advantage of using Eurostat is that we can compare our own emigration figures with that of other countries.

Ireland is, unsurprising, at the top of the league.  Over 5 percent of 15-29 year-olds emigrated in 2011.  This is nearly five times the average of other EU-15 countries (no data for Netherlands).  Interestingly, we are far, far ahead of other peripheral countries – Greece, Portugal and Spain with their very high levels of youth unemployment.  The above is just the gross, not the net figures, but they tell the story.  And given that the CSO shows that most of that above category maintained the high level of emigration in 2012 and 1013, we will see that 5 percent emigration level continued.  How many years can this be sustained until we cop-on that this could result in serious demographic problems?

This should help tie-off this issue – something I should have done this in the original post.  However, there may still be some who will claim that this demographic fall is not driven by recession-related emigration. If so, hopefully they will come forward with their own numbers. 

For there would appear to be no doubt - emigration is hollowing out a key age demographic, a process if continued will have considerable negative impacts for our economy and society.

Comments

[CMK]

How useful, though, is the '15-29' bracket? I understand that that is what the statisticians are working with. But, I would suggest, that 15-20 years olds are emigrating in huge numbers. Indeed, you could probably state that 15-22 year olds are not emigrating in sufficient numbers to contribute to this statistical outcome. Why? Well, most of the 15-18 group would be in school, for a start. Half of 18-22 years would be in college/university, secondly. There is also the question of resources available to emigrate, which could take some time to accumulate for younger people. Therefore, I would suggest, that the huge drops in population, and the extent of that attributed to emigration, are probably concentrated in the 22-29 year old bracket. After all, what have people in that age group got to look forward to here, even if they have stunning degree results and post graduate degrees? Jobsbridge? There are precious few openings in the public sector, there is increasing casualisation across the economy and then we have the harshness of recent budget decisions to cut welfare to under 26s. I suspect that if a more narrow age band 22-29 were analysed, the statistics would be stark. Of course this raises very profound questions about the future of our society that any thinking politician should be considering. The is probably going to be a very sharp demographic drop in about 10-15 years time when these people, who probably won't be returned given we can expect another 20 years of austerity, start having their kids abroad. But, we can comfort ourselves with the knowledge that we are the envy of the world because Facebook, Google and Apple chose here to book their profits. Great analysis, Michael, keep up the good work!

[eamonn moran]

Nice post Michael and the numbers broadly tally with ones I had come up with myself using CSO data.

Some important questions. Could we have prevented size of the level of forced emigration?
Can we do anything now to slow down the speed of the forced emigration or do we have to just wait for other factors to improve?

If there was proper inter generational solidarity we could have. when severe financial crashes happen in countries who do not have control over interest rates and who cannot borrow for public expenditure employers are left with 2 choices. Cut wages or Cut employee numbers. Because Trade unions Private sector employers and the government chose the latter option where possible a whole generation has been locked out of the jobs market. This was done to ensure wage gains that were only able to occour due to the mirage of the property boom were to be protected rather than do the right thing and show some inter generational solidarity. Spending in the economy for people over 40 is the same now as 2007. the young have been asked to shoulder the full burden of this boom. If emloyers had opted for the option of lower wages the GDP contraction would have been much lower and the burden would have been shared by all the generations. Fewer parents would have had to wave goodbye to their kids if they had taken larger paycuts.
Its important to say that in more civilized societies in central and northern Europe, maintaining job numbers and access to jobs is more important to maintaining real wages. These countries don't have booms like we had but they don't have busts like us either.

[Maurice Kenny]

Good afternoon Michael.

Excellent article as is the norm.

Could you possibly give us your opinions on the recent vote at ICTU conference re the 'federalization' of the Unions on this island. In particular it would be useful to know your thoughts on the pros and cons. Also some analysis of the changes in the power structure that would take place and importantly the impact that such a change would have to collective bargaining.

Many Thanks

Maurice