Statistics of unfolding disaster - Germany's unfolding demographic collapse

[Skybird]

http://www.faz.net/s/Rub0B4403817782...~Scontent.html

The author Gunnar Heinsohn is a famous sociologist and economist, teaching at the university of Bremen, he is also an internationally respected researcher on the matter of genocide. His name is linked to the publication of his so-called youth bulge theory that gives strong empirical evidence for a link between the sociologic and demographic structure of a culture/society, and it's expansionism and aggressiveness and intolerance to the cultural "outside". This of course is especially relevant for the current youth boom in and the expansionism of the Islamic world. His main work "Söhne und Weltmacht. Terror im Aufstieg und Fall der Nationen" deals with that. I know that book and highly recommend it. The heavy criticism by which he is attacked, more often has to do with ideologically motivated hostility and political corrctness, than with capability to counter his statistically well-founded arguments with facts.

This article I linked here and translate in the following, is revealing in all plain brutality the existential threat the misled over-socialised policies of Germany produce by not only ignoring vital, relevant trends in demographics and sociologics of Germany, but also by implementing wrong (but populistic) decisions that help to even increase the negative consequences and sealing the future collapse of Germany, most likely. In some decades, he concludes in another article, the German debt, expressed in factors of the GDP, will be more than three times as high than that of the Greeks today - acummulating additonal pension payments and state insurrances not even counted (which would act several more factors).

In German blogs and reader's comments, the explosion of hate and personal attack against him for saying these things, was surprising even for the standards I am used to. Welcome in the federal republic of German precarity.

Originally Posted by translation

March 16th, 2010
"Limit social wellfare to five years"

despite spenidng much money, the social state has not prevented the growth of the social lower class. the number of social wellfare mothers increases. America has given the example what reform helps against this: and that is the limitation of social wellfare to five years.

In advance, some unwelcomed truths about the demographic developement: of 100 chgldren that Germany would need to not shrink in population size anymore, 35 already do not get born at all. Instead of those 2.1 children per woman that would be needed for a demographic stabilisation, only 1.4 children get born. Of the 65 children that get born, 15 later will be rated as unable to qualify in school and job education and training. Amongst the applicants for apprenticeships (="Lehrstellenbewerber"), almost the half was not fit to pass and qualify during the job education, says the latest governmental report of job education statistics. Of the 50 children skilfull enough, 10 leave the country and choose better chances by immigrating to some other places. So, of 100 children needed, only 40 are available to serve as much needed junior members of the future job world (="Nachwuchskraft"). the threats to German economy, the social state, the community in general is seen as being so complete that amongst demographic researcher there is hardly anyone anymore daring toannounce any reasons for hope for Germany.

But this picture that I just painted, still is even beautified. Becasue the 40 remaining junior members get discouraged more and more to stay in Germany. this discouragement of these 40 people primarily results from them getting overburdened with more and more payments for the social wellfare state, which is constantly growing. They have to pay for ever more old people. In 2060, instead of 81 million there will be only 65 million people living in Germany, the mean age will have climbed from 44 today to 54 then. According to realistic scenarios, 2060 only 30 million people of the age 24-65 years will live in Germany, and these 30 million have to pay for 22 million older and 13 million younger people. even if all citizens that by age are fit for employment would work indeed, 100 working people would need pay for the supplying of 120 non-working people.

A demographic future there is only for the uneducated. In February 2010, of the 6.35 million social wellfare receivers 26% were children of the age of 15 years and less (1.7 million). Amongst the 58 million people in Germany that are paying/working and that are below the age of 65, only 16% have children (9.5 million). but even the 26% share amongst social wellfare receivers is just the beginning. It will grow even more, because amongst the youngest children the total share of children beign raised in social wellfare conditions already is bigger. In Bremerhaven for example, last year "just" 33% of the 7-15 year old children lived in social wellfare families. But that share already was 45% with the 0-3 year old. Therefore is must be feared that in a few decades more than a quarter of the population will not fit the qualification demands of a modern hightech society.

"Political economy" is the name of economy theory since 1615, when Antoine de Montchrétien combined both terms in his book „Traité d'économie politique“ for the first time ever. As student of Jean Bodin he learned that for running a successful economy you do not only need production factories and markets, but also working people. Since these cannot be produced like any items, readying such a workforce is responsibility of the society - Greek: "polis". Between 1500 and 1915, European population jumped from 80 to 500 million. the meaning of the political factor in economics was forgotten over this developement. But now the demographic fundament is eroding since decades. Already in 1975, former birth rates of 50 births per 1000 citizens had fallen down to just 10.

Because young women are - like men - most occupied with their job career while being at the most optimal age span of giving birth to children, at best they can afford to have just child - and often not even that. That's why already 100 nations are below a birth rate of 2.1 children. Governments reacted too late to this developement. since the 80s, also in germany a return of "political economy" can be abserved - but implemented in the most incorrect manner possible.

The ideal solution would be the immigration of highly qualified immigrants. Because "skilled immigrants" would offer the perfect solution. Since 1987 one had brought in more than 12 million foreigners. Enlightened Iranians are amonst these, who fled from the fanatics in Teheran; Russian Jews trying to escape antisemitism, and Vietnamese that had already come during the times of the former GDR. their children acchieve better school notes than the offsprings of the German "Bildungsbürgertum". the pass the politcal-economic criteria of the ideal of a "qualified immigrant" who should offer the readiness to learn, and performance ability. Amongst Canada's immigrants, almost 100% fulfill this criterion, in australia it is short of 90%. Canada is the first nation were the children of it's (often Chinese) immigrants score higher IQ values than amongst the long-established population.

