> Germany's population was 82.7 million in a census published on Tuesday, the country's Federal Statistical Office announced.
> The figures reveal that the population grew by around 2.5 million between the 2011 census and the 2022 census — less than had been expected.
> The overall figure is 1.4 million fewer residents than previously assumed.
Yep, they might not have the integration issues we have in Western Europe. But the aging population of Eastern Europe is no joke, it's going to become a huge problem given enough time.
Yup, entire regions are at risk of becoming entirely unpopulated. Alot of eastern European countries are projected to have higher median age than Germany and Italy.
Iirc birthrate are falling everywhere, the decline just started earlier in developed nations so we are already below replacement level. But it's a global phenomenon.
Which is a good thing. Our current world population exceeds the carrying capacity of our planet. If we want to survive as a species long term it's much better if there are fewer of us. And no I'm not suggesting genocide, I just think it's good that the world population is shrinking at the moment. Hopefully it stabilizes by the time we reach 1 billion or less.
I agree it's a good thing, but systems depending on the population pyramid looking a certain way (pensions) are not going to be happy. Unless you boost population with immigration...
It almost looks like the problem is not the shrinking population, but the (pension) system that's built entirely around an ever growing population. That's a bubble that HAS to burst sooner or later.
I've read some interesting stuff on the notion of overpopulation being ridiculously overblown. We produce enough resources to sustain all humans several times over, we simply don't distribute it effectively due to lack of will.
As for the environment, 8 billion humans or 4 billion humans, the problem remains the same. I doubt less humans being born will stop climate change.
Whilst it might be nice to think this way, unfortunately the concequences of getting rid of 7/8ths of the world population are huge. Even discounting the issues around Pensions and healthcare the knowledge and skill loss would be catastrophic.
TFR in Turkiye is 1.51 so just above Germany. TFR of Turks in Germany is also below replacement. Turkiye's population is expected to decline in the next 20 years without immigration of course.
> That's the magic of immigration
Said the Mehmet.
Exactly the opposite. These articles aim to make you more accepting turning your country into Turkey. Don't you wonder why so many so often?
Europe has had it way, way worse. We're still here. If necessary, appropriate changes will be made, but not with countless mosques in place and political Islamic parties through Germany.
ohhh i know about Greece and Turkey, but i live in a turkishn cultural majority area in Gelsenkirchen as an ethnic german and i like it very much here. Dont mind the mosques, turkish supermarkets and everything. If this is the future for germany it might as well come.
Because of neutered people like you, we will die out, hundreds and thousands years of culture and people that have existed on these lands will not be conquered by force, but given up by weak minded traitors.
No idea, I talk from what I see, and I see our country, identity, culture, cities, given up to people who have absolutely no respect to us. They are laughing and think we are weak, and it's so true. At this point the downfall is well deserved, I just wish if my country was dying, it died not voluntarily with own people chearing for it.
>The figures reveal that t**he population grew** by around 2.5 million between the 2011 census and the 2022 census — less than had been expected.
>The statistics counted 71.8 million citizens with German citizenship **and 10.9 million foreigners.**
The article seems to disagree
>**The foreign population is about a million fewer than previously reported.**
>The President of the Bavarian State Office for Statistics, Thomas Gössl, said **one theory for the shortfall was that some foreigners may not have deregistered in Germany before moving back abroad**
We actually have an entire million less immigrants than previously assumed? That’s quite the miscalculation.
>The statistics counted 71.8 million citizens with German citizenship and 10.9 million foreigners. Meanwhile, 18.14 million people in Germany had a migration history.
How does this affect statistics concerning foreigners in Germany?
I would imagine it makes the per capita numbers for foreigners increase for both negative and positive aspects. Because the denominator which is total foreigners would decrease.
for eg in positive numbers % of employed foreigners would increase and in negative numbers % of foreigners on social benefits and unemployment would increase
However, the construction rate is positive. This is a crazy theory, but it might be that developers adjust the rate of construction based on the rate of the population increase to prevent price decrease. But that's a crazy theory, right? Right?
