For much of its postwar history, Germany was a beacon of prosperity and political stability. Now its economy is stagnating, and social harmony has given way to acrimony and division.
Germany’s grossly unequal distribution of wealth is an underappreciated cause of this malaise: The top 10% of households have at least €725,000 ($793,000) of net assets and control more than half of the country’s wealth, while the bottom 40% of households have at most €44,000 of net assets, according to a Bundesbank survey in 2021.1
Together with a pervasive sense that Germany is coming unstuck — think creaking infrastructure, inflation and the loss of cheap Russian gas — economic precarity makes Germans susceptible to fringe arguments that their living standards are threatened and the government is out of touch. In the long term, Europe’s biggest economy must reform its labor-penalizing tax system and promote a broader distribution of capital.
I wonder how much increasing wealth inequality correlates to rising political extremism. It makes a sort of sense, if there is any. The people on the top want to protect their wealth and the...
I wonder how much increasing wealth inequality correlates to rising political extremism. It makes a sort of sense, if there is any. The people on the top want to protect their wealth and the status quo that lets them be powerful, so they want to create boogeymen to distract from changes to the economic structure. Meanwhile, the people on the bottom are struggling more and more, and so would enjoy having a convenient boogeyman to scapegoat all of their problems.
I used to think that the trend toward extremist views was a natural consequence of the internet and the rise of free exchange of ideas. But now I wonder if it's just following the economic trends.
Absolutely it does; how strong the correlation is is more difficult to tack down since we see so many poor extremists throughout the world (and compare them to what, exactly? Wealthy extremists?)....
Exemplary
Absolutely it does; how strong the correlation is is more difficult to tack down since we see so many poor extremists throughout the world (and compare them to what, exactly? Wealthy extremists?). We don't have to go far to see examples of political extremists recruiting directly from the poorest areas, both in terms of education and in unequal access to basic needs including water, sanitation (and sanitary products for women), and food security. We also don't have to go far to see the rise of nationalism and religious extremism in a variety of places, including organized religion.
There's an organization called Public Religion Research Institute, which sheds light on Christian nationalism in the US and how it correlates to American historical influences, modern education, and politics. They do a lot of really interesting research and conduct talks, sometimes at churches and streamed on YouTube and local TV, about white nationalism and its ties to extremist church groups. The founder is himself white, male, and grew up in a Christian church in the American South. He discusses in many places, including a substack and podcast, Christian nationalism (and its associated political view) and church attendance. There is a strong correlation. In some studies, PRRI also correlates extremist views, such as Qanon, and political views along with education level. Since political beliefs and education correlate so strongly to income, this more or less directly speaks to your question on income inequality and political extremism within the context of the US.
The US seems capable of exporting these extremist values to Germany in particular, along with MTV and other cultural artifacts. Canada, too, which has extremists with a weird fascination of the US' First and Second Amendments ... which don't apply there. But in Germany in particular there's a long history of the poor feeling disenfranchised (especially post-WW1) and then the rise of German exceptionalism in a very economically tumultuous time. Especially during the early internecine years, the German military itself acted as a sort of welfare program due to a controlled demobilization so that the struggling economy, which had post-WW1 economic output fall to 1880s levels, was not flooded with men seeking jobs. Later, it would become more obvious that numerous former military members were feeling disenfranchised and they would take radical action and adopt extremist views against the government and other groups (political and ethnic). I suppose the pre-internet version of extremist propaganda were the pamphlets and manifestos privately printed and distributed at speaking engagements and inside coffee houses. But economic desperation certainly played a role, as did reaction to political influence from outside (such as the spread of Communism in 1920s Europe).
We see similar problems in post-colonial and post-civil war West African, Central African, and Middle Eastern countries. Many have suffered tremendous changes in equality, representation, wealth and resource distribution, and foreign aid. There are few opportunities for employment of any length and many people are dissatisfied with the rate of progress in improving their country. Resource-wealthy states that 50 years ago might've been prosperous have since had harsh economic downturns. Contrast that with the relative political stability of East Africa, despite corruption, and you get some interesting maps of the rise of religious extremism amidst economic and political instability.
