The article, in particular the heading, paints a very wrong picture. There is no hunger in Germany, neither open nor hidden. "Grundsicherung" (the state provides all essentials for everyone) is guaranteed by the German constitution. It covers all that is needed to lead a life in human dignity ("Menschenwürde"). That includes rent, food, basic clothes, and a surplus that enables the recipients to take part in social life (e.g., to buy a cinema ticket).
So why is the woman portrayed in the article visiting the "Tafel"? The mentioned surplus is really small. For example, if your kid wants to be soccer goal keeper and needs soccer shoes and gloves, that would not be covered by social support. By visiting the "Tafel", the mother can save money otherwise spent for food, and can buy such extras for her kids.
tl;dr: being poor in Germany is very different from being poor in the USA. The CNN article does not understand these differences.
Economically, Hartz4 was a brilliant move by Germany. It enabled their economy to compete with Eastern Europe, kept their overal social net intact. Basically a big counter-pressure weight to rising wages.
See how other EU5 did not follow this model and their struggles.
Not arguing ethics here, welcome a discussion on these mechanics of fiscal policy.
"See how other EU5 did not follow this model and their struggles."
Uhh, there are so many differences between nations, one can hardly compare on this basis alone. Of course, most Western European nations have pretty strong social safety nets, one way or another.
Even just the Eurozone's monetary policy, which heavily favours Germany (simply by have very strict monetary policy) - could be enough to explain most of the differences in economic outcomes.
and a pretty low amount of income.
which means that she does not have a full time job.
since 8.50 € is the minimum wage per hour in germany.
Which would yield 98 hours or 24 hours a week. that's way below the average, especially for a single. yes, she has kids, but she would prolly have a better life if working for 36-40 hours a week and bring their children to a kita.
Germany isn't Europe's richest country, not even close. They may be Europe's most influential economy due to size. The rich title goes to Luxembourg or Switzerland; then to Norway. Or take Belgium as an example a notch down the list: their median wealth per adult is nearly four times that of Germany.
One of Germany's problems is precisely that they're not such a rich nation at all. Their median net wealth per adult is a mere $42,000 and has not improved in over a decade. It's lower than Spain (which has over 1/3 less GDP per capita), Taiwan and the US.
Their median income is also not impressive, given the way they're widely perceived as being Europe's most powerful economy. Their median income is near ~25% below that of the US.
Their economic growth for a decade has been nearly flat. $3.4 trillion in 2007, $3.4 trillion in 2016. To make matters worse, in 1995 it was $2.6 trillion - adjusted for even a small amount of annual inflation, they've seen between zero and very little economic growth for two decades. All of this while Germany has been free riding on an artificially cheap Euro (artificially cheap for Germany), while simultaneously harming most of the other Euro-zone members (such as Spain or Portugal), with the end result being propped up exports for Germany.
What does that all add up to? Record poverty problems:
Arguably, the relatively low wealth per capita is partially because they've been one of the few western European countries to mostly avoid a major property bubble in the last while.
That depends on what you mean by "richest". Measured in GDP, Germany is the richest country in Europe, by a big margin [1].
I think that the point of the article is to demonstrate that a country's power and wealth doesn't translate into good lives or more wealth for its citizens. The statistics you brought up demonstrate that very nicely too.
Wealth is irrelevant - it just shows house prices.
GDP per capita is important, but not the only important indicator. Total GDP is also important, and it justifies the "Europe's richest country" headline.
Switzerland is definitely Europe's richest country. I left Germany to start my programming career and later recruiting agency here in Zurich; read my story from back then here: "8 reasons why I moved to Switzerland to work in tech" https://medium.com/@iwaninzurich/eight-reasons-why-i-moved-t...
> Their median income is also not impressive, given the way they're widely perceived as being Europe's most powerful economy. Their median income is near ~25% below that of the US.
That's not adjusted for prices. Living in the US is easily 25% more expensive at current exchange rates, if not more. The Euro is still massively overvalued if you think living costs should be roughly equal.
> The rich title goes to Luxembourg or Switzerland; then to Norway.