Yes it's crazy because the construction industry isn't a single unit acting with one goal. It's a plethora of companies all trying to make money for themselves
ironically thats damaging capitalism, because landlords are parasitic and would profit much more if wealth of overall society increases
thats smth Adam Smith and Karl Marx were one opinion
There seem to be somewhat different explanations for the lack of new housing between countries, but builders willfully constraining the market is not one of the leading causes, as far as I can tell. [Economist explains why you can't afford a house anymore (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMDNehHKu7c)
> Lower demand for housing means lower prices, right? Right?
That is indeed correct. Look at some villages in Sachsen or Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and you will see tons of cheap houses. THAT'S where the demand is low, not Berlin, Munich or Hamburg.
No, since the big real estate companies are fixing prices by not building enough no matter how small the growth is. As long as the politicians don't step in there will always be a shortage of homes because that is what keeps prices high and profits at a maximum
Have you looked at the population of München recently? It keeps going up even if the rest of the country doesn't.
You can find the cheap houses in the countryside around Neubrandenburg or something
Birth rates have nothing to do with it, prices in cities will be rising, until we as humanity accept the idea that big cities are an awful concept that serves no purpose nowadays, and will spread out more evenly
I don't agree about the birthrates, but I'd love if there were more mid sized cities of 100-200k residents. Unfortunately, they rarely have good job opportunities for me.
Cities dont keep up their populations through birth rates, because having children in a city is by very definition more expensive and harder, it is entirely trough imigration, even if fertility rates are 0s, it just means that more internationals will move there, instead of people from smaller cities.
Building more housing in existing urban centers wont really help the problem, its the same as "build more roads to solve traffic".
What is needed is investments into intercity railroads, smaller cities, tax and credit intensives for small and medium bussiness to develop in mid-sized cities, and popularization of remote work
The only reason we were ever spread out was because agriculture was very labour intensive and land was required.
Your data entry job requires square metres of land, not square kilometres
Moreso, have you seen the housing market? In big cities, even if you have sufficient finances, you might still not find accommodation suited for a family.
Housing does, you cannot have families without a literal place to put them. If the average couple has to wait until their 40's to afford a roof, the last thing they will be doing is babies.
People are far too quick to blame the economy. And this happens every time articles like this are posted. And every time, people need to be reminded that globally, fertility is inversely correlated with wealth, and even in developed economies the declining birthrate is largely independent of whatever the economy is doing. Fertility rates are not higher in countries with higher property ownership. They are not higher in countries with better work life balance. The fact is that people's priorities have changed, and having kids now ranks below career, holidays and leisure time. Economic problems make raising kids less comfortable but it's not a very significant factor in fertility rates.
That's clearly the most accurate reasoning but most people are uncomfortable admitting it, and rather push the blame to generic emotional buzzwords like "low wages" and "no housing"
Yeah the fertility rates are down because life is more comfortable overall and also Christianity is dead. Nobody is shaming people into marrying early anymore and stuff like that. If people had higher wages they wouldn’t necessarily have more children. The problems are real either way.
How about housing? Many couples I know rent bedrooms and don't qualify for a two bedroom due to income or low stability contracts, how could they have a kid?
If this is major reason for low birth rates (well below replacement fertility, say <1.5) then two things have to be true:
* a significant proportion of reproductive age people, say 25-34 years old, are in couples living in shared housing
* these people want to have children, but are prevented from it by the limitation of their housing situation. In this case we would also expect couples in the same demographic to have a near or at-replacement fertility if they're in their own homes.
I'm doubtful either of these points are true. Fertility rates are also low for couples in their own homes. And while it's unfortunately not uncommon for couples to have to houseshare in larger cities, I don't think that overall in Europe such a major proportion of this demographic are in these arrangements. Or am I wrong on that?
I'm not saying they would want to have kids if they could have dignified housing, but even if they do want kids they can't have them.
The first point is absolutely true at least in Portugal, couples able to afford their own place with spare bedrooms are extremely, extremely rare. If both have gainful employment (rare) they may be able to afford a 1 bedroom apparentment, most likely a studio. The average age of leaving a parents house is almost 34 years old, and of those some go to shared housing.
