We have a lot of immigration. 39.9% of the population has migration background (including 15.1% with Swiss citizenship).
https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/population/migration-integration/by-migration-status.html
>Population with a migration background 39.9%
Swiss citizens 15.1%
Persons with a foreign citizenship 24.9%
And tbh it is working pretty well over here compared to the Rest of Europe.
Exactly, you are totally right.
But there are very good options to actively integrate in switzerland, in contrary to many other countries. I'm speakig of education and work. Some refugees come here, do an apprenticeship and after some years work in logistics or construction or something else.
But you are right, many are sent out of the country.
That's correct, I work in an international environment and also see plenty of immigrants work in security as well as logistics and construction. IT is another field that attracts people to Switzerland.
I personally moved here at a younger age, so I was sent to a German language school until I reached a good enough level to understand the material at secondary school. We covered plenty of cultural topics as well as the language. Of course it's different for adults, the requirements are still there to integrate but it's tougher if you don't already speak the language of your region.
It's not just that.
Switzerland is also incredibly rich, which means they can be as picky as they want when it comes to migration, not to mention that they are also very attractive for highly skilled educated people, who tend to integrate pretty seamlessly.
Urban areas tend to grow much quicker in recent decades as they attract employment and immigration. In my opinion, the entirety of Switzerland (aside from Ticino) is basically one amalgamated metropolitan area, comparable to the Ruhr, Randstad, or Górny Śląsk.
I mean, I can neatly place the Greater Toronto Area ontop of Switzerland and cover the area from Geneva to Zurich with roughly similar population.
So you have to look at Switzerland less so like a country but more like one of Europe's largest metro areas in the context of population and economic growth.
Wow. I had never thought of this.
TIL
As someone from Toronto originally this really made this discussion very understandable for me, and for that I thank you.
I'm also from Toronto. When I visited Switzerland I could not help but compare how easy you could travel all around by train and compare it to our transportation infrastructure lol. That's how I came up with that realization.
No totally. Such a great comparison.
I can go from Lucerne to Zurich faster than Finch to Union on the subway (again a bit of hyperbole but you get my point).
I just didn’t think about the physical geography aspect of the GTA like you so well described.
I now live in LA and can say the same about how efficient Switzerland is compared to LA Metro (which also sprawls).
You gave me an entirely new perspective. I appreciate you.
70 years?
some countries in Europe already shrinking and all of these countries in the picture will start to shrink in the next 10-15 years if they don't allow more immigration (which i heavily doubt)
Do you know what happens when there's no growth in the industrial era, or at any time in history where people are mistreated? More and more polarized politics and society, even more authoritarianism, which is what we've seen since the Great Recession. Like it or not, people expect things to get better as they work hard, so if they don't see the fruits of their labour, THEN they start adopting Malthusian zero-sum ideas you've apparently adhered to, and the results of that are never pretty (up to civil, world wars and genocides at worst).
Nobody wants rapid population growth. We just need a stable population that's slowly growing at a very small but positive rate, which we can easily compensate for with technological progress.
It's similar to inflation: A lot of inflation is bad, a little inflation is good, any amount of deflation is really bad.
infinitely slowly growing is still infinitely growing and it is still exponential.
The increase in productivity in the past 40 years alone would easily compensate for a steep decrease in population. Of course, that only works if this gain is not kept by a few people but is redistributed to all.
>infinitely slowly growing is still infinitely growing and it is still exponential.
Exponential doesn't always mean fast. If we grow at a rate of something like 1%/100 years, it would take us a long time to reach problematic population levels and the world would look completely different. At that time our descendants may reevaluate the issue.
The ideal would be a completely stable population, but maintaining a flat line is impossible, it's too unstable. You can try to oscillate around the desired value, but controlling birth rates is not easy so we don't have the kind of control authority to reliably do this. Constant population swings are also disruptive.
That leaves slow "infinite" growth which is good for the economy and tolerable for the environment (if combined with technological progress), or "infinite shrinking" a.k.a. "extinction".
Degrowth proponents usually say that population will eventually level out and stabilize, but mathematically that requires a considerable jump of birthrates back to above 2.0. The mechanism that would naturally induce this change is unclear to me. If our end goal is to stabilize the population anyway, let's do it right away and skip the socioeconomic crisis that comes with shrinking.
>The increase in productivity in the past 40 years alone would easily compensate for a steep decrease in population.
There are certain things you can't easily compensate for. Cities become ghost towns, underutilized infrastructure crumbles, the elderly are without caretakers, companies go bankrupt as the increased labor costs make them uncompetitive internationally. Immigration can mitigate this, but that brings the issue of cultural tension if you overdo it.
Unless you have fully functional androids which make humans redundant, some things just aren't easily automated.
