If the future German Chancellor is here, here's my proposal for your new campaign: "We choose to build one million affordable apartments in four years, not because it's easy but because it's hard".
It may not solve all of Germany's problems but at least you'll energize the construction sector, alleviate the housing crisis, learn how to finish a construction project on time and you'll have to remove some bureaucracy to reach the deadline. Build them with EV chargers outside and you'll help VW too.
Interesting that 2 similar problems - water rise and population increase - are treated that differently, i.e. it is considered normal that the government would build levies/etc. while the government building housing is an abomination.
Well, it has been a race to the bottom to be fair, any infra is just becoming derelict, railways, levies are a very good example of infra in very bad state btw.
I have a deep dislike for Scholz (SPD), but this is for the biggest part the fault of Lindner/finance minister (FDP) who was an absolute disgrace and unable to make a compromise.
You can't tell me he didn't negotiate before with the other two parties about what the compromises would be. Leave it or stick with it.
"Schuldenbremse". "Debt"+"brake", brake as in what forces a car to stop.
Keep in mind that Russian's attack on the Ukraine, which lead to the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, didn't happen until after the election. I don't understand how people blend this out so easily.
Let's assume your important car breaks down because of a strange, non-technical reason, which isn't covered by any insurance. If you don't have enough money, you will have to borrow some, you will have to go into debt, unless you are able to reduce your expenses otherwise.
During the entire time of this coalition you had the finance minister saying that the debt brake is holy, therefore restricting in cash those in the coalition which his party disliked the most, always saying: "But the debt brake." - well knowing that those affected by the constrained cash flow would get bad publicity because they can't do their job, corrected: because they're personally unfit to do what they should do, because "they are losers". All this, while not proposing a real solution to the problem.
They suggested to decrease government spending, which is - of course - something every government should strive for, but this is something which cannot be done in a few years if it means to reduce bureaucracy. This requires modification of laws, which always is a slow process, and firing officials, which is a no-go for absolutely every party.
Their reasonable expectation of lowering financial support for those who are too lazy to work or are illegal immigrants, which are able to live without working because of it's better for them to just cash-in from the government, isn't something which would free up a significant amount of cash. Nevertheless it's something which should be done to send a signal.
Cheap gas had become the foundation of Germany's economy, which is why the USA and other European countries rightly always pointed out that Germany is too reliant on Russian gas. So it's kind odd if now the opposition blames the current government for all the problems. There are also enough videos which show the finance minister saying that the automotive industry has no problems in competitiveness. This was pre-pandemic, post Dieselgate. Because that was what the automotive industry paid him for to say. And now they are surprised that they are collapsing.
> "Schuldenbremse". "Debt"+"brake", brake as in what forces a car to stop.
No. Schuldenbremse limits the amount of new debt that can be taken on per year. So the correct comparison is that it's a limit on how quickly the car can accelerate.
> Let's assume your important car breaks down because of a strange, non-technical reason, which isn't covered by any insurance. If you don't have enough money, you will have to borrow some, you will have to go into debt, unless you are able to reduce your expenses otherwise.
Again, no. Your example describes a one-time expense, and the German Schuldenbremse has exemptions for that. Increased military spending is a running expense, and if the energy price problem is to be solved through subsidies, that's also a running expense.
Germany has been gutting the military and breaking their obligations toward NATO for decades, believing that the US would forever be footing the bill. With that "peace" dividend – or rather, through their parasitic behaviour – they funded generous social programs. They can keep funding all of this by increasing debt (again: not a one-time increase, but debt increasing every year), like Argentina did. Or they can admit they have a structural problem and act in a fiscally responsible way, like Lindner was advocating for.
People who already have property would not be happy because the government would spend huge money on a program they are not interested. And it could make the houses prices lower (which could be not popular for people, who already paying a loan). Would attract people who are renting though.
Right, the high percent of people owning the houses gives extra stability to the country. It keeps prices reasonable and gives overall more options (wanna change a city for a new job? wanna start a family? need some space for your extra hobby, which could give you some money potentially?). Sadly, not many people connect all the dots.
It is pretty simple, parties estimated how many votes and influence they could get. And decided it is too little. The only way is to be more noisy (protests, pressing politicians to do it).
It's unbelievably bad government behaviour. Allow mass immigration, to enjoy the boost in tax revenues and GDP, while dumping all the costs and fallout on the people.
Rents skyrocketed, utility bills getting more expensive, waiting twice as long for a doctor? Well that's not my problem, is it pleb?
It'd be one thing if they were actively clearing the path for it to minimise impact. Preemptively clearing land and building hospitals etc.
But that would imply something about these people that they definitely are not. Ruled by the worst among us.
I invite anybody to show me any credible evidence the immigration has a positive Net Present Value (NPV). The purpose was the destruction of the status quo, not improved tax revenues and GDP, but rather its replacement with a compliant, desperate, and above all else, an obedient population.
Poland saw net increase of GDP by 1-2% solely due to immigrants in 2023. And that number is from their own Warsaw institute, not some outside entity. In the same time period Poland saw immense monetary inflow from immigrants, who had to spend their money in the country, far more than any spending on those same immigrants.
And this is super short term data. Imagine how much better they are in long term, after assimilating and finding good jobs, founding businesses etc. Poland was losing population and in general not topping development charts, but immigrants fill this gap and boost the economy.