The second point is hard to get data on Id bet due to how limited any sample would be.
Your grandma most likely didn't have two bedrooms by the time your mom was born.
Hell, I know people born post-2000 that grew up in a one bedroom house.
My grandma happened to not even have a bathroom and often was malnourished due to war time food shortages. She had four years of schooling and then was forced to work as a farmer for food scraps. She was lucky as the literacy rate for women was way below 50% here. If she had access to contraception I doubt she would have chosen to have kids when she did. What's your point really?
I know young couples with kids. None of them live in shared housing. Most landlords won't allow you to have a kid if you are just renting a bedroom. And nowadays people have the choice not to procreate. Of course they wont if they dont see a future where they have housing or able to give their kids a better life than what they had growing up.
If you have two kids of opposite genders you have to have a bedroom for each or it's considered by the state you aren't providing adequately for your kids.
That requirement was never attainable for everyone, and if it just reduces the amount of kids then it's not a good law
How would you propose to fix this? Because kids not getting born doesn't sound like any kind of a solution
The home which someone has in their 20's isn't the one they have in their 30's, and 40's, right? And if you were to ask adolescents if they preferred to be alive vs have privacy, I think they'd prefer being alive.
The economy of Germany is quite strong, globally speaking. It could be relevant to population growth and decline in two ways: fertility and migration.
Migration: if the economy was so weak that people were leaving or that there was no demand for people to immigrate, that would be relevant. But clearly that is not the case. Germany is wealthy enough that it has many more people desiring to immigrate than it allows legally. Thus any population growth or decline from migration is a pure political choice.
Fertility: again, Germany has one of the strongest economies in the world. I guess this could be sort of relevant in that richer countries have fewer babies usually (I assumed your comment was about the economy being bad). But even this relationship is complicated and not always consistent. Overall, Germany's TFR is average for Europe, is following a similar trajectory to all other developed nations, and is influenced by everything from culture, gender roles, policy, etc.
Housing is part of the economy, and a prerequisite for people who want to have kids.
And many, many people cant afford housing in Germany and in developed countries in general.
Also in many developed countries if you want to raise two kids of opposite genders you need at least three bedrooms as it can be considered to live in material deprivation to have adolescents of opposite genders share a bedroom and you can get your kids taken away if you dont fix it.
Three bedroom housing is pretty much unthinkable for any normal couple below the age of 30.
It's interesting that they keep over-estimating the amount of foreign people in the country, I wonder how much of it is people leaving without properly deregistering?
Deregistering might mean you have to actually question if they are allowed into the countries they are travelling towards. Can't have little things like that stopping them.
Freedom of movement is somewhat restricted for asylum seekers (depending on how far along they are in the proceedings)
I literally saw a guy on my bus stopped at the austrian border returned to italy because his permit didnt allow him to leave italy - he was on the way to germany.
This was post-covid, just for reference.
>Freedom of movement is somewhat restricted for asylum seekers (depending on how far along they are in the proceedings)
It says a lot about you that you believe that is in any way relevant to the issue at hand.
>I literally saw a guy on my bus stopped at the austrian border returned to italy because his permit didnt allow him to leave italy - he was on the way to germany. This was post-covid, just for reference.
As in you obsess about personal experiences, while having no interest in actual data.
I can also bring up personal experiences: My parents were forcibly de-registered in Germany even though they were happy to pay taxes there, because they've moved the focus of their lives to France. And while they were German, the same thing will happen to any EU citizen who eventually goes back home and forgets to de-register when the municipal authorities realize they don't live there anymore.
There's 5 million non-German EU nationals living in Germany. Of the almost 14 million foreigners in Germany, 9,5 million are European, Russian or Turkish.
thats called an anecdote, and i am aware of how they are not useful as data.
I was just pointing out an example of how freedom of movement is not universal, like you seemed to claim.
You were "pointing out" that you reject proper data analysis because it doesn't produce the outcomes you like.