This map of Africa, comparing just 2014-2023, is really interesting and still focuses on some of the most radicalized regions of Africa, as well as Mozambique which has recently been struggling with ISIS taking root in the country. These places on the map are largely struggling with decades of unemployment, weak or abusive governments or local warlords, and extremist views (and reactionary political-religious views). Mozambique in particular has fluctuated between external influences including colonization by Portugal, a bloody series of wars and a civil war from 1977-1992 where they received help from Communist Cuba and the Soviet Union, and religious and political radicalization. Today, Mozambique ranks 185th on the Human Development Index, has a high level of economic inequality with dramatic levels of unemployment, and is in the top 40 most corrupt nations.
So these extremist predate the internet, or a region's meaningful access to the internet, by a lot. But the internet has certainly helped to broaden the reach and intensity of extremist ideas (and conspiracies). I encourage people to check out PRRI, read their research, but more importantly listen to the podcasts and views and discussion on extremism that PRRI's efforts have shed light on. Also, PRRI's findings and research are not all doom and gloom and they sometimes offer evidence of how anti-LGBTQ+ or extremist views can be countered, so check it out.
Firstly, damn, this comment is thorough. But I would like to bring something else up to add food for thought -- it may be useful to look into comparisons between former East and West Germany when...
I can't read the Bloomberg article because paywall, so I'm not sure if they present evidence of a particular trend towards specifically Christian nationalism. Certainly there is a religious element involved (the C in CDU literally stands for "Christian" after all), but when compared to the US I find German ethnonationalism to be at least decidedly less religious in nature. Religion can certainly play a role (especially Islamophobia) but it doesn't play as incredibly central a role as it does in the US in my personal assessment.
Disclaimer: I'm a US-American living in Germany for 5+ years now, so I've got my biases and am far from an expert on Germany, but I've got at least an interesting/useful subjective perspective hopefully.
I'm also definitely going to look into the PRRI -- I'm an ex-evangelical who grew up believing Democrats couldn't be Christians, so I suspect they'll have a lot to say I'll resonate with.
I like what you've brought up! I have a very limited knowledge on East Germany, but my understanding is that the trouble with comparing East vs West Germany is that the Soviet system put in place...
I like what you've brought up!
I have a very limited knowledge on East Germany, but my understanding is that the trouble with comparing East vs West Germany is that the Soviet system put in place a number of "checks" against the citizen, rather than the state. So while the people of East and West may all be "German," before or after reunification, they had different social experiences that influence their perspectives. This is somewhat similar to how people of color in the US may have different social experiences, but their exposure to income inequality helps to influence their political/economic affiliation -- PRRI makes a point that practicing Christian people of color are more likely to hold extremist views against immigrants, for instance. I'm actually reading a book right now by a Cuban immigrant who worked for the CIA and hates immigrants, communists, and democrats, but loves the flag, his AR-15, and God. There are a lot of mental gymnastics.
In East Germany, people were encouraged to inform on their neighbors and there is a social distrust built from that. Non-government entities were repressed, including religious institutions and social programs that were not deemed "essential" to the East German state, so I think that's one reason why people who grew up in East Germany, and their descendants, probably have a reduced relationship with religion. But they do have all the other catalysts for enjoying radical views -- literally being oppressed, job security, reduced education opportunities in some ways (compared to West Germany in particular, though a lot of well-educated East Germans are incredibly bright). I think the German nationalists in that part of the country have probably just shifted their crosshairs, rather than created new criticisms against a new-ish government.
For example, if someone grew up in a society where they could prove, objectively, that communism is bad, and they also view democracy as bad due to the last 30 years, then is the natural response to say "the natural alternative is an ethnically homogeneous pseudo-Christian authoritarian state because it would be perfect?" Or just that all governments are bad and they should be treated with suspicion? I suspect that the people who grew up feeling disenfranchised never had representation, so they don't know the value of representation and are fighting for the individual, as they've been taught. When they find out there are other individuals like them, they form a group centered around that individuality and those essential beliefs without really thinking about how they're just creating a non-governmental entity through which to express themselves. Which is to say a political party based around a specific belief system.
Closely tied with the economics in a bit of a chicken or egg scenario is education. For example, I'm sure Mozambique hasn't had the easiest time getting their population educated to see through...
Closely tied with the economics in a bit of a chicken or egg scenario is education. For example, I'm sure Mozambique hasn't had the easiest time getting their population educated to see through ISIS's bullshit. It's hard to educate your population without economic stability, but it's hard to get economic stability without sufficient education.