Tax havens are special cases, and so is Norway. Sweden and the Netherlands are more useful examples of somewhat richer countries that aren't rich because of one of those factors.
In general, it's more interesting to study wealth at the regional level (notice in particular the pretty vast difference between the former West and East Germany [1]).
> Their median net wealth per adult is a mere $42,000 and has not improved in over a decade. It's lower than Spain (which has over 1/3 less GDP per capita), Taiwan and the US.
This is largely a result of the low home ownership rate, second only to Switzerland in Europe. Net wealth is not a useful source of comparison, especially when it comes to poverty (poor people are generally more interested in the cost of renting than buying).
> Their median income is near ~25% below that of the US.
And so are annual hours worked per employee. It's a different tradeoff, work-life balance vs. income. And no, this is not the result of underemployment. Underemployment in Germany is pretty much middle of the road [2].
> What does that all add up to? Record poverty problems:
Ugh, no. Have a look at the income curves [3]. The bottom quintile in Germany is actually doing okay, other than compared to the Nordics. Yes, relative poverty and inequlity has risen over the past 25 years, but if you want to look for reasons, I'd start with reunification and the fall of the Iron Curtain. Living standards still differ greatly between the former West and the former East Germany and wage competition from and outsourcing to Eastern Europe hasn't helped, either (though that was good for Eastern Europe, something that shouldn't be forgotten).
The system where the poor have to rent apartments in big cities is obviously flawed. Soon, average rent approaches median wage. Then subsidies come into play. Now, rent can grow even more. Now, rents is not something people are ready to pay but something rent-seekers extract directly from state coffers. It's an arbitrary amount. We end up playing money to the already rich.
(We should probably pay subsidies to old/disabled people on condition that they move away from centers of economic activity and into more rural, economically depressed areas)
> We should probably pay subsidies to old/disabled people on condition that they move away from centers of economic activity and into more rural, economically depressed areas
Old and disabled people -- particularly if poor -- may find it easier to get about in cities, as places they want to travel to will be nearer and there will be more public transport.
Yes just kick out the poor from the cities that are the center of their life: where they lived for their whole life, where friends and family live, where their job is, where they are active in clubs, where there are jobs and cultural offers.
The world needs more non profit organisations that seek to build affordable housing for it's members. Besides the organisations should also build environments that provides social and economic possibilities - aka new cities instead of just urban sprawl or unfriendly suburban housing.
This is my main argument against Universal Basic Income - if UBI is X/month, then monthly rent for anything will grow to at least X/month because why wouldn't it? If you know that 100% of your renters have a guaranteed income of X/month, then why charge any less?
Social inequality was one of the biggest topics in the election. It still didn't help to break Merkel's popularity but the whole election campaign of the SPD was centered around that topic.
It appears to me that Germans are very aware of social inequality. Minimum wages and restrictions around contract work were attempts to slow down the trend of growing social inequality. It hasn't stopped it but I think no country has yet found a way to stop/reverse the inequality brought by technology.
It's almost like German politician don't care about the problems of "Germans" or as some prefer to call them "People who have lived here for a longer time"
The "poverty line" in Germany is defined as "earning less than 60% of the average national income". It does not imply being starved for food.
Everybody in Germany is eligible for social benefits, which includes material things like paying the rent, health insurance and a certain amount of money to get though the month. The food banks make it easier to get through the month if you don't have much money, but they don't imply that people can't get by without them. Often articles about poverty in Germany forget to count in the free health care and free rent, which is worth a couple of hundred EUR at least. I bet many Americans would kill for having that kind of health care, in fact. Unemployed receive the same level of health care are everybody else.
Sometimes there are issues with bureaucracy, for example people are forced to move into a smaller flat even if their current larger flat is cheaper, because of regulations (benefits recipients can only have so much space or whatever). That sucks and needs to be remedied. Those are hiccups in the system, though, not a large scale phenomenon.
Also there are people who don't accept help, like homeless people with mental issues.