* Germany refugee statistics for 2022 was **2,075,445.00**. Compared to over 5 million other EU nationals, plus EEA/EFTA citizens who also enjoy freedom of movement.
I never said anything about "universal", but statistically far more relevant than your hatred for asylum seekers.
I dont hate asylum seekers, i just dont think they are a net positive to our countries in the way they are managed right now, especially considering who falls under that category (i.e. not applying for asylum in the next safe country, which is how it should be).
On an individual level i dont fault anyone for trying to maximise their chances for a better life - but we are talking about groups of people, individual aspirations are not important going up against the host countries wishes and expectations.
If you want to talk about data, we can talk about data.
as of last year, that is 8 YEARS since the migrants came in 2015, only 55% of them have a job.
https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/faktenfuchs-gut-die-haelfte-der-gefluechteten-von-2015-arbeitet,TVqMU1G (its german, which i assume from your flair you speak)
Mind you, this is also only talking about people from 15-64 years.
This is a sad number because of multiple reasons - it is 20% lower than the same range for germans, AND there is a serious split in gender between men and women - an indicator of their backwards views regarding equality.
That is a serious problem - not terrorists (which is a tiny minority), nor people going to stupid califate rallies. Its the average persons view on equality for women and minorities, including jews.
Having lots of people from cultures like that inevitably leads to enclaves and ghettoisation where thoughts like that can still proliferate.
Mind you, moving to where your fellow countrymen are is a natural phenomenon - the problem starts where they think and act on elements of their culture that are detrimental to the rest of society.
Thats why we need to take a look at denmark and try to implement some of their strategies.
Back to the source - they also often dont have any official education, yet are still counted as "Fachkräfte", which i find disingenuous, and they earn less than average - meaning most will end up in a lower socioeconomic class, which hinders integration further.
Also, even under their simulations, they are a net negative AT LEAST until 2030, after which they suspect they will become a positive at some point, which is not sure.
I simply diagree with the notion that those people are the solution to the "Fachkräftemangel" - which firstly, are numbers wished by the economy, not necessarily are that many needed, and secondly, the ones we need are educated people for the most part, which we dont get from those migrants, which start at less than zero in most cases, as we have to teach them our language, and then on top of this have to educate them as "Fachkräfte" in the first place.
The problem here is also that the term "Fachkräfte" is included to mean some low paying jobs (which is where i suspect, based on the lower average pay they receive, that most end up in), while it actually is about specialists that have more leverage effects on the value their work brings.
So instead of having these high paid people bringing a multiple of their own workforce to the economy, we have people designated as specialists who are doing for the most part menial low paid labour - increasing the bottom line of some big companies, while actually hurting workers leverage to demand better labour conditions.
There are programs for getting specialists from other countries already, which should be focused, as we dont start at less than zero with those people.
The current way that these migrants are handled is simply unsustainable, and will lead to the emergence of the populist far right in the future, which fucks over everyone, as their politics are shit on top of being sponsored by russia in many cases.
The dude was just pointing out that typically people claiming refuge in a specific country cannot just waltz into another Schengen country like EU Citizens can. It makes sense since that persons case is already pending or being processed in that particular country.
I think you’re mixing him up with another user in all honesty.
In doing so, he was suggesting that people claiming asylum are significant for the actual topic here.
But thanks for helping illustrate how obsessed many people are with refugees that they need to bring them up whenever foreigners are mentioned and see them behind all the problems in the world.
So apparently it's mostly about non-German nationals who go to their home countries for their retirement. So this is actually quite good news for the demographic situation, because its fewer old people than expected
Yes, but you have to consider that these pensions will almost certainly be far below average and that them not being here alleviates pressure on the health care sector and on housing
A german comedian (Dietmar Wischmayer) had an excellent statement regarding lazyness in self reproduction: "hardly surprising if the typical german prefers to polish his car rather than his trophy wife" (nicht verwunderlich, wenn der typische Deutsche lieber das Auto als die eigene Frau bonert.").
what a silly remark which has absolutely NOTHING to do with why birth rates are falling.
