18 ms·

I read the german version of this article a few days ago and paired with my own experience (I was born and raised in Germany and lived there until the age of 25

I read the german version of this article a few days ago and paired with my own experience (I was born and raised in Germany and lived there until the age of 25) I came to the conclusion that: a.) being poor in Germany is much much better than being poor in most other countries (incl. the United states, where I reside now) and b.) When you are poor in Germany you can drastically improve your cash flow by not living in one of the expensive cities. Living out in the country in a small village will enable you to stretch your welfare checks compared to living in Munich, where most things and most people around you are much more. I also think Germany has a unique opportunity here to tackle the problem of social mobility and could improve the way they deploy the welfare budget. For example supporting a young family with many children before they face sliding into "poor status", due to one parent staying home to take care of the family. The article did a great job highlighting three interesting situations and their challenges/opportunities.

blowski 10y ago
> When you are poor in Germany you can drastically improve your cash flow by not living in one of the expensive cities. Living out in the country in a small village will enable you to stretch your welfare checks compared to living in Munich, where most things and most people around you are much more You're right, but that's the start of welfare dependency. If you have kids, you probably kill their life chances as well. I'm talking of the UK, rather than Germany, but I imagine the same is true anywhere in the rich world.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  Have a look at New Zealand. The current government is slashing the welfare system yet several key figures (no pun intended - PM is called Key) grew up in state housing in a welfare state. They benefitted from the system and have risen to the top of it.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    America too. Paul Ryan, who never met a welfare program he didn't want to cut, received social security payments after his father died at age 16.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      What a preposterous argument, that having ever received government handouts somehow disqualifies you from thinking the programs are a bad idea. I pay plenty of money in taxes. You can bet that if I ever qualify for handouts, I'll be cashing them. You would be stupid not to.
      - lgieron 10y ago
        I'm in general anti benefits myself, but I think the payments received by a minor on death of a parent are one of the most fair, and best investment for society. They're pretty hard to game (you'd have to kill your own parent to get that money) and they prevent a child from slipping into desperate poverty and crime.
        marcoperaza 10y ago
        I wasn't commenting on the specifics, just on the general line of attack. I'm inclined to agree with you.
      - ItendToDisagree 10y ago
        So your motto is "Fuck you. Got mine." right? Should get a bumpersticker printed up!
        marcoperaza 10y ago
        Okay, from now on anyone who uses Facebook can't criticize Facebook. Same with Spotify, Twitter, and Apple products. Not one peep! Come to think about it, that would stop a lot of the whining around here so maybe it'd be a good thing. Further, any advocates for higher tax rates should immediately begin to voluntarily pay the higher tax rates that they advocate for. You are allowed to donate extra money in taxes to the government if you'd please. So I demand that people put their money where their mouth is. And while we're at it, I'm sick of these affirmative action advocates at elite universities who always want to give up other people's spots. All affirmative action advocates should immediately give up their positions at elite colleges and well-regarded employers, to make space for less-privileged people. Can you see how this is not a reasonable line of argument?
  - billforsternz 10y ago
    The current NZ government is not slashing the welfare system.
    - Taniwha 10y ago
      I call BS - they're not keeping up with real inflation (rents in particular are going up far faster than nominal inflation), people are living in cars because Key's people are pandering to those who are raking it in from the property bubble rather than looking aftyer those who really need help
      - billforsternz 10y ago
        The current government took office in 2008. The following numbers are NZ Government fiscal spend on Social Security and Welfare in $NZmillion for each financial year starting two years before the present government took office. Source http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/data http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/data 2006 16,212 2007 17,266 2008 18,420 2009 19,844 2010 21,142 2011 22,029 2012 22,148 2013 22,737 2014 23,308 2015 23,881 Budget 2016 schedules a further modest increase in this spend. All in an environment of historically low inflation. This is entirely consistent with the nature of this government which is characterised by a steady-as-she-goes approach, with tweaks and priority adjustments much more the order of the day than dramatic policy changes. You do not get to call steady, modest increases in real expenditure "slashing the welfare system". Sure we have a housing problem. You could make an argument that the government should be taking drastic action to address that problem, but you cannot argue that failure to take any such drastic action is the same thing as "slashing the welfare system"! And you absolutely do not get to "call BS" when someone points out a simple statement of fact.
        lostlogin 10y ago
        They are shifting people off benefits and cutting their entitlements whilst deriding beneficiaries at every opportunity. State housing is being sold off (or they are attempting too, but judging by Friday's news that they have botched it, it isn't easy to find a buyer) and much is sitting empty. Welfare recipients do not receive enough to cover living costs, and payments have not kept up with inflation at any stretch. A welfare recipient is vastly worse off now than 10 years ago. I can't tell from those figures (on mobile and the linked site behaves badly) but do they include state pensions? Also, are you sure they are right? The figures are in millions?
  - taneq 10y ago
    Sounds like the Australian government's ongoing siege of the tertiary education system, when they were the last group to enjoy a fully state funded university education. Damn hypocrites.
- facetube 10y ago
  IMO "welfare dependency" is by and large a myth. The vast majority of people want to work, want to make money, want to be self-sufficient, and want to participate meaningfully in society. A few people I know who are arguably dependent on government provided benefits (in the US) are that way because they're physically ill, have inadequate or no access to health care, and literally cannot work as a result. The others are full-time employees who work 40 hours a week but are paid wages that can't possibly support their family's existence.
