The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Striker Archive
Germany's Forgotten Pensioners
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

According to the technocratic consensus, developed countries with high median ages and low birth rates need mass migration to pay for pensions.

What they don’t explain is how importing millions of people to gain employment as cleaners, Uber drivers and retail workers at reduced wages in big expensive cities is going to replenish the coffers with enough to cover the pensions of retired middle class Germans. 25% of job-seeking “refugees” have never even attended school. They consume less and are more likely to try and cheat the welfare system due to pressure to send money back to their families at home or pay back debts to smugglers.

The German economy is currently shrinking, so even the menial jobs immigrants are taking tend to be temp work. Many of them live as badly or worse as in their home countries.

Natives too are feeling the burden of these disastrous liberal-capitalist policies. A new, likely conservative estimate released last Thursday claims that more than 1 out of every 5 German pensioners live in poverty (19%). The numbers are projected to get worse in the future.

At the same time, the German government spent $26.6 billion dollars in 2018 to “integrate” millions of new migrants. This is enough to give every one of Germany’s 22.9 million pensioners a substantial pay bump. This is even more true if it were means-tested for middle and working class people.

Instead, the tragic irony of forced emigration has become increasingly normal for old people. While some Germans choose to retire abroad out of their own free will, a growing number are moving to the Balkans or Asia due to their inability to afford daily living expenses in their own land.

In response to this, Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union begrudgingly agreed to a compromise with the Social-Democrats after the latter threatened to upend the country’s fragile ruling coalition. A paltry $1.5 billion will be allocated to deal with this crisis.

The state does not pinch pennies when it comes to paying Jewish pensioners abroad, however. German taxpayers are paying a record $560 million every year to so-called “Holocaust survivors,” which translates to about an extra $300 dollars every month for the beneficiaries, who number at about 225,000. In 2018, they bumped the usual yearly sum paid largely to Jews in Israel and America after accepting that Jews who spent the whole war in Algeria are “survivors” too.

The eligibility for this free money is pretty open ended: if you are Jewish and lived in any country the Axis powers ever had a presence in during World War II, you get paid. The asset limit is $500,000 to apply.

Advocating for a Germany that puts Germans first is illegal under the constitution the Allies imposed. While the first victims of this system tend to be the working class, the elderly and other politically invisible people, the comfortable middle classes who handed Merkel her narrow re-election in the name of “stability” should know that they will soon crumble into nothingness themselves.

(Republished from National Justice by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Economics, Foreign Policy • Tags: Germany, Immigration, Jews 
Hide 18 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I have lived in Germany for 12 years and I can vouch for these trends. These days, you see all kinds of retirees digging through trashcans, searching for deposit bottles. My German friends have commented that, twenty or thirty years ago, that never happened.

    • Agree: Bubba
  2. Adrian E. says:

    Some people (especially highly-qualified people with high incomes) pay more in taxes, pension contributions and other payments towards the state than they receive from the state over the course of their lifetime. Most of the others on the whole receive more from the state in payments and services than they pay. Some who don’t work for a significant part of their life and depend on welfare obviously receive much more than they pay.

    It is likely that Singapore’s immigration policies overall improve the country’s finances. There are even calculations that show that this may be the case for Switzerland. Switzerland has both high-skilled and low-skilled immigration, but there are indications that the beneficial effects from high-skilled immigration more than offset the problems caused by low-skilled immigration. But in the case of Germany, there can hardly be any doubt that the country’s immigration policies significantly worsen the country’s long term financial situation.

    Only a small part of immigrants to Germany belongs to the group that can be expected to pay more in taxes and contributions to the state than they will receive over their life times. Of course, this may be somewhat blurred by a short-term perspective and by just focusing on pensions. The vast majority of the immigrants from Africa and the Middle East are relatively young people who won’t reach retirement age for a long time. But first, even with a short term perspective, it is doubtful that these immigrants are financially beneficial for Germany because a large part of them does not work and lives on welfare. And second, of course, at some time in the future, these people will reach retirement age, as well, and it is very unlikely that a significant part of them belongs to the minority who pays more to the state and its social security systems than they receive from them over the course of their life time. Rather, most of them probably will receive much more than they pay, as it is generally the case for people with low qualifications and a low income.