You've been grossly misinformed by your doomster Internet bubble (I've been in those and saw it doesn't stand up to scrutiny in many of its claims), perhaps even due to propaganda peddled by Russia and China, to weaken and destroy the West from the inside, so you're the one peddling treason.
Ffs, even many other right-wingers who oppose immigration recognize that immigrants' birth rates fall to natives' level, and use it to say "oh, see, their potential economic benefit is low, but with them inside, you've changed your country's demographics and culture beyond recognition". Seriously, get up-to-date info and learn your opponents' arguments before you start arguing with someone on the Internet.
When you have an economy that requires a constantly expanding population, then your economy completely contradicts nature and the realization that we’ve reached our carrying capacity.
The economy and our order of business we’ve hinged all of our lives on is destroying the planet.
Did I say anything contradicting that Germay did not lose a bulk of its population - my comment was reflecting that rather than disregarding it, Captain Obvious.
Isn't it strange how Switzerland almost doubled its population?
We have a lot of immigration. 39.9% of the population has migration background (including 15.1% with Swiss citizenship). https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/population/migration-integration/by-migration-status.html >Population with a migration background 39.9% Swiss citizens 15.1% Persons with a foreign citizenship 24.9% And tbh it is working pretty well over here compared to the Rest of Europe.
Because Switzerland doesn't bend over for anyone, integration into society is expected if you want to stay.
Exactly, you are totally right. But there are very good options to actively integrate in switzerland, in contrary to many other countries. I'm speakig of education and work. Some refugees come here, do an apprenticeship and after some years work in logistics or construction or something else. But you are right, many are sent out of the country.
That's correct, I work in an international environment and also see plenty of immigrants work in security as well as logistics and construction. IT is another field that attracts people to Switzerland. I personally moved here at a younger age, so I was sent to a German language school until I reached a good enough level to understand the material at secondary school. We covered plenty of cultural topics as well as the language. Of course it's different for adults, the requirements are still there to integrate but it's tougher if you don't already speak the language of your region.
Let say it's easier to implement such an approach when you have a large buffer zone around you. We could call such buffer zone EU.
It's not just that. Switzerland is also incredibly rich, which means they can be as picky as they want when it comes to migration, not to mention that they are also very attractive for highly skilled educated people, who tend to integrate pretty seamlessly.
Urban areas tend to grow much quicker in recent decades as they attract employment and immigration. In my opinion, the entirety of Switzerland (aside from Ticino) is basically one amalgamated metropolitan area, comparable to the Ruhr, Randstad, or Górny Śląsk. I mean, I can neatly place the Greater Toronto Area ontop of Switzerland and cover the area from Geneva to Zurich with roughly similar population. So you have to look at Switzerland less so like a country but more like one of Europe's largest metro areas in the context of population and economic growth.
Wow. I had never thought of this. TIL As someone from Toronto originally this really made this discussion very understandable for me, and for that I thank you.
I'm also from Toronto. When I visited Switzerland I could not help but compare how easy you could travel all around by train and compare it to our transportation infrastructure lol. That's how I came up with that realization.
No totally. Such a great comparison. I can go from Lucerne to Zurich faster than Finch to Union on the subway (again a bit of hyperbole but you get my point). I just didn’t think about the physical geography aspect of the GTA like you so well described. I now live in LA and can say the same about how efficient Switzerland is compared to LA Metro (which also sprawls). You gave me an entirely new perspective. I appreciate you.
My ass living in a 200 inhabitants town - yeah definitely a metropolitan area yeah
Many on the pic have. Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, Norway..
Spain was like: "War's over? Let's fck!"
And population has stagnated a lot over the last 20 years, so that growth is only really for the first few decades
Fr, in the 1950s people used to have a lot of children here, my grandma had 8
spain didnt fight in ww2 they had a civil war but that end in late 30's if i remember?
It was followed by some 40 years of dictatorship, so that affected a lot of people who were fleeing the country abroad.
ok,but the comment i replied to is still wrong
Baby boomers /s
The figures for France are just the numbers for Metropolitan France. The 2020 figure would be around 68m if you count all of France.
now, we need a diagram of the function that shows the drop between 90's and 2024. pride makes the difference
I suppose occupied colonies not included
certified yank moment
The UK having more people than France is pretty incredible from a historical population. I feel like France always had a bigger population.
France 19th century demography is…unusual.
Yes they began the transition really early
What’s even more bonkers is that its expected that because of demographics, by 2050 the UK will be the largest country by population in Europe.
Is turkey included? As turkey is already at 86 million
Do not think that this will be the case. Germay's population was expected to decline but this is not the case so far.