  - surfmike 10y ago
    Agreed but when you have a generous system sometimes it's just easier to stay on benefits and putting off developing career etc. Of course we should help people who cannot be self sufficient. Those who can should be given very clear incentives (and prodding) to join the workforce.
    - dublinben 10y ago
      The disincentive to work has more to do with the welfare trap that removes benefits quicker than they are replaced with income. That can happen with any level of generosity in benefits.
      - IkmoIkmo 10y ago
        Yeah I can illustrate a personal example. I lived with my dad who'd been ill for years and on welfare. His income was supplemented to about 950 euros or so a month, however, if I had a part-time job making 350 euros, he'd only receive 600, because the household income was 950. So here I am, a poor student paying my own way through college with no support from my parents, working part-time and going into debt, and they slam this on me. So I was forced to financially support my parents because there's no way to pay rent, food, insurance etc on 650 bucks. After many calls it turns out there was no solution, the -benefits was 1:1 with the +income I was earning. This created an incentive for me to stop working. If I earned 100, my dad got 100 less, if I earned 600 my dad got 600 less. It'd only make sense for me to work if I quit college and got a job that paid more than he'd get in benefits, such that if I made 1k a month, my dad would get 0, I'd give him 950, and keep 50 bucks a month for working full-time at minimum wage. So I stopped working and started desperately looking to move out (so that my income was no part of the 'household' income of my dad's place). Eventually did, got a job again and finished uni. Anyway it's just one of many bad policy planning examples that look sensible in general... which is, if you're working, you don't need benefits anymore. And if you're living with people who are making all kinds of money, there's no need to depend on the state anymore, so they're counted as part of your income that the benefit requirements are tested against. Then there's indeed examples where benefits are replaced quicker than income. Worse than 1:1. Like when you make 900 bucks, you get an exemption from a municipality tax of 150. But if you make 901, you pass the threshold, such that your effective income dropped to 751 by earning 1 euro extra, which puts you in a nasty situation in a country where rent, insurance puts you at 750 already and there's nothing left for food, culture or connectivity.
- rue 10y ago
  “Move somewhere less expensive” (= rural) is terrible advice, and I’m not sure how it gets bandied about so much. Ignoring the often prohibitive costs of moving itself and possibly needing to buy a car for local transport, for example, the last thing an unemployed person needs to do is move away from the available jobs.
x0x0 10y ago
This may be a very American perspective, but I utterly fail at any sympathy towards the parents that had two kids and were doing fine, then decided to have two more and are whining that someone else didn't step up to pay for them. I mean, it's not as if babies being up all night is a predictable part of having a baby or anything. The mother whines that kids shouldn't be like a mercedes, where you decide beforehand if you can afford it. But that's exactly what kids are like. And if only there where some way (algebra) to know that per-capita income would shrink with each child! Hell, you may even think the country should pay for unlimited kids, but they couldn't be bothered to check before having the 3rd and 4th child if Germany does or not. They are irresponsible parents.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- aminok 10y ago
  Studies show that the rate of single motherhood increases dramatically with rises in welfare. It's no surprise to anyone whose eyes are open that people are generally rational, and act to further their own interests. It's morally abhorrent that it's accepted practice that people vote for politicians that promise them money taxed from others. Social democracy is simply authoritarianism.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - tehrei 10y ago
    Money? Did you print those money yourself? Did you issue that currency yourself? No. Those money belong to the state. The state giveth and the state taketh away. You're just allowed the right to make use of those money for the purposes of trade. As long as your wealth is in state-issued currency (whether on paper or in a bank), it's not yours. If you want to truly own money, print your own, hire your own army and become your own nation.
rbehrends 10y ago
> Living out in the country in a small village will enable you to stretch your welfare checks compared to living in Munich, where most things and most people around you are much more. I'd qualify that by saying to pick a small or mid-sized city over an actual village. Public transport is much better in cities than in rural areas and you are more likely to have stores in walkable or bikable distance, so you're either adding the cost of a car to your living expenses or reducing your quality of life and options for the future significantly by living in a village.
Spooky23 10y ago
There's a lot of nuance to these things. For example, in the US, you can save a ton of money by living in the country. But rentals are hard to come by.
jfaucett 10y ago
Exactly this. I moved to Germany around 6 years ago, and I've noticed huge differences in cost of living just in the few cities I've lived in (southern Germany was the most expensive i.e. Munich). Also, as someone who has lived in the US and Argentina, and has spent a good portion of life living in the "poorer class", I have to say being "poor" in Germany seems lightyears better than it is in those two countries, although I haven't experienced being poor here, only in those others. The first time I saw a German ghetto I thought it was joke. A German ghetto is a pretty nice place to live in most countries, in the US it'd be like living in a multicultural poorer neighborhood where everyone has healthcare and there's no guns or violent crime. Anyway, it still amazes me sometimes how far Germans go with the "lets help the world" mentality. One of the first things, I got asked after arriving in Germany was if I wanted Hartz IV? I already had a fulltime well-paying job, but hey I wouldn't start for a couple months so they wanted to give me money until then! What country does that? So sure, you pay huge taxes, you get safer cities and even "poor" people have apartments, healthcare, food, tv, internet, etc. This isn't to say all is perfect. There's plenty of things wrong in Germany (aka 6 month winters), but on the issue of "quality of life as a poor person", they are rocking it IMHO.
- rbehrends 10y ago