PS: an anecdote - I'm now an adult immigrant in Poland. I'm paying approximately 39.5% of tax now, a crazy rent to the Polish citizen landlord and all local products and services. I won't be eligible for Polish pension for two more decades, and after that I'll probably get some minimal one because I've started too late. I'm also paying some incredible sum to the healthcare system (included in those 39.5%) while not using it much. Statistically the most ill human groups are kids and elderly. Immigrants skip the kids stage themselves and elderly part is very far into future, so they are net gain in the healthcare system.
I guess the parent poster is talking about refugees/asylum seekers and similar conditions rather than qualified immigrants such as students and professional workers, which might be the main source of foreigners in Poland, unlike Germany.
That was implied, yes. The problem is that every time, like clockwork, when migrants are "dealt with" it means country is tightening professional legal immigration, and doing jack shit about illegal ones. Example - Canada has a problem with illegal migrants, to combat that they cut legal (and quite hard and complex) immigration path which Ukrainians used, maybe others too. They are also constantly raising the number of points for permanent residence (which includes education and work among other things, so is kinda for professionals). USA has a problem with migrants, it restricts H1B professional visa criteria which was very restricted in the first place.
PS: I don't mean that these restrictions are bad, maybe they are needed. I mean that often it seems that anti immigration ire is directed on the ones can be found the easiest, legal migrants who can be sent home with a flick of the pen, without getting from the comfy chair.
Completely agree. IMO, first thing should be done is to properly label, distinguish and group these terminologies about different types of immigration and foreigners. Then, have a solid policy especially on (initially) illegal immigration.
“To put their impact in perspective, in 2018, the average per capita fiscal contribution of first-generation immigrants was $16,207. In contrast, the average drain was $11,361, resulting in a net positive fiscal impact of $4,846 per immigrant in 2012 dollars. Multiplied by the number of immigrants present in 2018 (45.4 million), this amount results in a cumulative net fiscal impact of +$220 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that number is 1.2 percent of U.S. GDP in 2018 ($18.7 trillion in 2012 dollars) and 3.7 percent of all 2018 government spending ($6.031 trillion in 2012 dollars). The former number is roughly in line with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s 2006–2018 estimates, which are 1 percent for the United States and between plus or minus 1 percent for most OECD countries”
And
”The Cato Model finds that immigrant individuals who arrive at age 25 and who are high school dropouts have a net fiscal impact of +$216,000 in net present value terms over the next 30 years, which does not include their descendants. Including the fiscal impact of those immigrants’ descendants reduces those immigrants’ net fiscal impact to +$57,000. By comparison, native-born American high school dropouts of the same age have a net fiscal impact of −$32,000 that drops to −$177,000 when their descendants are included (Table 31).”
"The report finds that the total net contribution in 2018 by native Danish people was +41 billion DKK. The contribution of immigrants and their descendants was net negative at -24 billion DKK (Table b)"
You get skilled workers that you didn’t have to raise and educate, and their presence in the country is tied to their employment. Many will leave long before they need to use your healthcare system or collect a pension.
The greatest cost is that they also have expectations like shelter and functional services. Germany failing to meet this expectation was not caused by immigration. Immigration is not to blame for Germany failing to modernise its bureaucracy and its infrastructure.
Living in a migration heavy, booming German city I have to remind everyone that:
1. Migration is not distributed equally, it will mainly affect metropolitan areas
2. Metropolitan areas are usually doing well economically, but housing can become an issue. Not only due to foreigners, but also because people move in from the countryside and tourists need accomodation
3. Metropolitan areas are also not voting right wing
That means the areas voting against immigration are the ones who experience its impacts the least, except for the fact that young people tend to migrate away from these places. If that comes as a surprise to you you didn't look at the numbers.
The argument against migration in Germany isn't rational or economic, it is emotional¹.
The next question woud be whether these right wing parties are actually gonna reduce migration numbers. They don't have any incentive to do so as people vote them based on that — people who vote based on emotion not based on track record. So it happens that under some right wing governments migration numbers are actually higher than under other governments before and after.
¹: I recall seeing a German family on the subway who in shock proclaimed: "Oh mh god, there are so many foreigners" as she clutched her bag. I, a blonde blue eyed guy, asked her how she knew I was Austrian and that she does not need to worry since I have rode with that subway for 6 years and never seen or heard of any crime being committed, but whether she trusts me as an foreigner is another question — usually they mean: brown people.
> The purpose was the destruction of the status quo, not improved tax revenues and GDP, but rather its replacement with a compliant, desperate, and above all else, an obedient population.
I invite you to provide any credible evidence to this statement.
US has generally done alright? It comes down to who the immigrants are and how much money are they making. If they are in high value industries like tech how can they not generate any value?
The problems are that it becomes visible and hence it generates fear of the unknown which some politicians (populists or demagogues is probably a better description) easily exploit.
That really is the core of the issue - and it’s a big one, not easy to solve.
Exactly, we're going to sit here and buy "region locked dvds" and get exposed to competition from "wherever", it is just ridiculous. The capitalists need serious punishment.
It may not solve all of Germany's problems but at least you'll energize the construction sector, alleviate the housing crisis, learn how to finish a construction project on time and you'll have to remove some bureaucracy to reach the deadline. Build them with EV chargers outside and you'll help VW too.