I don't think there's anything to be gained from assuming that stories of boogeymen come from outside. Yes, sometimes they do, but even if that were somehow prevented (with a draconian censorship...
I don't think there's anything to be gained from assuming that stories of boogeymen come from outside. Yes, sometimes they do, but even if that were somehow prevented (with a draconian censorship regime?), inventing boogeymen is easy and people can also do it on their own.
It seems important to figure out how to be less susceptible to such things. What's a vaccine for boogiemen stories? How do make sure that myths die out rather than being amplified?
One thing that I think is very worth noting is that the idea that racism, in particular antisemitism, is imported by immigrants rather than nurtured in the hearts of born-and-bred Germans is a...
One thing that I think is very worth noting is that the idea that racism, in particular antisemitism, is imported by immigrants rather than nurtured in the hearts of born-and-bred Germans is a really common political talking point here as well. It's a particularly bizarre one, given Germany's very famous history on the matter, but it's used increasingly as part of political rhetoric to scapegoat immigrants for Germany's extremism problems and results in actual policy that makes it harder for immigrants to integrate and/or naturalize.
It's the same as it always has been. Listen to people's basic needs, support them with economic, social, and health programs so that they are taken care of, and give them the opportunity to...
What's a vaccine for boogiemen stories?
It's the same as it always has been. Listen to people's basic needs, support them with economic, social, and health programs so that they are taken care of, and give them the opportunity to succeed in ways that matter to them (running/working at a business, having a family, and other forms of stability). Provide appropriate support and services to the people who are negatively impacting society so that they're not able to have those influences (particularly mentally unwell people creating violence-promoting conspiracy theories).
All of these have "slippery slope" problems with respect to the government's role, bad faith actors, and so on. All of these issues also have a problem with immediacy. People want solutions now and they want the solution to take effect immediately. That's not reasonable. So talking things through, talking about progress, focusing on the positives, would help a lot while solutions are discussed, voted on, and implemented in reasonable ways (again, slippery slopes and who/what is reasonable).
Anyhow, fundamentally, a couple of the basics that we need:
Long-term employment opportunities (as in job security and a career path/growth) and reasonable wages.
Inclusion of the majority of people who previously felt that they have no upward mobility or equal rights (the basis of disenfranchisement).
Healthcare to take care of us when we can't take care of ourselves.
Improve education and/or reduce costs so that we can have the aforementioned.
Improvements in infrastructure (access to jobs and education, access to materials) to afford the aforementioned.
A system of local government where people feel that their local needs are being heard and their needs are being met.
That means a lot of spending as well as changes to spending habits. Most countries already have a lot of debt. Some have more debt than their annual GDP. And that seems to be okay to many money managers and economists because western countries have been moving along with large amounts of debt for a long time and, as long as it's paced well and the spending is on reasonable things, there's even a positive return on investment. That's what real investment is. It's investing in the future with an outlook towards progress. Even with the US' outrageous spending over the last 20 years, we're still economically sitting in a more stable position than some European countries that have had stricter spending policies and uncomfortable bond yields (ahem, Germany).
With that will come prosperity, less blame of outsiders causing internal problems, and typically with prosperity (and good mental health) comes peace (see again, racism and conspiracy theories). Look at the countries that sat out WW2 and the cold war in their own ways. The ones that have strong social nets like Sweden and Switzerland are still chugging along. Despite the other problems they might seem to have, they're doing pretty well and have been pacing themselves by looking towards their future needs.
Are you in Germany right now? Because objectively, the current German public services meet those requirements to a relatively high degree - ironically, to a significantly higher degree than...
Anyhow, fundamentally, a couple of the basics that we need:
Long-term employment opportunities (as in job security and a career path/growth) and reasonable wages.
Inclusion of the majority of people who previously felt that they have no upward mobility or equal rights (the basis of disenfranchisement).
Healthcare to take care of us when we can't take care of ourselves.
Improve education and/or reduce costs so that we can have the aforementioned.
Improvements in infrastructure (access to jobs and education, access to materials) to afford the aforementioned.
A system of local government where people feel that their local needs are being heard and their needs are being met.
Are you in Germany right now? Because objectively, the current German public services meet those requirements to a relatively high degree - ironically, to a significantly higher degree than Switzerland, for example.
To me, this suggests something else: the thing you need more than anything else is prosperity. Low unemployment, free heath care and free education only get you so far.