  > Anyway, it still amazes me sometimes how far Germans go with the "lets help the world" mentality. One of the first things, I got asked after arriving in Germany was if I wanted Hartz IV? I already had a fulltime well-paying job, but hey I wouldn't start for a couple months so they wanted to give me money until then! What country does that? So sure, you pay huge taxes, you get safer cities and even "poor" people have apartments, healthcare, food, tv, internet, etc. I find that a bit surprising; one of the downsides of Hartz IV (Germany's guaranteed minimum income scheme) is the hardnosed bureaucracy that tends to go with it. That said, GMI schemes are generally pretty cheap; the welfare budgets of European countries are typically dominated by healthcare spending and pensions, not ensuring that everybody has a minimum standard of living, which generally makes up a relatively small fraction of public spending. As Felix Salmon wrote a while ago [1]: "At the same time, the amount of money that we need to spend in order to feed and clothe ourselves has never been lower. In much of the developed world, basic calorific and shelter needs have been taken care of, with their costs converging to zero. In dozens of countries, we have largely solved the physiological needs at the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid, and indeed the safety needs one level up. Extending that security to all citizens is a matter of political will, not a question of adequate resources." [1] http://fusion.net/story/197297/star-treks-utopia-is-already-here/ http://fusion.net/story/197297/star-treks-utopia-is-already-...
jglauche 10y ago
I'm currently on welfare in mid-sized city in Germany and can say that it's definitely possible to stay alive as long as you stay the obedient slave of the Jobcenter. What does suck is when something breaks. Your computer, your car, something bigger in your house. Expensive hardware parts are really hard to save money for. I have to say, the Jobcenter is the worst employer ever. They don't require my presence most of the time, yet I can't plan in leaving the city unless on very short notice, as they require me to ask for "vacation" one week before. Soo.. I can save a little money to fly somewhere, book in advance and then I ask them one week before I'm going and they can decline! I hope to get out of this, the sooner the better. Sadly, it's not the jobs that are lacking, it's discrimination by law in my case.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  > Sadly, it's not the jobs that are lacking, it's discrimination by law in my case. At the risk of making a too personal inquiry, what discrimination by law are you referring to here?
  - jglauche 10y ago
    Germany has a Transsexual law from 1987. Currently I'm undergoing the name change process, since all paperwork has to go under my old name (who is this guy?? Why do I have to sign for someone else?). They won't even change my bank account name, which would be a start (I've been a customer with them for over 20 years and they don't trust me and my "transgender passport"). So, currently, a judge is deciding on my fate on this. I've done their interrogation, visited two psychologists now and one of the letters has some crap written in it, which might, at worst case trap me another 1 1/2 years in this situation. Without the legal name change done, work life is limited: - I have to tell any employer my old name - If I start/join a startup, I have to use my old name. Plus it'll cost lots of money to change it once my name change process succeeds. - If I want to do freelancing, they want my old name for all paperworks. Then the thing with my bank account.. Using my old name is discouraging to any job I do. Also not being treated as an adult who can make their own life choices is highly discouraging.
weinzierl 10y ago
> The article did a great job highlighting three interesting situations and their challenges/opportunities. Yes it did and I agree with all you said. As a German I just wanted to point out one thing that might not be clear to many readers not familiar with the situation in Germany: And as you said the article was "highlighting the interesting situations". These life stories are highly atypical. Mr. Huber was an Engineer at Siemens. Even if he didn't make quite a career there, he had certainly one of the better paying jobs in Germany. He inherited a house at Tegernsee, which is wealthy area. In contrast to most other Germans he had all the chances he could have, but somehow (the article doesn't say) he lost everything. The Ehlers' trouble started with the birth of their forth child. Only 3.5% of all families with children in Germany have four or more kids [1]. Mrs. Kramer is seriously ill. She is a single parent but has (apparently) otherwise no family to support her. She lives in her own apartment and has a good education. Her case is certainly the most typical of all three. What does typical poverty in Germany really look like? 15.4% of the German population is considered poor[2][3]. - Single Parent 41.9% - Family with three or more children 24.6% - Unemployed 57.6% - Low level of education 30.8% - Foreign national 32.5% - Migration background 26.7% [1] https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressekonferenzen/2013/Geburten_2012/Begleitheft_Geburten.pdf?__blob=publicationFile https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressekonfer... [2] http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2016-02/armut-deutschland-2016-paritaetische-verband http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2016-02/armut-deutschland-2016... [3] http://www.der-paritaetische.de/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&g=0&t=1465160658&hash=b1f7f86883b269c53d1a67812b32830d631b2e21&file=fileadmin/dokumente/2016_armutsbericht/ab2016_komplett_web.pdf http://www.der-paritaetische.de/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl...
- rattray 10y ago
  Thank you for sharing context, details, and links! Very helpful.
- Mz 10y ago
  The article gives a brief sketch of Huber's downfall: But at the beginning of the 1990s, his life came crashing down around him. One of his main customers stopped paying. He fought for years to get the unpaid money and restructured his debt to get seed capital for his new business plan. He fought desperately -- and ultimately in vain. In 1997, he was forced to capitulate. By that point, he had already been unable to work for two years and was on welfare. He lost his family home in a foreclosure and his pension and retirement insurance plan was seized. His landlord evicted him. Manfred Huber was ruined.
IkmoIkmo 10y ago
