The demographic crisis threatens to put an almost tombstone on our country's ambitions for development. In a few years the ruthless numbers of demographic science will put before our noses the practical limits of what a slowly dying nation can afford. It is the brutal, but well supported by scientific evidence, prediction that Alessandro Rosina, demographer of Cattolica, outlines in his latest work “Demographic crisis. Policies for a country that has stopped growing”. The brutality of demography appears even more disheartening in relation to the lines of convergence of the Italian demographic winter with the ongoing debate on the mini-reform of pensions (quota 102, quota 104, option for women at 58).
Professor Rosina, to remodel the pension system one obviously also looks at the demographic statistics. What will Italy be like in the near future?
«We will have an increasingly elderly population, longevity will be the fundamental trait of our society. We will remain one of the countries with the largest number of elderly people in the world. We were the first country in the world to have more over 65s than under 15s. Even now, the over 65s outnumber the under 25s».
And in 20 years?
"In 2035 we will have more over 65s than even under 35s. I don't know if the impact of what will happen is clear".
Has Covid changed the physiognomy of demography in any aspect?
«We are studying the numbers on the birth rate. In 2020 we had 1.24 children per woman, the lowest number in Europe. It should be remembered that the number to keep the population in balance is 2. If these data persist, it is logical that young people will decrease even more. We are living in a process that I call “dejuvenation”».
What can an Italy destined to die numerically afford from a pension point of view?
«I'm telling you in demographic terms: at the end of the century, Italy could end up halving. In 2015 for the first time we witnessed the demographic decrease. The trend is marked: the elderly are growing, the young are decreasing».
In recent weeks, the economic debate has returned to the standards of the retirement age, from 100 to 102 or 104. What effect do the positions taken by parties and trade unions have on you?
«No one talks about generational equity. We can't dump everything on the few young people that will be there. Politics today must also take into account the rights of those who will come later. I admit that it is not easy with a predominantly elderly electorate who are above all interested in today's rights. Young people count for almost nothing and are loaded with a thousand tensions on the present, pensions take a back seat for them".
How will life expectancy impact the duration of work paths?
“This is one of the big themes. Today people reach the age of 60, 70, and even beyond in good physical condition, with greater human capital, with much higher skills than in the past. It will become mandatory for Western societies to think of a different valorisation, also from the point of view of work, of the age groups up to 70 years. Covid has hit the ultra-elderly a lot but it has certainly not slowed down the aging process. From a social point of view, however, it has increased fragility and triggered, for example, a great demand for public health ».
Anyone who tries to make these arguments is brutalized and ridiculed in public debate.
«Partial forms of permanence in the labor market, of different participation in social and productive life, of inclusion in training courses, even up to 70 years and beyond, will be inevitable. Sure, remodeling workloads, tasks, schedules, but this is the way».
Maybe not for all jobs. It would be hard to think of it for really strenuous jobs.
"Certainly not for everyone. But Age Management allows workers with important skills and professional experience to participate in the country's decision-making and production processes even at a mature age. People will live longer and longer, in good health to an advanced age, with good educational qualifications. The question must be reversed: opportunities must be favored rather than constraints, that is to say improve the conditions that allow people to be active for a long time, even before imposing by law to remain in work".
Are the ideological battles over the retirement age a "mass of manoeuvre" only for unions and political parties?
“The numbers are relentless. Young people are not even represented in their interests, they are much less protected than employees and pensioners. The real risk is that we don't really want to face the great changes that demography imposes on us in all fields. It's much easier to do rearguard battles.'