People want more, they want to see themselves moving upwards, they want more than their parents had, ideally more than their neighbors have. And above everything else, they want to own their own house.
Do you mean median net worth? While the median net worth of a supposedly wealthy European country being equivalent to those of supposedly poor European countries would be a reasonable indicator of...
Do you mean median net worth?
While the median net worth of a supposedly wealthy European country being equivalent to those of supposedly poor European countries would be a reasonable indicator of potential financial inequality, that feels too abstract to be a definition of "gross inequality." I'm not an economist but I do have an analytics master's and that sets off some alarms in my analytics brain.
Other statistics I've seen (e.g. share of wealth held by top 10%) indicate a more average rate of inequality, which leads me to believe the inequality isn't "gross" unless you consider pretty much everywhere to have gross inequality (which I would think is a valid, if heterodox claim).
I also just feel like financial inequality is a bit of a misdirect that focuses on...an indicator of symptoms more than the actual problem or even its symptoms.
My impression as someone who has moved to Germany (and therefore may not have a complete picture), is that the key inequality is wealth, and it is large. One of the biggest examples is housing: a...
My impression as someone who has moved to Germany (and therefore may not have a complete picture), is that the key inequality is wealth, and it is large. One of the biggest examples is housing: a lot of people rent, and will rent for their entire lives. They will never own property and therefore never be in a situation where they've, e.g. paid off their mortgage and can live without paying money to someone else for the privilege.
Meanwhile, it is very common, if you have the money, to buy property as an investment. (Indeed, if you look at property online, a lot of places are specifically marketed as investments: the property will earn you so and so much rent, has existing tenants, and their rent can be raised in so and so many years time.) As a result, in my experience, there's a lot of people who own no property, and a lot of people who own multiple properties. Of these two groups, only one is able to significantly expand their wealth over time. Moreover, it is very difficult to move from one group to the other, because wealth begets wealth.
The result is that while income inequality itself may not be that bad, wealth inequality is significant, and I think a driver of a number of the issues in Germany. One portion of the population is highly affected by changes in living costs, the other is relatively insulated. One portion of the population has little in the way of retirement savings, the other has several sources of long-term passive income.
Yes, thanks for the correction! On second thought, this is saying that renting is more common in Germany and people don't have a lot of other investments either. I'd guess it doesn't include other...
Yes, thanks for the correction!
On second thought, this is saying that renting is more common in Germany and people don't have a lot of other investments either. I'd guess it doesn't include other benefits like pensions, though?
Another big factor is housing in Germany. My guess is that nowadays not many households can afford to buy a house in Germany as there was a lot of investment in housing and the prices went up. And...
Another big factor is housing in Germany. My guess is that nowadays not many households can afford to buy a house in Germany as there was a lot of investment in housing and the prices went up. And all the households renting are affected by the increasing rents.
Home ownership percentage in Germany is pretty low in comparison to comparable countries and decreasing
Here's the start of the article (archive):
I wonder how much increasing wealth inequality correlates to rising political extremism. It makes a sort of sense, if there is any. The people on the top want to protect their wealth and the status quo that lets them be powerful, so they want to create boogeymen to distract from changes to the economic structure. Meanwhile, the people on the bottom are struggling more and more, and so would enjoy having a convenient boogeyman to scapegoat all of their problems.
I used to think that the trend toward extremist views was a natural consequence of the internet and the rise of free exchange of ideas. But now I wonder if it's just following the economic trends.
Absolutely it does; how strong the correlation is is more difficult to tack down since we see so many poor extremists throughout the world (and compare them to what, exactly? Wealthy extremists?). We don't have to go far to see examples of political extremists recruiting directly from the poorest areas, both in terms of education and in unequal access to basic needs including water, sanitation (and sanitary products for women), and food security. We also don't have to go far to see the rise of nationalism and religious extremism in a variety of places, including organized religion.
There's an organization called Public Religion Research Institute, which sheds light on Christian nationalism in the US and how it correlates to American historical influences, modern education, and politics. They do a lot of really interesting research and conduct talks, sometimes at churches and streamed on YouTube and local TV, about white nationalism and its ties to extremist church groups. The founder is himself white, male, and grew up in a Christian church in the American South. He discusses in many places, including a substack and podcast, Christian nationalism (and its associated political view) and church attendance. There is a strong correlation. In some studies, PRRI also correlates extremist views, such as Qanon, and political views along with education level. Since political beliefs and education correlate so strongly to income, this more or less directly speaks to your question on income inequality and political extremism within the context of the US.