> When you are poor in Germany you can drastically improve your cash flow by not living in one of the expensive cities. Well yes and no. I personally find virtually everything is cheaper in a city except that which comes at a premium: rent. Now of course rent is a big chunk out of your cashflow, but in many European countries housing projects for the poor lock in the rents, such that they don't differ all that much across the country. In some countries, rents float freely, but there's rent subsidies that scale up, such that up to a certain maximum rent, your effective rent doesn't differ much across the country. But living in the city usually means dramatically higher degrees of accessibility to university education, broad public transport, diverse cultural offerings, job opportunities etc, many of them at a discount to the rest of the country, and subsidised by the rich population and economies of scale. Take London for example, various studies have shown poor kids do very well because London's infrastructure is so highly developed. Further I personally feel it's easier to get ahead in cities if you're new, or you're down and out. It's easy to get a restart. Cities are used to strangers, companies are used to hiring unknowns, people are used to meet new people. In rural areas, I feel all of life, whether it's personal relationships or job opportunities, are more dependent on your social connections, relatively speaking. It's harder to start anew, or enter a rural area as a stranger and thrive, in the way one can in a city. But that last paragraph is a personal preference, I'm sure it'll be the exact opposite for others. Anyway so it depends on the country, I'm not super familiar with the German situation. In the Netherlands though, I'd much rather be on welfare in a big city.
- eru 10y ago
  It's not expensive city vs rural. There are plenty of cheap cities, that still offer the good infrastructure---especially in East Germany. The one thing they don't offer is jobs, that's why rent is cheap.
Frompo 10y ago
Well, certainly its easier to become poor if you live in an expensive city. But once you are poor, how can you afford moving?
- eru 10y ago
  It's not that expensive. Rent a van, get a bunch of friends to help you. If you have lots of stuff, sell some of it.
  - Frompo 10y ago
    How can you afford to rent a van if you can't afford to buy a beer in a bar twice a year?
    - eru 10y ago
      I am talking about Germany here. You can afford a beer in a bar at least once a week there on welfare, no problems. (I grew up on welfare in Germany. We had vacations, and we could afford to move. The biggest hassle is the bureaucracy with the Arbeitsamt involved.)
  - fucking_tragedy 10y ago
    This stinks of a lack of awareness on par with "let them eat cake".
rdl 10y ago
I think it's fair to provide incentives (either fixed cash payments across the whole country, or other incentives) for poor people to move to areas where labor is relatively highly valued relative to living costs. A lot of US/etc. welfare policy, because it's funded locally, actively discourages that. A national basic income would solve this with little overhead, but a more conventional policy with actively marketing cheaper areas to poor people (and, marketing areas where labor is in high demand; maybe providing transportation/transitional housing/etc.) would be a way to help people out of poverty. People used to migrate for jobs; this happens a lot less now.
- eru 10y ago
  Cheaper areas are usually cheaper because the economy isn't doing so well. If you can work at all (eg no medical problems keeping you unemployed), you should probably move to Munich to get a job. Lots of East Germans migrated to the more expensive west, and are still doing that. For the jobs.
  - merb 10y ago
    > Cheaper areas are usually cheaper because the economy isn't doing so well. That is basically not true in germany. We have a lot of smaller cities which are really close to bigger ones or even have small towns which are having a really good economy. Let's take Freiburg as an example. The city has disastrous rents and has a good economy. But, if you live in a town in some counties near Freiburg you can have a way cheaper live and still live in a town with a good economy + a fast way to work in Freiburg, which you don't need since there are really good companies, too. Take Zalando for example they build a huge building down in Lahr, Ortenaukreis near Freiburg or Rust (Europa Park) which will employ a lot of people (not only warehouser, there will be a lot of office jobs as well) and the city is really cheap to live in compared to Freiburg and has some towns around which are even cheaper.
    - germanier 10y ago
      To be fair that's mostly the case in Baden-Württemberg and parts of Bavaria. Additionally the agglomerations in North Rhine-Westphalia. All other states have their workforce more concentrated in the bigger cities. You can move to the periphery but most jobs would include a commute to the next bigger city. But Germany in general is pretty decentralized and you certainly don't need to move to Munich to get a job – there are many in cheaper cities as well with different sectors usually preferring different regions.
eksemplar 10y ago
Living costs are similar in Denmark where I'm from, where the lower middle class frankly can't afford to live in the cities, even with two working adults. Being in IT I'm able to pay for our three room apartment even though my fiancée is still attending university, but I make as much money as two lower end jobs and we had a million Danish kroner to get us started. This is the kind of income and startup capital you need to live in the cities. There are two problems with moving away. The first problem is that cities are where the jobs are. If you're unemployed you could benefit from moving into the wild lands, but you could easily be 4-5 hours of public transportation away from any job interview. The the second problem is that you actually have to move pretty far away. Most of the smaller cities near the city centers are already occupied by the wealthy class who wants nature + a short drive to work. Poor people are obviously much better off here than they are most places. They can get medical care, they can get education for their kids, and the system will even help pay their rent. The stigma remains though. Perhaps especially so, in a society where we haven't yet gotten used to inequality.
eru 10y ago
> Living out in the country in a small village will enable you to stretch your welfare checks compared to living in Munich, where most things and most people around you are much more. Of course, that also sites you away from the jobs. But yeah, eg the student welfare benefit (Bafög) goes much further in cheap cities.
- merb 10y ago
  > But yeah, eg the student welfare benefit (Bafög) goes much further in cheap cities. Simply not true. Bafög is paid based on what your parents have. And how far you are away from them. They have a "base" need for everything in your students life which is something of ~650€ as of today and then they calculate how much your parents "should" give you (even if they can't) and give you the rest of that money (monthly). And after something like 4-5 years your last payment was made you need to pay half of it (the rest is yours even if you don't make it, if you make it you don't get any bonuses, but making good grades or other super stuff will actually) back in junks of 150€ per (month, paid in quarters if you are wellthy) or you could make upfront payments which will reduce your payment need drastically.