    Certainly, the demographic situation is a certain challenge. But the number of pensioners relative to the number of working people has been increasing in European countries for a long time, and predictions that this would be fatal for the pension systems have failed so far. Mostly, increasing productivity thanks to automation has helped. In the future, the retirement age may have to be raised somewhat. In any case, we will see the competition of different countries with an increase in the number of pensioners. East Asian countries that have very low birth rates and bank on automation and becoming technically advanced, while allowing very little immigration are on one end of the spectrum while Germany and Sweden are towards the other end of the spectrum. I don’t think there can be much doubt which of them will fare better in the long term.

    • Agree: Sean
    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  3. bossel says:

    developed countries with high median ages and low birth rates need mass migration to pay for pensions

    Not really. At least in Germany, I don’t see such a consensus. What the technocrats suggest (what the centre parties support) is immigration of well-educated people, i.e. ones who already have a degree or level of craftsmanship.

    The German economy is currently shrinking

    Not really. It’s stagnating. & there is still a skilled worker shortage. Which won’t go away, even if the economy shrank a little.

    more than 1 out of every 5 German pensioners live in poverty

    Not really. That depends on the definition of poverty. & in Germany that means having less than 60% of the average income. So, these pensioners “living in poverty” are actually far from poor.
    Actual poverty in Germany is actually for a large part restricted to illegal immigrants, mostly from Eastern Europe. They make up the majority of homeless.

    $26.6 billion dollars […] is enough to give every one of Germany’s 22.9 million pensioners a substantial pay bump

    Not really. That would be ~ $1162 per year. With around €80 per month that wouldn’t change their situation significantly in regards to the 60% limit.

    Overall, you sound like a mix of left-wing & right-wing complainers.
    Oh, Germany is going downhill because of all the poverty, evil capitalism & class differences.
    vs
    Oh, Germany is going downhill because of all the immigrants, evil corporate capitalism & money spent on non-Germans.

    Yawn.

    • Disagree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Sean
  4. Coming to a socialist democratic society near you.

  5. Only a small part of immigrants to Germany belongs to the group that can be expected to pay more in taxes and contributions to the state than they will receive over their life times.

    Bellow in your commentary you speak of immigrants from North Africa. I believe that many immigrants from North Africa are in Germany illegally and their countries don’t accept to take them back. Many don’t work at all and also don’t receive any kind of regular social benefits. Some time ago there was the case of a criminal man from Lebanon (similar to North Africa cases). After many years it was possible to send him back to Lebanon, but only because the German police officer had good relations with his colleague in Lebanon. So the man was sent back. A short time afterwards he (the criminal Lebanese) returned to Germany illegally.

    Then there are all the refugees. It’s true that many don’t work. But those who work probably aren’t going to receive more social benefits than what they pay. Some of course earn well because they get good jobs. Others work in the low payment sector. But it’s unlikely that they will receive more benefits than they pay. Pensions are proportional to your earnings and people who are poorer usually receive them for a much shorter time. Maybe public servants (how do you call them in English?) are more of a problem. They receive quite high pensions and they live longer than many other people.

    According to one article in the WirtschaftsWoche the problem isn’t so dramatic. Poor people are people who receive less than aproximately 1000 dollar montly. Some people who receive low pensions have other income sources. For details: “Altersarmut wird systematisch überschätzt” (“Poverty among old people is systematically overestimated”). There are different views and opinions about this question But it’s true that there is a problem of poverty among older people. And there may be a different problem about immigration. For instance, the case of Turks who are third generation Germans, who were born in Germany but still consider their Heimat to be Turkey and identify with Turkey more than with Germany.