The US seems capable of exporting these extremist values to Germany in particular, along with MTV and other cultural artifacts. Canada, too, which has extremists with a weird fascination of the US' First and Second Amendments ... which don't apply there. But in Germany in particular there's a long history of the poor feeling disenfranchised (especially post-WW1) and then the rise of German exceptionalism in a very economically tumultuous time. Especially during the early internecine years, the German military itself acted as a sort of welfare program due to a controlled demobilization so that the struggling economy, which had post-WW1 economic output fall to 1880s levels, was not flooded with men seeking jobs. Later, it would become more obvious that numerous former military members were feeling disenfranchised and they would take radical action and adopt extremist views against the government and other groups (political and ethnic). I suppose the pre-internet version of extremist propaganda were the pamphlets and manifestos privately printed and distributed at speaking engagements and inside coffee houses. But economic desperation certainly played a role, as did reaction to political influence from outside (such as the spread of Communism in 1920s Europe).
We see similar problems in post-colonial and post-civil war West African, Central African, and Middle Eastern countries. Many have suffered tremendous changes in equality, representation, wealth and resource distribution, and foreign aid. There are few opportunities for employment of any length and many people are dissatisfied with the rate of progress in improving their country. Resource-wealthy states that 50 years ago might've been prosperous have since had harsh economic downturns. Contrast that with the relative political stability of East Africa, despite corruption, and you get some interesting maps of the rise of religious extremism amidst economic and political instability.
This map of Africa, comparing just 2014-2023, is really interesting and still focuses on some of the most radicalized regions of Africa, as well as Mozambique which has recently been struggling with ISIS taking root in the country. These places on the map are largely struggling with decades of unemployment, weak or abusive governments or local warlords, and extremist views (and reactionary political-religious views). Mozambique in particular has fluctuated between external influences including colonization by Portugal, a bloody series of wars and a civil war from 1977-1992 where they received help from Communist Cuba and the Soviet Union, and religious and political radicalization. Today, Mozambique ranks 185th on the Human Development Index, has a high level of economic inequality with dramatic levels of unemployment, and is in the top 40 most corrupt nations.
Yemen, once prospering due to the 1970s-1980s oil boom in the Gulf States, previously existed as two states and one of their reasons for conflict was the Eastern Bloc support that South Yemen was receiving. These two regions are essentially at war again due to political/religious extremism and an economic downturn. Edit: The Brookings Institute has a paper on Poverty, Development, and Violent Extremism in Weak States with a chapter specifically about Yemen and "What We Really Know About Poverty and Violent Extremism" beginning on the PDF's page 4 (actual page number is 45).
The latter half of the War in Iraq (the Iraqi Civil War), from 2013-2017, as well as the Syrian Civil War, saw fighters join IS from dozens of countries. There's a nicer list on this page. These people may have been radicalized due to events in the Middle East, but many of them are also coming from impoverished parts of already poor countries.
So these extremist predate the internet, or a region's meaningful access to the internet, by a lot. But the internet has certainly helped to broaden the reach and intensity of extremist ideas (and conspiracies). I encourage people to check out PRRI, read their research, but more importantly listen to the podcasts and views and discussion on extremism that PRRI's efforts have shed light on. Also, PRRI's findings and research are not all doom and gloom and they sometimes offer evidence of how anti-LGBTQ+ or extremist views can be countered, so check it out.
Some highlights:
August, 2022: How the Republican Party came to embrace conspiracy theories and denialism - NPR: Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank examines how the GOP got to where it is today, with some elected leaders and candidates still endorsing the lie that Trump won. His book is The Destructionists.
Recurring series: Robert P. Jones' Presentation on Christian Nationalism at The Brookings Institute
Podcast: WTL Conversations [S3E9]: On Her New "Green Room" Podcast, I Talk with Jennifer Rubin about the Historical Roots of White Christian Nationalism
A Virtual Roundtable on the Threat of Christian Nationalism, Part 4 of 4
Firstly, damn, this comment is thorough.