blowski 10y ago

> When you are poor in Germany you can drastically improve your cash flow by not living in one of the expensive cities. Living out in the country in a small village will enable you to stretch your welfare checks compared to living in Munich, where most things and most people around you are much more You're right, but that's the start of welfare dependency. If you have kids, you probably kill their life chances as well. I'm talking of the UK, rather than Germany, but I imagine the same is true anywhere in the rich world.

lostlogin 10y ago
Have a look at New Zealand. The current government is slashing the welfare system yet several key figures (no pun intended - PM is called Key) grew up in state housing in a welfare state. They benefitted from the system and have risen to the top of it.
- x0x0 10y ago
  America too. Paul Ryan, who never met a welfare program he didn't want to cut, received social security payments after his father died at age 16.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    What a preposterous argument, that having ever received government handouts somehow disqualifies you from thinking the programs are a bad idea. I pay plenty of money in taxes. You can bet that if I ever qualify for handouts, I'll be cashing them. You would be stupid not to.
    - lgieron 10y ago
      I'm in general anti benefits myself, but I think the payments received by a minor on death of a parent are one of the most fair, and best investment for society. They're pretty hard to game (you'd have to kill your own parent to get that money) and they prevent a child from slipping into desperate poverty and crime.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        I wasn't commenting on the specifics, just on the general line of attack. I'm inclined to agree with you.
    - ItendToDisagree 10y ago
      So your motto is "Fuck you. Got mine." right? Should get a bumpersticker printed up!
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        Okay, from now on anyone who uses Facebook can't criticize Facebook. Same with Spotify, Twitter, and Apple products. Not one peep! Come to think about it, that would stop a lot of the whining around here so maybe it'd be a good thing. Further, any advocates for higher tax rates should immediately begin to voluntarily pay the higher tax rates that they advocate for. You are allowed to donate extra money in taxes to the government if you'd please. So I demand that people put their money where their mouth is. And while we're at it, I'm sick of these affirmative action advocates at elite universities who always want to give up other people's spots. All affirmative action advocates should immediately give up their positions at elite colleges and well-regarded employers, to make space for less-privileged people. Can you see how this is not a reasonable line of argument?
- billforsternz 10y ago
  The current NZ government is not slashing the welfare system.
  - Taniwha 10y ago
    I call BS - they're not keeping up with real inflation (rents in particular are going up far faster than nominal inflation), people are living in cars because Key's people are pandering to those who are raking it in from the property bubble rather than looking aftyer those who really need help
    - billforsternz 10y ago
      The current government took office in 2008. The following numbers are NZ Government fiscal spend on Social Security and Welfare in $NZmillion for each financial year starting two years before the present government took office. Source http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/data http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/data 2006 16,212 2007 17,266 2008 18,420 2009 19,844 2010 21,142 2011 22,029 2012 22,148 2013 22,737 2014 23,308 2015 23,881 Budget 2016 schedules a further modest increase in this spend. All in an environment of historically low inflation. This is entirely consistent with the nature of this government which is characterised by a steady-as-she-goes approach, with tweaks and priority adjustments much more the order of the day than dramatic policy changes. You do not get to call steady, modest increases in real expenditure "slashing the welfare system". Sure we have a housing problem. You could make an argument that the government should be taking drastic action to address that problem, but you cannot argue that failure to take any such drastic action is the same thing as "slashing the welfare system"! And you absolutely do not get to "call BS" when someone points out a simple statement of fact.
      - lostlogin 10y ago
        They are shifting people off benefits and cutting their entitlements whilst deriding beneficiaries at every opportunity. State housing is being sold off (or they are attempting too, but judging by Friday's news that they have botched it, it isn't easy to find a buyer) and much is sitting empty. Welfare recipients do not receive enough to cover living costs, and payments have not kept up with inflation at any stretch. A welfare recipient is vastly worse off now than 10 years ago. I can't tell from those figures (on mobile and the linked site behaves badly) but do they include state pensions? Also, are you sure they are right? The figures are in millions?
- taneq 10y ago
  Sounds like the Australian government's ongoing siege of the tertiary education system, when they were the last group to enjoy a fully state funded university education. Damn hypocrites.
facetube 10y ago
IMO "welfare dependency" is by and large a myth. The vast majority of people want to work, want to make money, want to be self-sufficient, and want to participate meaningfully in society. A few people I know who are arguably dependent on government provided benefits (in the US) are that way because they're physically ill, have inadequate or no access to health care, and literally cannot work as a result. The others are full-time employees who work 40 hours a week but are paid wages that can't possibly support their family's existence.
- surfmike 10y ago
  Agreed but when you have a generous system sometimes it's just easier to stay on benefits and putting off developing career etc. Of course we should help people who cannot be self sufficient. Those who can should be given very clear incentives (and prodding) to join the workforce.
  - dublinben 10y ago
    The disincentive to work has more to do with the welfare trap that removes benefits quicker than they are replaced with income. That can happen with any level of generosity in benefits.
    - IkmoIkmo 10y ago
      Yeah I can illustrate a personal example. I lived with my dad who'd been ill for years and on welfare. His income was supplemented to about 950 euros or so a month, however, if I had a part-time job making 350 euros, he'd only receive 600, because the household income was 950. So here I am, a poor student paying my own way through college with no support from my parents, working part-time and going into debt, and they slam this on me. So I was forced to financially support my parents because there's no way to pay rent, food, insurance etc on 650 bucks. After many calls it turns out there was no solution, the -benefits was 1:1 with the +income I was earning. This created an incentive for me to stop working. If I earned 100, my dad got 100 less, if I earned 600 my dad got 600 less. It'd only make sense for me to work if I quit college and got a job that paid more than he'd get in benefits, such that if I made 1k a month, my dad would get 0, I'd give him 950, and keep 50 bucks a month for working full-time at minimum wage. So I stopped working and started desperately looking to move out (so that my income was no part of the 'household' income of my dad's place). Eventually did, got a job again and finished uni. Anyway it's just one of many bad policy planning examples that look sensible in general... which is, if you're working, you don't need benefits anymore. And if you're living with people who are making all kinds of money, there's no need to depend on the state anymore, so they're counted as part of your income that the benefit requirements are tested against. Then there's indeed examples where benefits are replaced quicker than income. Worse than 1:1. Like when you make 900 bucks, you get an exemption from a municipality tax of 150. But if you make 901, you pass the threshold, such that your effective income dropped to 751 by earning 1 euro extra, which puts you in a nasty situation in a country where rent, insurance puts you at 750 already and there's nothing left for food, culture or connectivity.
rue 10y ago
“Move somewhere less expensive” (= rural) is terrible advice, and I’m not sure how it gets bandied about so much. Ignoring the often prohibitive costs of moving itself and possibly needing to buy a car for local transport, for example, the last thing an unemployed person needs to do is move away from the available jobs.