But in Germany, children of migration families - ignoring just some exceptions - lack behind the national mean education level to a much wider degree than in any other nation in the world. Amongst the 15-years old, in the PISA tests they show to lack behind by two years. 44% of this fifth of German population stay without finished job education. German newspaper "Die Zeit" wrote short time ago that the reason for this debacle so far is unknown. But the answer is very simply: Germany primarily recruits it's immigrants not from elites, but from the unqualified members of social low class (="Niedrigleistern") of foreign nations - and that is the reason why just 5% of immigrants are "qualified" immigrants". And this failure in needed educational standards gets dragged along by these masses of unqualified immigrants.

The german political leadership seems to be bitterly determined to travel on on this unsuccessful and increasingly expensive road of failing immigration and failing social politics. And more money for social programs does not even help in battling the symptoms, as politologist and economist Charles murray has shown very convincingl yin his study "Losing Ground". Between 1964 and 1964, America raised it's spendings for social wellfare very massively. But still the number of "wellfare mothers" and their offsprings raised from 4 million to 14 million. Murray summarised this finding in his formula "more money increases poverty".

His most important conclusions were: First, paying support for mothers of poor status leads to even more such poor mothers . Second, trying to hide their children's failure at school by lowering the qualification and assessement standards, only leads to eroding even more the willingness to learn. Third, excusing the criminality of these kids - 10% of the boys are on social wellfare but commit 50% of all crimes - with their social background of being poor and being on wellfare, just pushes up crime rate even more. And fourth: abandoning social wellfare alltogether works tomuch better effect for the affected people than does
rewarding more and more uneducated people with "Quasiverbeamtung" (quasi-appointment as civil servant).

These uncomfortable conclusions led to a change of thinking in American politics. In the end, it was the left-liberal Bill Clinton who implemented the decisive change. Ignoring all criticism and attacks over charges to be "racist" even from his own party, he turned the most important suggestions by Murray into valid policies on January 1st, 1997. Clinton'S reform ended the right for life-long social wellfare that was in place since 1935. It was replaced with a right for active assistance that is limited to 5 years, and assiatnce means not just some abstract integration porject, but direct and shortest-possible return/access into working employment. the success of this reform was spectacular. Before the reform, 12.2 million US citizens received wellfare, but in 2005 the number had fallen to 4.5 million. woimen of the social low class now were committed to strict birth control. the number of wellfare mothers fell drastically, so did the criminality of the sons from this milieu.

Is Germany really any better off with it's social-politcal agenda, that is ignoring the lesson given by Clinton? the number of children under 15 years living exclusively by wellfare jumped from 130,000 in 1965 (only West Germany) to 630,000 in 1991, and then 1.7 million in February 2010. not just 10% of all babies, like in america back then, but already 20% of all babies get financed with tax money exclusively. While German women not depending on wellfare have just one baby in avergae numbers, and female migrants of higher education approach this reproduction pattern, too, the social low class that gets directly funded and subsidised by the wellfare state grows rapidly more and more - with all the followup problems of that trend. for example, in the exemplary social wellfare community of Bremerhaven , young boys living by wellfare represent 40% of all boys, but are responsible for over 90% of all violent crime (Gewaltkriminalität: crime related to serious physical violence).

As long as the government interpretes the right to have children as a right to have as many children that must be financed by public financial sources, women of social lower classes will see their pregnancies as an active capital to make use of. Already a reform to turn social wellfare into a social emergency insurance for a maximum five years instead of life-long alimonies, would work wonders, like in america. Such a reform would also end the ongoing entry of foreign immigrations into the social transfer payment system. Germany then would be able to compete in the international competition for foreign educated talents, in order to slow down it's demographic fall, and stop it.

I cannot see that reason coming. Quite the opposite is taking place.

If you are youing and want to raise children, do so only when you are a skilled specialist whose skills are wnated overseas - and get the hell out of europe, especially Germany. yes, it still is nice and peaceful over here. But that will change. First thoughts are being presented by politicians and analysts suggesting to raise the tax and regular payments load to over 65% for normal regular middle class families in the next years. Halleluja. If you love your children and indeed mean them well - get out of here. This place more and more turns into a pressure cooker. I'm sure that if I need to reach an age of mid-70s, I will live long enough to see the pieces flying around my ears.

[Schroeder]

While the article is pretty interesting it doesn't address one big point. What to do with people who really can't find any job? In a few months I will be a Diplomkaufmann (business graduate). Right now there are hardly any jobs in my branch (the crisis is still there) and I'm "overqualified" for any lower jobs I would apply to (I see that at some friends of mine who have already graduated and who couldn't get jobs as a business graduates and also no lower jobs because of their "overqualifications").

So what to do? There aren't any jobs for my qualification and German bosses won't employ me for lower ones.
You see, sometimes it is not a lack of education or willingness if someone doesn't get a job (though I hope to get one of course, even if it's just being a pizza delivery guy). What should we do with those people after five years. Let them live on the streets?

I agree that we need to put more pressure on the unwilling and should definitely make sure that we get more qualified than unqualified immigrants but I still think that there should be at least some basic net for those who really try but simply can't get a job.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

While the article is pretty interesting it doesn't address one big point. What to do with people who really can't find any job?

The article and Heinsohn are not about people who search for jobs and do not find them, this is not the focus of Heinsohn's work. Heinsohn is about the problems of an overaged society, and uneducated, unqualified people, un qualified immigrants and how Germany imports these instead of qualfiied experts - and he is about the burden that policy puts on the social security systems and those parts of society financing it all.