    • Replies: @Adrian E.
  6. Anonymous[279] • Disclaimer says:

    I am going to play devil’s advocate. Not for immigration, but for old age poverty.

    Old people are supposed to be poor. They haven’t worked in years and they are useless, especially if they don’t live near grandchildren and serve as grandparents and pass on wisdom and memories to new generations.

    Old people are also living too long. No one has any business living beyond 70

    why should anyone above the age of 65 be supported by the state? they have had 45 working years to save up.

  7. @Anonymous

    they have had 45 working years to save up.

    Many don’t receive enough to save up anything at all, even if they work hard. Or should they stop eating in order to save money for later days?

  8. @Anonymous

    why should anyone above the age of 65 be supported by the state?

    Why should the state be supported by anyone?

  9. Anonymous[859] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Come back to comment when you’re 75 and are collecting trash to survive, gramps.

    You remind me of those who promote multiculturalism for others, but never for themselves.

  10. Adrian E. says:
    @UncommonGround

    It’s true that many don’t work. But those who work probably aren’t going to receive more social benefits than what they pay. Some of course earn well because they get good jobs. Others work in the low payment sector. But it’s unlikely that they will receive more benefits than they pay. Pensions are proportional to your earnings and people who are poorer usually receive them for a much shorter time.

    It is true that the German pension system has a smaller “solidarity” effect than the Swiss one. But it is clearly wrong to claim that the pensions are simply proportional in Germany. For example, there is “Grundsicherung” – people who paid contributions on a small level still receive pensions on a certain minimum level. When immigrants are less qualified than the population that is already there, it is reasonable to assume that costs for paying “Grundsicherung” to pensioners who paid contributions on a low level increase with immigration of low-skilled people. Furthermore, it is wrong to look at the pension system in isolation because it is not really separated from the country’s budget. People with high incomes pay more taxes, while they generally don’t receive more benefits and services from the state.

    So, it is quite easy to assess whether migration movements will make it easier or more difficult to finance pensions and public services in the long run. If immigrants are more highly qualified and have higher incomes than people who are already there, it becomes easier. If immigrants have lower qualifications and lower incomes, it becomes more difficult in the long run than it would have been without immigration. (One can argue that it is not just about averages – because of progressive taxes, a minority of immigrants with very high incomes can be financially very beneficial).

    Unlike in Switzerland, in Germany, it is clear that immigrants generally have lower qualifications and incomes than people who are already there. This is obviously true for the vast majority of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East, but it is also true for overall migration to Germany. Certainly, there are some immigrants who have high incomes, but this is only a small part.

    Therefore, the composition of immigrants to Germany with many low-skilled people with low incomes (and the emigration of high-skilled Germany) worsen Germany’s long-term financial perspectives.

  11. @Adrian E.

    Yep – this is the golden insight – : – It all depends on the question, whether the immigrant will earn above or below the mean in a society.

    German experts Bernd Raffelhüschen, Heiner Rindermann, Hans Werner Sinn and Thilo Sarrazin differ a bit in their assumptions about how much difference the immigrants of 2015 ff. make.

    They all agree though, that those ca. 2 Million immigrants since 2015 will not improve the pensions, as the government said then and still says now. And as other experts still say, like the quite well known Meinhard Miegel this week in die weLT.

    This is especially curious because if you make an attempt to quantify how many of those new immigrants do or will earn above-average in Germany, you land at devastating numbers altogether – at about a rate of two (!) or maybe (!) three percent who might, in the end, earn more than the average German. So – roughly 90 percent of those immigrants strengthen our diversity while weakening our social system… (with ca. seven to eight percent of the total number of the immigrants, which do, neither-nor).

  12. @Adrian E.

    I think that the question is not so easy. “Grundsicherung” is only for people who have worked their whole lives and paid contributions. We can assume that their work made a contribution to the economy as a whole that justifies the “Grundsicherung”, even if their contributions weren’t so high. If you have to close a business because there is nobody to do low payment jobs, the economy looses. So, I don’t think that the Grundsicherung is a problem. Probably most of the young immigrants who start working wont need it. Older immigrants probably wont be entitled to receive it anyway because they are not going to work all the years that are necessary to receive it. As I said, there may be some people who wont work and receive minimal benefits, but this another question.