x0x0 10y ago

This may be a very American perspective, but I utterly fail at any sympathy towards the parents that had two kids and were doing fine, then decided to have two more and are whining that someone else didn't step up to pay for them. I mean, it's not as if babies being up all night is a predictable part of having a baby or anything. The mother whines that kids shouldn't be like a mercedes, where you decide beforehand if you can afford it. But that's exactly what kids are like. And if only there where some way (algebra) to know that per-capita income would shrink with each child! Hell, you may even think the country should pay for unlimited kids, but they couldn't be bothered to check before having the 3rd and 4th child if Germany does or not. They are irresponsible parents.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
aminok 10y ago
Studies show that the rate of single motherhood increases dramatically with rises in welfare. It's no surprise to anyone whose eyes are open that people are generally rational, and act to further their own interests. It's morally abhorrent that it's accepted practice that people vote for politicians that promise them money taxed from others. Social democracy is simply authoritarianism.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tehrei 10y ago
  Money? Did you print those money yourself? Did you issue that currency yourself? No. Those money belong to the state. The state giveth and the state taketh away. You're just allowed the right to make use of those money for the purposes of trade. As long as your wealth is in state-issued currency (whether on paper or in a bank), it's not yours. If you want to truly own money, print your own, hire your own army and become your own nation.

rbehrends 10y ago

> Living out in the country in a small village will enable you to stretch your welfare checks compared to living in Munich, where most things and most people around you are much more. I'd qualify that by saying to pick a small or mid-sized city over an actual village. Public transport is much better in cities than in rural areas and you are more likely to have stores in walkable or bikable distance, so you're either adding the cost of a car to your living expenses or reducing your quality of life and options for the future significantly by living in a village.

Spooky23 10y ago

There's a lot of nuance to these things. For example, in the US, you can save a ton of money by living in the country. But rentals are hard to come by.

jfaucett 10y ago

Exactly this. I moved to Germany around 6 years ago, and I've noticed huge differences in cost of living just in the few cities I've lived in (southern Germany was the most expensive i.e. Munich). Also, as someone who has lived in the US and Argentina, and has spent a good portion of life living in the "poorer class", I have to say being "poor" in Germany seems lightyears better than it is in those two countries, although I haven't experienced being poor here, only in those others. The first time I saw a German ghetto I thought it was joke. A German ghetto is a pretty nice place to live in most countries, in the US it'd be like living in a multicultural poorer neighborhood where everyone has healthcare and there's no guns or violent crime. Anyway, it still amazes me sometimes how far Germans go with the "lets help the world" mentality. One of the first things, I got asked after arriving in Germany was if I wanted Hartz IV? I already had a fulltime well-paying job, but hey I wouldn't start for a couple months so they wanted to give me money until then! What country does that? So sure, you pay huge taxes, you get safer cities and even "poor" people have apartments, healthcare, food, tv, internet, etc. This isn't to say all is perfect. There's plenty of things wrong in Germany (aka 6 month winters), but on the issue of "quality of life as a poor person", they are rocking it IMHO.