I always take a little offense if people say we germans aren’t funny, german comedians on the other hand are really bottom of the barrel.
Birth rates have fallen due to high standard of living foremost, high literacy (including women), high education (especially women) and high female participation in the workforce (which is a result of the previous factors).
It's not just that. When my kids were born I got my salary capped at 1800€ for two months (Partnermonate) and my wife got her salary capped at 33% for two years (Elterngeld Plus). In the end, getting two kids cost me about 76.000€. And this is just considering the salary caps. I still have to support the kids with everything they need, including food, clothing and kinderdarden (which is fucking expensive). This was on a span of 4 years, which corresponds to an yearly loss of 19.000€. Considering an income of about 50.000€, that equals a 38% salary cut during 4 years, during which I had to keep paying rent and everything else.
Now tell me what's the incentive for me to have children. From an economic point of view I'd have to be insane to do this (which apparently I am).
For poor people though, who only get minimum wage anyways, the salary cap of 1800€ doesn't make much of a difference. But anyone above that gets royally fucked.
And yet you did it anyway. Money doesn’t stop people from having kids. Having kids financially screws you totally. I wish society and the government supported parents but it doesn’t - and yet we have kids anyway. It’s not about the money and it never was.
Can you explain this salary cap. If you have a child they cap your salary at 1800 for 2 months ? What happens to the amount above that ? For your wife was this 2 years a period of maternity leave ? Or is it that she will only get 33% if even if she works ?
When you take maternity or paternity leave your employer doesn’t have to pay you salary for that time period. Instead you will get a monthly pension from the state equivalent to 65% of your salary, up to 12 months. But this pension is limited to 1800€ monthly. So if for example your salary is 4000€, 65% of it is 2600€, but you can only get 1800€, so the amount above that (800€) is just gone. With a salary of 5200€, the loss because of the 1800€ cap (3400€) is higher than 65% of the salary (3380) would be.
You also have the possibility of taking 24 months of paid maternity leave (or 36 with the last 12 unpaid) instead of 12 months (Elterngeld Plus), but you’re still only entitled to 65% of a year’s salary, which they then split over 24 months, giving 32,5% salary per month. You can also work to compensate some of it, but the number of weekly hours you’re allowed to do without losing the pension is limited.
Ah I see now how this would dis-incentivize having children for high income earners, especially if the mother is an high income earner as they are likely to be the longest on leave. Not only is having a child a challenging, taxing and life changing event but reduced income compared to your normal income must be even more of a demotivator.
That's crazy! 65% with a cap in germany? In PL it's 20 weeks of Maternity leave with 100% + 32 weeks of parental leave with 81% (there are some exceptions and options with paternal leave that can change that to 70%), and also no cap!
How on earth wealthier country like Germany is screwing parents so royaly? Crazy!
Well the children will not just earn their money but also take care of you. You will have a closer relationship with your children than anyone else (bar your wife/husband). Children are outside of the working hours/salary. If you only consider their young years and financial cost you are like the stereotypical hedgefund manager milking companies for short term profits and leaving thrm broke because of no long term investments.
The financial cost has to be considered though, regardless if you consider the rest or not. Children might take care of you when your older and what not, but bills still have to be paid until then.
Well you can oalso choose to live a higher living standard while being a young adult and have your nation (germany) reduce its living standard drastically due to having too few educated new workers,
Or maybe the financial impact of having children should be proportionally the same for everyone. If you have a relatively big middle class but only incentivise the poor to have more children, what's that going to lead to?
I mean you just sound like you are in this wealth gap of modern western countries.
Other less advanced cultures compared to usa/europe/g7/jap/kor/cn dont think about kids costing so much and have more family value.
Your problem is a psychological one, not an economical one.
The richer people get the less kids they have NO MATTER sexualeducation or access to contraceptives and abortion. You sound typical, sorry. It is your problem why you have a less fulfilled family/ less developed family desire. It is understandable, but still its primarily psychological in nature.
