If you ask the man in the street, whether the street in Manchester or Mannheim how we should tackle the unemployment problem, the chances are that somewhere in his reply he will mention early retirement. It is not difficult to see why. Ten years ago this objective was being pursued on social grounds, and there is a popular sense of justice in the old yielding to the young, the employed to the unemployed.

But, of course, it is not as easy as that. If you eliminate one job, you do not automatically create another. Indeed, broadly speaking, you will be lucky to create half a job and more likely on-third at a time of rising productivity and stagnant demand. And even some of the jobs you create, perhaps a third of them, will be taken by the non-registered unemployed, further reducing the political appeal of the action.

Then there is the cost. Actuarially calculated, German social security contributions will need to double in the next 50 years to meet existing commitments on old age pensions. And with non-wage labour costs over 40 per cent of payroll, German employers are already screaming that they can afford no more.

In Belgium and the Netherlands, the sticky moment has already come when benefits have had to be cut to make ends meet. In France, Unedic, the joint employer-union-Government dole fund has just collapsed.

In Britain, the Commons Social Services Committee has just made a modest proposal to phase in a unified retirement age of 63, having been warned off more radical ideas by official estimates that existing pension commitments will cost double the present level by the year 2031 and that to cut the retirement age to 60 would cost an immediate 2.5bn. pounds. Pensions and associated benefits already consume 17 per cent of Britain’s public expenditure.