rbehrends 10y ago
> Anyway, it still amazes me sometimes how far Germans go with the "lets help the world" mentality. One of the first things, I got asked after arriving in Germany was if I wanted Hartz IV? I already had a fulltime well-paying job, but hey I wouldn't start for a couple months so they wanted to give me money until then! What country does that? So sure, you pay huge taxes, you get safer cities and even "poor" people have apartments, healthcare, food, tv, internet, etc. I find that a bit surprising; one of the downsides of Hartz IV (Germany's guaranteed minimum income scheme) is the hardnosed bureaucracy that tends to go with it. That said, GMI schemes are generally pretty cheap; the welfare budgets of European countries are typically dominated by healthcare spending and pensions, not ensuring that everybody has a minimum standard of living, which generally makes up a relatively small fraction of public spending. As Felix Salmon wrote a while ago [1]: "At the same time, the amount of money that we need to spend in order to feed and clothe ourselves has never been lower. In much of the developed world, basic calorific and shelter needs have been taken care of, with their costs converging to zero. In dozens of countries, we have largely solved the physiological needs at the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid, and indeed the safety needs one level up. Extending that security to all citizens is a matter of political will, not a question of adequate resources." [1] http://fusion.net/story/197297/star-treks-utopia-is-already-here/ http://fusion.net/story/197297/star-treks-utopia-is-already-...

jglauche 10y ago

I'm currently on welfare in mid-sized city in Germany and can say that it's definitely possible to stay alive as long as you stay the obedient slave of the Jobcenter. What does suck is when something breaks. Your computer, your car, something bigger in your house. Expensive hardware parts are really hard to save money for. I have to say, the Jobcenter is the worst employer ever. They don't require my presence most of the time, yet I can't plan in leaving the city unless on very short notice, as they require me to ask for "vacation" one week before. Soo.. I can save a little money to fly somewhere, book in advance and then I ask them one week before I'm going and they can decline! I hope to get out of this, the sooner the better. Sadly, it's not the jobs that are lacking, it's discrimination by law in my case.

bobwaycott 10y ago
> Sadly, it's not the jobs that are lacking, it's discrimination by law in my case. At the risk of making a too personal inquiry, what discrimination by law are you referring to here?
- jglauche 10y ago
  Germany has a Transsexual law from 1987. Currently I'm undergoing the name change process, since all paperwork has to go under my old name (who is this guy?? Why do I have to sign for someone else?). They won't even change my bank account name, which would be a start (I've been a customer with them for over 20 years and they don't trust me and my "transgender passport"). So, currently, a judge is deciding on my fate on this. I've done their interrogation, visited two psychologists now and one of the letters has some crap written in it, which might, at worst case trap me another 1 1/2 years in this situation. Without the legal name change done, work life is limited: - I have to tell any employer my old name - If I start/join a startup, I have to use my old name. Plus it'll cost lots of money to change it once my name change process succeeds. - If I want to do freelancing, they want my old name for all paperworks. Then the thing with my bank account.. Using my old name is discouraging to any job I do. Also not being treated as an adult who can make their own life choices is highly discouraging.

weinzierl 10y ago

> The article did a great job highlighting three interesting situations and their challenges/opportunities. Yes it did and I agree with all you said. As a German I just wanted to point out one thing that might not be clear to many readers not familiar with the situation in Germany: And as you said the article was "highlighting the interesting situations". These life stories are highly atypical. Mr. Huber was an Engineer at Siemens. Even if he didn't make quite a career there, he had certainly one of the better paying jobs in Germany. He inherited a house at Tegernsee, which is wealthy area. In contrast to most other Germans he had all the chances he could have, but somehow (the article doesn't say) he lost everything. The Ehlers' trouble started with the birth of their forth child. Only 3.5% of all families with children in Germany have four or more kids [1]. Mrs. Kramer is seriously ill. She is a single parent but has (apparently) otherwise no family to support her. She lives in her own apartment and has a good education. Her case is certainly the most typical of all three. What does typical poverty in Germany really look like? 15.4% of the German population is considered poor[2][3]. - Single Parent 41.9% - Family with three or more children 24.6% - Unemployed 57.6% - Low level of education 30.8% - Foreign national 32.5% - Migration background 26.7% [1] https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressekonferenzen/2013/Geburten_2012/Begleitheft_Geburten.pdf?__blob=publicationFile https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressekonfer... [2] http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2016-02/armut-deutschland-2016-paritaetische-verband http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2016-02/armut-deutschland-2016... [3] http://www.der-paritaetische.de/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&g=0&t=1465160658&hash=b1f7f86883b269c53d1a67812b32830d631b2e21&file=fileadmin/dokumente/2016_armutsbericht/ab2016_komplett_web.pdf http://www.der-paritaetische.de/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl...

rattray 10y ago
Thank you for sharing context, details, and links! Very helpful.
Mz 10y ago
The article gives a brief sketch of Huber's downfall: But at the beginning of the 1990s, his life came crashing down around him. One of his main customers stopped paying. He fought for years to get the unpaid money and restructured his debt to get seed capital for his new business plan. He fought desperately -- and ultimately in vain. In 1997, he was forced to capitulate. By that point, he had already been unable to work for two years and was on welfare. He lost his family home in a foreclosure and his pension and retirement insurance plan was seized. His landlord evicted him. Manfred Huber was ruined.