    People with high incomes pay more taxes, while they generally don’t receive more benefits and services from the state.

    I think they receive more services from the state. They use roads much more, they use airports much more, their expensive studies are payed by the state and they get the best jobs and other jobs which are payed out of proportion to what they contribute socially. I don’t see any problem that they pay more taxes. A part of those taxes are taxes over consume and they consume much more.

    What Dieter Kief said in his comment would have more plausibility if he had mentioned some other experts. The ones that he mentioned are extremely neoliberal and conservative. There are other economists whom I would trust more. In any case, I don’t want to deny radically that immigration pose some problems, maybe even more challenging than the question of pensions.

    • Agree: Curmudgeon
  13. @Adrian E.

    Some people (especially highly-qualified people with high incomes) pay more in taxes, pension contributions and other payments towards the state than they receive from the state over the course of their lifetime.

    While that may be true for “other payments”, that is not true for pensions. I have yet to hear of a country where pension regulations allow one group to subsidize another, which is what you are suggesting. Actuaries ensure that is the case, and are required to report instances where those types of subsidies occur.
    It is impossible to determine whether people receive more back in taxes. Some of those receive “in kind” subsidies. Athletes are high income and highly qualified in their sport, as are the owners. Taxes massively subsidize sports teams by building stadii and arenas for those teams costing millions of dollars. Don’t those people get back more than they pay in? The same goes for Amazon or Walmart. The cities and towns outbid each other to subsidize these companies that kill local businesses and suck all of the money out of the local economy with poor paying jobs.
    As for the “other payments”, in many countries those include premiums for unemployment insurance. I have always been grateful that I was only unemployed once, over 50 years ago, for only two weeks. The overwhelming majority of those who do collect more than they pay in for these “other payments” would be more than happy if they didn’t.

  14. @Anonymous

    I would modify this a little by saying it’s absurd and unsustainable for the elderly to live independently after a certain point. Speaking of entitled… some can pull it off, but most don’t. Squatting on a house that should support a family, sucking up taxes paid for by their grandchildren, impoverishing them. The money we pay into SS should be saved by us, but… We will never retire.

  15. @Anonymous

    The burden of supporting old people should fall upon their children. Asian cultures have this leading to their strong kinship culture. We in Europe seem to have this über-individualistic culture where parents are expected to kick their kids out of the house into the ‘real world’ when they leave high school. This usually results in the children having to lay extortionate amounts of money for renting a place to live and food.

    This made sense a long time ago when people started families in their early 20s but nowadays people marry very late on and have children even later. There is realistically no need to move out of the house until you get married.

    This allows one to save a lot of money which they can use later to support their dear parents.

    Also,are you implicitly advocating for forced euthanasia at age 70?

  16. anonymous[331] • Disclaimer says:

    illegal under the constitution the Allies imposed

    That's pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell, isn't it? The "Allies" is really just the US imposing it's multi-culti economic and cultural system on everyone else. Merkel is just the latest US flunky to obey orders and allow millions of third-worlders in. It is the US of A that has been the root of all evil in the world since it came out on top in '45.

  17. Sean says:
    @bossel

    Germany is going downhill? You betcha, unless importing cheap labour improves productivity long term. Germany is anti Google and there was uproar about America looking at Merkel’s smartphone. Compare China. Germany is selling capital goods to China at the moment, but we will see how long the trade remains balanced.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  18. @Sean

    ” There was an uproar about america looking at Merkel’s smartphone”.

    Totally wrong as the “uproar” was a phoney show seeing as BO was pres at the time and the issue was promptly forgotten and forgiven as the Germans worship the ground he walks on and they love the US democrats with a passion and hate the US Republicans with a purple passion.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Striker Comments via RSS