But I would like to bring something else up to add food for thought -- it may be useful to look into comparisons between former East and West Germany when trying to determine how much of an effect economic conditions (as opposed to, say, organized religion) have on rising extremism in Germany. East Germany still trails behind West Germany by a pretty significant margin on a large number of economic measures, but East Germans are on the whole significantly less religious than their Western counterparts. This makes it easier, imo, to assess how economic uncertainty and organized religion compare in inspiring nationalism and extremism in Germany. Though I don't think extremism is unique to East Germany, certainly approval of and votes for the far eight political party AfD are much higher there.
I can't read the Bloomberg article because paywall, so I'm not sure if they present evidence of a particular trend towards specifically Christian nationalism. Certainly there is a religious element involved (the C in CDU literally stands for "Christian" after all), but when compared to the US I find German ethnonationalism to be at least decidedly less religious in nature. Religion can certainly play a role (especially Islamophobia) but it doesn't play as incredibly central a role as it does in the US in my personal assessment.
Disclaimer: I'm a US-American living in Germany for 5+ years now, so I've got my biases and am far from an expert on Germany, but I've got at least an interesting/useful subjective perspective hopefully.
I'm also definitely going to look into the PRRI -- I'm an ex-evangelical who grew up believing Democrats couldn't be Christians, so I suspect they'll have a lot to say I'll resonate with.
I like what you've brought up!
I have a very limited knowledge on East Germany, but my understanding is that the trouble with comparing East vs West Germany is that the Soviet system put in place a number of "checks" against the citizen, rather than the state. So while the people of East and West may all be "German," before or after reunification, they had different social experiences that influence their perspectives. This is somewhat similar to how people of color in the US may have different social experiences, but their exposure to income inequality helps to influence their political/economic affiliation -- PRRI makes a point that practicing Christian people of color are more likely to hold extremist views against immigrants, for instance. I'm actually reading a book right now by a Cuban immigrant who worked for the CIA and hates immigrants, communists, and democrats, but loves the flag, his AR-15, and God. There are a lot of mental gymnastics.
In East Germany, people were encouraged to inform on their neighbors and there is a social distrust built from that. Non-government entities were repressed, including religious institutions and social programs that were not deemed "essential" to the East German state, so I think that's one reason why people who grew up in East Germany, and their descendants, probably have a reduced relationship with religion. But they do have all the other catalysts for enjoying radical views -- literally being oppressed, job security, reduced education opportunities in some ways (compared to West Germany in particular, though a lot of well-educated East Germans are incredibly bright). I think the German nationalists in that part of the country have probably just shifted their crosshairs, rather than created new criticisms against a new-ish government.
For example, if someone grew up in a society where they could prove, objectively, that communism is bad, and they also view democracy as bad due to the last 30 years, then is the natural response to say "the natural alternative is an ethnically homogeneous pseudo-Christian authoritarian state because it would be perfect?" Or just that all governments are bad and they should be treated with suspicion? I suspect that the people who grew up feeling disenfranchised never had representation, so they don't know the value of representation and are fighting for the individual, as they've been taught. When they find out there are other individuals like them, they form a group centered around that individuality and those essential beliefs without really thinking about how they're just creating a non-governmental entity through which to express themselves. Which is to say a political party based around a specific belief system.
Closely tied with the economics in a bit of a chicken or egg scenario is education. For example, I'm sure Mozambique hasn't had the easiest time getting their population educated to see through ISIS's bullshit. It's hard to educate your population without economic stability, but it's hard to get economic stability without sufficient education.
I don't think there's anything to be gained from assuming that stories of boogeymen come from outside. Yes, sometimes they do, but even if that were somehow prevented (with a draconian censorship regime?), inventing boogeymen is easy and people can also do it on their own.
It seems important to figure out how to be less susceptible to such things. What's a vaccine for boogiemen stories? How do make sure that myths die out rather than being amplified?
One thing that I think is very worth noting is that the idea that racism, in particular antisemitism, is imported by immigrants rather than nurtured in the hearts of born-and-bred Germans is a really common political talking point here as well. It's a particularly bizarre one, given Germany's very famous history on the matter, but it's used increasingly as part of political rhetoric to scapegoat immigrants for Germany's extremism problems and results in actual policy that makes it harder for immigrants to integrate and/or naturalize.