IkmoIkmo 10y ago

> When you are poor in Germany you can drastically improve your cash flow by not living in one of the expensive cities. Well yes and no. I personally find virtually everything is cheaper in a city except that which comes at a premium: rent. Now of course rent is a big chunk out of your cashflow, but in many European countries housing projects for the poor lock in the rents, such that they don't differ all that much across the country. In some countries, rents float freely, but there's rent subsidies that scale up, such that up to a certain maximum rent, your effective rent doesn't differ much across the country. But living in the city usually means dramatically higher degrees of accessibility to university education, broad public transport, diverse cultural offerings, job opportunities etc, many of them at a discount to the rest of the country, and subsidised by the rich population and economies of scale. Take London for example, various studies have shown poor kids do very well because London's infrastructure is so highly developed. Further I personally feel it's easier to get ahead in cities if you're new, or you're down and out. It's easy to get a restart. Cities are used to strangers, companies are used to hiring unknowns, people are used to meet new people. In rural areas, I feel all of life, whether it's personal relationships or job opportunities, are more dependent on your social connections, relatively speaking. It's harder to start anew, or enter a rural area as a stranger and thrive, in the way one can in a city. But that last paragraph is a personal preference, I'm sure it'll be the exact opposite for others. Anyway so it depends on the country, I'm not super familiar with the German situation. In the Netherlands though, I'd much rather be on welfare in a big city.

eru 10y ago
It's not expensive city vs rural. There are plenty of cheap cities, that still offer the good infrastructure---especially in East Germany. The one thing they don't offer is jobs, that's why rent is cheap.

Frompo 10y ago

Well, certainly its easier to become poor if you live in an expensive city. But once you are poor, how can you afford moving?

eru 10y ago
It's not that expensive. Rent a van, get a bunch of friends to help you. If you have lots of stuff, sell some of it.
- Frompo 10y ago
  How can you afford to rent a van if you can't afford to buy a beer in a bar twice a year?
  - eru 10y ago
    I am talking about Germany here. You can afford a beer in a bar at least once a week there on welfare, no problems. (I grew up on welfare in Germany. We had vacations, and we could afford to move. The biggest hassle is the bureaucracy with the Arbeitsamt involved.)
- fucking_tragedy 10y ago
  This stinks of a lack of awareness on par with "let them eat cake".

rdl 10y ago

I think it's fair to provide incentives (either fixed cash payments across the whole country, or other incentives) for poor people to move to areas where labor is relatively highly valued relative to living costs. A lot of US/etc. welfare policy, because it's funded locally, actively discourages that. A national basic income would solve this with little overhead, but a more conventional policy with actively marketing cheaper areas to poor people (and, marketing areas where labor is in high demand; maybe providing transportation/transitional housing/etc.) would be a way to help people out of poverty. People used to migrate for jobs; this happens a lot less now.

eru 10y ago
Cheaper areas are usually cheaper because the economy isn't doing so well. If you can work at all (eg no medical problems keeping you unemployed), you should probably move to Munich to get a job. Lots of East Germans migrated to the more expensive west, and are still doing that. For the jobs.
- merb 10y ago
  > Cheaper areas are usually cheaper because the economy isn't doing so well. That is basically not true in germany. We have a lot of smaller cities which are really close to bigger ones or even have small towns which are having a really good economy. Let's take Freiburg as an example. The city has disastrous rents and has a good economy. But, if you live in a town in some counties near Freiburg you can have a way cheaper live and still live in a town with a good economy + a fast way to work in Freiburg, which you don't need since there are really good companies, too. Take Zalando for example they build a huge building down in Lahr, Ortenaukreis near Freiburg or Rust (Europa Park) which will employ a lot of people (not only warehouser, there will be a lot of office jobs as well) and the city is really cheap to live in compared to Freiburg and has some towns around which are even cheaper.
  - germanier 10y ago
    To be fair that's mostly the case in Baden-Württemberg and parts of Bavaria. Additionally the agglomerations in North Rhine-Westphalia. All other states have their workforce more concentrated in the bigger cities. You can move to the periphery but most jobs would include a commute to the next bigger city. But Germany in general is pretty decentralized and you certainly don't need to move to Munich to get a job – there are many in cheaper cities as well with different sectors usually preferring different regions.

eksemplar 10y ago

Living costs are similar in Denmark where I'm from, where the lower middle class frankly can't afford to live in the cities, even with two working adults. Being in IT I'm able to pay for our three room apartment even though my fiancée is still attending university, but I make as much money as two lower end jobs and we had a million Danish kroner to get us started. This is the kind of income and startup capital you need to live in the cities. There are two problems with moving away. The first problem is that cities are where the jobs are. If you're unemployed you could benefit from moving into the wild lands, but you could easily be 4-5 hours of public transportation away from any job interview. The the second problem is that you actually have to move pretty far away. Most of the smaller cities near the city centers are already occupied by the wealthy class who wants nature + a short drive to work. Poor people are obviously much better off here than they are most places. They can get medical care, they can get education for their kids, and the system will even help pay their rent. The stigma remains though. Perhaps especially so, in a society where we haven't yet gotten used to inequality.

eru 10y ago

merb 10y ago
> But yeah, eg the student welfare benefit (Bafög) goes much further in cheap cities. Simply not true. Bafög is paid based on what your parents have. And how far you are away from them. They have a "base" need for everything in your students life which is something of ~650€ as of today and then they calculate how much your parents "should" give you (even if they can't) and give you the rest of that money (monthly). And after something like 4-5 years your last payment was made you need to pay half of it (the rest is yours even if you don't make it, if you make it you don't get any bonuses, but making good grades or other super stuff will actually) back in junks of 150€ per (month, paid in quarters if you are wellthy) or you could make upfront payments which will reduce your payment need drastically.