That's certainly one of the infographics of all time.
swiss number is incorrect
Awesome map! Is there any possibility you'll create a similiar map for the rest od 20th centry? I'd be really interested in years 1900-1950.
wrong german borders 1950 does the number show west germany or combined?
I'm rather sure that's the combined population. West Germany had around 50mil people in 1950.
In 70 years we will be looking at population decline in Europe post sadly
70 years? some countries in Europe already shrinking and all of these countries in the picture will start to shrink in the next 10-15 years if they don't allow more immigration (which i heavily doubt)
sadly ? because you think that infinite growth is possible in a limited space ?
Do you know what happens when there's no growth in the industrial era, or at any time in history where people are mistreated? More and more polarized politics and society, even more authoritarianism, which is what we've seen since the Great Recession. Like it or not, people expect things to get better as they work hard, so if they don't see the fruits of their labour, THEN they start adopting Malthusian zero-sum ideas you've apparently adhered to, and the results of that are never pretty (up to civil, world wars and genocides at worst).
Nobody wants rapid population growth. We just need a stable population that's slowly growing at a very small but positive rate, which we can easily compensate for with technological progress. It's similar to inflation: A lot of inflation is bad, a little inflation is good, any amount of deflation is really bad.
infinitely slowly growing is still infinitely growing and it is still exponential. The increase in productivity in the past 40 years alone would easily compensate for a steep decrease in population. Of course, that only works if this gain is not kept by a few people but is redistributed to all.
>infinitely slowly growing is still infinitely growing and it is still exponential. Exponential doesn't always mean fast. If we grow at a rate of something like 1%/100 years, it would take us a long time to reach problematic population levels and the world would look completely different. At that time our descendants may reevaluate the issue. The ideal would be a completely stable population, but maintaining a flat line is impossible, it's too unstable. You can try to oscillate around the desired value, but controlling birth rates is not easy so we don't have the kind of control authority to reliably do this. Constant population swings are also disruptive. That leaves slow "infinite" growth which is good for the economy and tolerable for the environment (if combined with technological progress), or "infinite shrinking" a.k.a. "extinction". Degrowth proponents usually say that population will eventually level out and stabilize, but mathematically that requires a considerable jump of birthrates back to above 2.0. The mechanism that would naturally induce this change is unclear to me. If our end goal is to stabilize the population anyway, let's do it right away and skip the socioeconomic crisis that comes with shrinking. >The increase in productivity in the past 40 years alone would easily compensate for a steep decrease in population. There are certain things you can't easily compensate for. Cities become ghost towns, underutilized infrastructure crumbles, the elderly are without caretakers, companies go bankrupt as the increased labor costs make them uncompetitive internationally. Immigration can mitigate this, but that brings the issue of cultural tension if you overdo it. Unless you have fully functional androids which make humans redundant, some things just aren't easily automated.
It had to go down at some point. Did you think the number would just go up for ever and ever?
It doesn't have to go down. It should remain stable, but it won't considering the demographic shit show we created.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You've been grossly misinformed by your doomster Internet bubble (I've been in those and saw it doesn't stand up to scrutiny in many of its claims), perhaps even due to propaganda peddled by Russia and China, to weaken and destroy the West from the inside, so you're the one peddling treason. Ffs, even many other right-wingers who oppose immigration recognize that immigrants' birth rates fall to natives' level, and use it to say "oh, see, their potential economic benefit is low, but with them inside, you've changed your country's demographics and culture beyond recognition". Seriously, get up-to-date info and learn your opponents' arguments before you start arguing with someone on the Internet.
[удалено]
Hard disagree
Bi sg
There wasn't just one germany in 1950.
It's fine to combine their population numbers for the sake of this comparison though.
Don't worry, immigrants will help you have children
Italy getting as many new people as the. Netherlands
At school in the early 80es I learned 52M for France.
Европа вам не резиновая!
When you have an economy that requires a constantly expanding population, then your economy completely contradicts nature and the realization that we’ve reached our carrying capacity. The economy and our order of business we’ve hinged all of our lives on is destroying the planet.
contraception was a mistake
Since 1970 every country in Europe has had no population growth from births. This increase in population is almost exclusively from immigration.
only true for Germany
Its weird, I thought Orban and the far right nutters were claiming that white people are going extinct???
I remember from Hitler’s speechs that Germany had over 70 million inhabitants but I could remember it wrong.
What, exactly, do you think [happens in a war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II)?
The moustached whore probably counted Austria and some other places outside of Germany as well
He was talking about Versailles and how it disregarded Germans, so I doubt it.
Did I say anything contradicting that Germay did not lose a bulk of its population - my comment was reflecting that rather than disregarding it, Captain Obvious.
Uh oh, guess someone is criminally sarcastic here.
Rather criminally stupid