It's the same as it always has been. Listen to people's basic needs, support them with economic, social, and health programs so that they are taken care of, and give them the opportunity to succeed in ways that matter to them (running/working at a business, having a family, and other forms of stability). Provide appropriate support and services to the people who are negatively impacting society so that they're not able to have those influences (particularly mentally unwell people creating violence-promoting conspiracy theories).
All of these have "slippery slope" problems with respect to the government's role, bad faith actors, and so on. All of these issues also have a problem with immediacy. People want solutions now and they want the solution to take effect immediately. That's not reasonable. So talking things through, talking about progress, focusing on the positives, would help a lot while solutions are discussed, voted on, and implemented in reasonable ways (again, slippery slopes and who/what is reasonable).
Anyhow, fundamentally, a couple of the basics that we need:
That means a lot of spending as well as changes to spending habits. Most countries already have a lot of debt. Some have more debt than their annual GDP. And that seems to be okay to many money managers and economists because western countries have been moving along with large amounts of debt for a long time and, as long as it's paced well and the spending is on reasonable things, there's even a positive return on investment. That's what real investment is. It's investing in the future with an outlook towards progress. Even with the US' outrageous spending over the last 20 years, we're still economically sitting in a more stable position than some European countries that have had stricter spending policies and uncomfortable bond yields (ahem, Germany).
With that will come prosperity, less blame of outsiders causing internal problems, and typically with prosperity (and good mental health) comes peace (see again, racism and conspiracy theories). Look at the countries that sat out WW2 and the cold war in their own ways. The ones that have strong social nets like Sweden and Switzerland are still chugging along. Despite the other problems they might seem to have, they're doing pretty well and have been pacing themselves by looking towards their future needs.
Are you in Germany right now? Because objectively, the current German public services meet those requirements to a relatively high degree - ironically, to a significantly higher degree than Switzerland, for example.
To me, this suggests something else: the thing you need more than anything else is prosperity. Low unemployment, free heath care and free education only get you so far.
People want more, they want to see themselves moving upwards, they want more than their parents had, ideally more than their neighbors have. And above everything else, they want to own their own house.
Does Germany have a grossly unequal wealth distribution? Aren't they pretty much in the middle of the pack among European countries?
The article says they're worse than average by one metric (median
incomenet worth).Do you mean median net worth?
While the median net worth of a supposedly wealthy European country being equivalent to those of supposedly poor European countries would be a reasonable indicator of potential financial inequality, that feels too abstract to be a definition of "gross inequality." I'm not an economist but I do have an analytics master's and that sets off some alarms in my analytics brain.
Other statistics I've seen (e.g. share of wealth held by top 10%) indicate a more average rate of inequality, which leads me to believe the inequality isn't "gross" unless you consider pretty much everywhere to have gross inequality (which I would think is a valid, if heterodox claim).
I also just feel like financial inequality is a bit of a misdirect that focuses on...an indicator of symptoms more than the actual problem or even its symptoms.
My impression as someone who has moved to Germany (and therefore may not have a complete picture), is that the key inequality is wealth, and it is large. One of the biggest examples is housing: a lot of people rent, and will rent for their entire lives. They will never own property and therefore never be in a situation where they've, e.g. paid off their mortgage and can live without paying money to someone else for the privilege.
Meanwhile, it is very common, if you have the money, to buy property as an investment. (Indeed, if you look at property online, a lot of places are specifically marketed as investments: the property will earn you so and so much rent, has existing tenants, and their rent can be raised in so and so many years time.) As a result, in my experience, there's a lot of people who own no property, and a lot of people who own multiple properties. Of these two groups, only one is able to significantly expand their wealth over time. Moreover, it is very difficult to move from one group to the other, because wealth begets wealth.
The result is that while income inequality itself may not be that bad, wealth inequality is significant, and I think a driver of a number of the issues in Germany. One portion of the population is highly affected by changes in living costs, the other is relatively insulated. One portion of the population has little in the way of retirement savings, the other has several sources of long-term passive income.
Yes, thanks for the correction!
On second thought, this is saying that renting is more common in Germany and people don't have a lot of other investments either. I'd guess it doesn't include other benefits like pensions, though?
Another big factor is housing in Germany. My guess is that nowadays not many households can afford to buy a house in Germany as there was a lot of investment in housing and the prices went up. And all the households renting are affected by the increasing rents.
Home ownership percentage in Germany is pretty low in comparison to comparable countries and decreasing