Quite contrary. The reputation of Denmark has significantly improved. The visceral hatred of the bigoted Mohamed-worshippers to the Western civilization is another thing.

It takes an awful long time before consumers become burdens

“pension age needs to go up with some kind of proportion to life expectancy“

Which life expectancy. At birth or at the start at the working age. The first has increased a lot. The second only a little. Besides the unaffordability of pensions has more to do with an increase in the average age women get their children (the main reason for a shrinking population) than with an increase in life expectancy at the start of working age.

Obviously, this is very true Oliver. My point is that (this goes especially for Denmark I think) politicians are very well aware of the demographic realities of the future. An ageing population with fewer people to support more. This makes politicians think about financing our welfare systems and the solution is very simple, at least so it seems, as I have said earlier; stretching the time a person spends in the workforce. Another point here is that no politician dare wave the idea that welfare has to go down on account of structural demographic changes in our society nor would it be popular to say to my generation that we need to pay higher taxes.

What is missing here is obviously that while we can all recognize that pension age needs to go up with some kind of proportion to life expectancy then few of us (politicians that is) realize that they might very well have a declining population at their hands at some point. Immigration becomes crucial here and for example Denmark’s almost structural xenophobia, because of 8 years with The Danish People’s Party calling the shots on immigration, means that no politician would dare to say that we need to ease immigration rules because of a declining population.

I am obviously not saying politicians are stupid by default but in Denmark at least they are locked in so that easing up on immigration will be very hard in the future even if the need to do so might be very clear.

I do no support opening up the gates so that all people can wander in but in a world where western societies´populations are declining you want to be a place where people are inclined to go.

“But here’s the thing…. I don’t mind paying in if I’m going to get back out, etc. But as a talented non-EU citizen, I take one look at Denmark’s policies and say “No Way!” Heck, I don’t even want to visit the place. Yes the restrictions are to prevent welfare scroungers, but the side effect is that the brains are leaving/ not coming. That includes EU citizens.”

Clearly Hans your point is one which is very important when it comes to Denmarks international rayonnement sort to speak. On a whole I think Denmark remains a very attractive place to do business but admittedly our reputation is not good vis-a-vis the Muhammed controversy.

Is it the wage thing? I know that a lot of economist believe that importing foreigners will boost the economy so much that everybody will earn more. Don’t even know if they are incorrect. But with wage i not only meant the amount one can consume but also the status one has and importing talented foreigners will absolutely depress the status of many of the natives.

Flexicurity may be a good idea for a homogenic local population, and Germany and France sure do need some shaking up. But both of these countries rank behind the UK in attractiveness to talented migrants. How is Denmark supposed to compete?

If there is job creation and career prospectives in a country, then a non-xenophobic immigration policy will help bring that talent. Otherwise, you’ll get the third- and fourth-stringers who can’t go anywhere else.

Population growth in itself is a stupid goal. We are fearing the consequences of a sudden poulation drop, not the simple numbers. The crisis cannot be cured simply by getting warm bodies. There must be a point where additional people become a burden, not a benefit.

In this case I believe it is highly unlikely that you can skim off immigration

Why? Strictly speaking an immigrant should strive to go to the countries that barely admit him. There’s no benefit to him in allowing less qualified (unrelated) people to immigrate.

It seems to me that you have too little incentive, not too high a standard. Someone else is getting the best people? Why? Probably not because they take everybody.

This is certainly the view taken by for example Danish politicians. I.e. we only want immigrants who contribute to finance our welfare society.

There are two narratives here;

The one where you acknowledge that immigration is needed as an important (the only?) source of population growth. In this case I believe it is highly unlikely that you can skim off immigration the way Denmark
wants to do.

The second narrative divides immigrants in skilled and unskilled and is thus exactly about skimming immigration. However, the fact remains that by doing this the net inflow will remain negative; why? Quite simply because as much as we want to attract brains we are losing them as well. There will always be competition for the best brains but this has little to do with the broader population growth via immigration issue. In fact as Thomas Kooten noted on Demography.Matters lately we might even see a competition in the future in the field of immigration of a more general nature.

When it comes to almost all politicians they go for the former rather than the latter narrative.