This piece from American news is surreal: it reads like the Soviet politbureau propaganda from the past century; "see inequality is not just discrete to America, rich Germany has the same thing, so it's not unfair and there is nothing to go out on the streets and protest about". "Special war tactics" book from the former Yugoslav republic army describes it as tactical information war.
But the mistake is on you, CNN: we have networked systems which provide instant information at our fingertips, and some of us aren't illiterate, we read lots and lots of books: you are attempting to manipulate the American public at large by attempting to prevent protests about inequality and fairness using communist-like tactical war methodology. Oh my, how the times haven't changed.
Wait, you think CNN of all people is leading the charge to spread American propaganda? While i'll admit their war hawking is nauseous, they don't have much of an agenda beyond making as much money a possible.
[+] [-] wsy|8 years ago|reply
So why is the woman portrayed in the article visiting the "Tafel"? The mentioned surplus is really small. For example, if your kid wants to be soccer goal keeper and needs soccer shoes and gloves, that would not be covered by social support. By visiting the "Tafel", the mother can save money otherwise spent for food, and can buy such extras for her kids.
tl;dr: being poor in Germany is very different from being poor in the USA. The CNN article does not understand these differences.
[+] [-] shadowtree|8 years ago|reply
See how other EU5 did not follow this model and their struggles.
Not arguing ethics here, welcome a discussion on these mechanics of fiscal policy.
[+] [-] alexasmyths|8 years ago|reply
Uhh, there are so many differences between nations, one can hardly compare on this basis alone. Of course, most Western European nations have pretty strong social safety nets, one way or another.
Even just the Eurozone's monetary policy, which heavily favours Germany (simply by have very strict monetary policy) - could be enough to explain most of the differences in economic outcomes.
[+] [-] Mahn|8 years ago|reply
> But rents are high — and rising — in Fürstenfeldbruck. Kus’s apartment alone costs her more than 800 euros ($960) per month.
That's one expensive rent for a small town in Germany. Usually one would not spend that much in rent with that income if they can help it.
[+] [-] ianhowson|8 years ago|reply
Munich rents are pretty insane.
[+] [-] jhh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] charlesdm|8 years ago|reply
I don't have any kids and live in Belgium, but I sure as hell couldn't manage. How do people survive on that?
[+] [-] merb|8 years ago|reply
Which would yield 98 hours or 24 hours a week. that's way below the average, especially for a single. yes, she has kids, but she would prolly have a better life if working for 36-40 hours a week and bring their children to a kita.
[+] [-] blubb-fish|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|8 years ago|reply
"On the breadline in Europe’s richest country"
Germany isn't Europe's richest country, not even close. They may be Europe's most influential economy due to size. The rich title goes to Luxembourg or Switzerland; then to Norway. Or take Belgium as an example a notch down the list: their median wealth per adult is nearly four times that of Germany.
One of Germany's problems is precisely that they're not such a rich nation at all. Their median net wealth per adult is a mere $42,000 and has not improved in over a decade. It's lower than Spain (which has over 1/3 less GDP per capita), Taiwan and the US.
Their median income is also not impressive, given the way they're widely perceived as being Europe's most powerful economy. Their median income is near ~25% below that of the US.
Their economic growth for a decade has been nearly flat. $3.4 trillion in 2007, $3.4 trillion in 2016. To make matters worse, in 1995 it was $2.6 trillion - adjusted for even a small amount of annual inflation, they've seen between zero and very little economic growth for two decades. All of this while Germany has been free riding on an artificially cheap Euro (artificially cheap for Germany), while simultaneously harming most of the other Euro-zone members (such as Spain or Portugal), with the end result being propped up exports for Germany.
What does that all add up to? Record poverty problems:
https://www.thelocal.de/20170303/german-poverty-hits-record-...
http://www.newsweek.com/poverty-germany-record-high-says-stu...
[+] [-] rsynnott|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] biomene|8 years ago|reply
I think that the point of the article is to demonstrate that a country's power and wealth doesn't translate into good lives or more wealth for its citizens. The statistics you brought up demonstrate that very nicely too.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu...
[+] [-] ajuc|8 years ago|reply
GDP per capita is important, but not the only important indicator. Total GDP is also important, and it justifies the "Europe's richest country" headline.
[+] [-] s3nnyy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notfromhere|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dx034|8 years ago|reply
That's not adjusted for prices. Living in the US is easily 25% more expensive at current exchange rates, if not more. The Euro is still massively overvalued if you think living costs should be roughly equal.
[+] [-] rbehrends|8 years ago|reply
Tax havens are special cases, and so is Norway. Sweden and the Netherlands are more useful examples of somewhat richer countries that aren't rich because of one of those factors.
In general, it's more interesting to study wealth at the regional level (notice in particular the pretty vast difference between the former West and East Germany [1]).
> Their median net wealth per adult is a mere $42,000 and has not improved in over a decade. It's lower than Spain (which has over 1/3 less GDP per capita), Taiwan and the US.
This is largely a result of the low home ownership rate, second only to Switzerland in Europe. Net wealth is not a useful source of comparison, especially when it comes to poverty (poor people are generally more interested in the cost of renting than buying).
> Their median income is near ~25% below that of the US.
And so are annual hours worked per employee. It's a different tradeoff, work-life balance vs. income. And no, this is not the result of underemployment. Underemployment in Germany is pretty much middle of the road [2].
> What does that all add up to? Record poverty problems:
Ugh, no. Have a look at the income curves [3]. The bottom quintile in Germany is actually doing okay, other than compared to the Nordics. Yes, relative poverty and inequlity has risen over the past 25 years, but if you want to look for reasons, I'd start with reunification and the fall of the Iron Curtain. Living standards still differ greatly between the former West and the former East Germany and wage competition from and outsourcing to Eastern Europe hasn't helped, either (though that was good for Eastern Europe, something that shouldn't be forgotten).
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...
[2] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/15/this-...
[+] [-] thriftwy|8 years ago|reply
(We should probably pay subsidies to old/disabled people on condition that they move away from centers of economic activity and into more rural, economically depressed areas)
[+] [-] cabalamat|8 years ago|reply
Old and disabled people -- particularly if poor -- may find it easier to get about in cities, as places they want to travel to will be nearer and there will be more public transport.
[+] [-] legulere|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seletz|8 years ago|reply
Germanys wages are that low that other EU countries (France, Italy for example) find it hard to compete in terms of labour cost.
I think that's also the main cause of Germany being "Exportweltmeister" every year.
[+] [-] thomasfl|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gambiting|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petard|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dx034|8 years ago|reply
It appears to me that Germans are very aware of social inequality. Minimum wages and restrictions around contract work were attempts to slow down the trend of growing social inequality. It hasn't stopped it but I think no country has yet found a way to stop/reverse the inequality brought by technology.
[+] [-] defkev|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] keksicus|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fgjjgutjvnu|8 years ago|reply
Everybody in Germany is eligible for social benefits, which includes material things like paying the rent, health insurance and a certain amount of money to get though the month. The food banks make it easier to get through the month if you don't have much money, but they don't imply that people can't get by without them. Often articles about poverty in Germany forget to count in the free health care and free rent, which is worth a couple of hundred EUR at least. I bet many Americans would kill for having that kind of health care, in fact. Unemployed receive the same level of health care are everybody else.
Sometimes there are issues with bureaucracy, for example people are forced to move into a smaller flat even if their current larger flat is cheaper, because of regulations (benefits recipients can only have so much space or whatever). That sucks and needs to be remedied. Those are hiccups in the system, though, not a large scale phenomenon.
Also there are people who don't accept help, like homeless people with mental issues.
Other than that, the issue is really overblown.
[+] [-] Annatar|8 years ago|reply
But the mistake is on you, CNN: we have networked systems which provide instant information at our fingertips, and some of us aren't illiterate, we read lots and lots of books: you are attempting to manipulate the American public at large by attempting to prevent protests about inequality and fairness using communist-like tactical war methodology. Oh my, how the times haven't changed.
[+] [-] waitcnn|8 years ago|reply