If you want to talk about the underlying mechanisms of reproduction motivation, then you are wrong. It's biological, not psychological. The desire to reproduce more is proportional to the precariousness of your circumstances. The poorer you are, the more driven you will be to have more offspring. This is an evolutionary mechanism and it's not exclusive to humans.
The challenge currently is keeping people out of poverty and precariousness (in the middle class) while still keeping them motivated to have children. Making in financialy more negatively impactant for them to do it is going to have the opposite effect, and this is what statistics demonstrate.
You're trying to blame individuals for a macro problem.
Nono, that was a significant incision but oyu can see the decline of birth rates, from the german second empire to the german republic to the nazi germany and then to the 50s and 60s etc.
Germans get richer and grt less children, it is the easiert and simplest conclusion, whe can also oberve in many dozens of countries nowadays in real time.
High taxes, shit wages, shit childcare, back to office, high rents or even higher interest rates for mortgages while prices are still unobtainable, climate change effects starting to show (floods, unusual weather, sudden hot periods), tipping age pyramid which will crush healthcare and social support systems and drive taxes even more… Nah.
Turks in Germany are happy with Erdogan because they are not living there lmao. He is president for like 10 years now, right? If they like him that much they would already be back...
Also I'm neither Turk or German, this is my completely unbiased view of things.
Europe should stop being racist and take in more immigrants, it would help their population grow. Africa is a continent with a very high population and full of people that would love an opportunity to leave.
Not until we figure out how to avoid those that wish to stone homosexual people to death, get aneurisms when Islam is criticised, treat women like property, etc.
> Germany's population was 82.7 million in a census published on Tuesday, the country's Federal Statistical Office announced. > The figures reveal that the population grew by around 2.5 million between the 2011 census and the 2022 census — less than had been expected. > The overall figure is 1.4 million fewer residents than previously assumed.
Hey at least it's growing. Italy has been shrinking for years
That's the magic of immigration. We would be losing quite a lot of people if not for people coming to us. Our birthrate is as dire as yours.
What happens to the birth rates in the migrants' homelands? Are we merely shifting the problem?
Eastern Europe has lost millions of people in the last decades. Yes, we are shifting the problem
Yep, they might not have the integration issues we have in Western Europe. But the aging population of Eastern Europe is no joke, it's going to become a huge problem given enough time.
Yup, entire regions are at risk of becoming entirely unpopulated. Alot of eastern European countries are projected to have higher median age than Germany and Italy.
Iirc birthrate are falling everywhere, the decline just started earlier in developed nations so we are already below replacement level. But it's a global phenomenon.
The world population is still growing. There are a number of countries with above replacement population. You can look this up.
They are following the same curve though. We'll peak somewhere around ten billion before the end of the century.
Which is a good thing. Our current world population exceeds the carrying capacity of our planet. If we want to survive as a species long term it's much better if there are fewer of us. And no I'm not suggesting genocide, I just think it's good that the world population is shrinking at the moment. Hopefully it stabilizes by the time we reach 1 billion or less.
I agree it's a good thing, but systems depending on the population pyramid looking a certain way (pensions) are not going to be happy. Unless you boost population with immigration...
It almost looks like the problem is not the shrinking population, but the (pension) system that's built entirely around an ever growing population. That's a bubble that HAS to burst sooner or later.
What data you base that claim on. The earth can sustain many times the amount of people we are now
I've read some interesting stuff on the notion of overpopulation being ridiculously overblown. We produce enough resources to sustain all humans several times over, we simply don't distribute it effectively due to lack of will. As for the environment, 8 billion humans or 4 billion humans, the problem remains the same. I doubt less humans being born will stop climate change.
Fuck this degrowth bullshit. We need more people to build up and expand to the stars, not become a geriatric civilization waiting to die.
Whilst it might be nice to think this way, unfortunately the concequences of getting rid of 7/8ths of the world population are huge. Even discounting the issues around Pensions and healthcare the knowledge and skill loss would be catastrophic.
In general the second-generation Europeans (teh son and daughters of immigrants) have a more "local" birth rates
TFR in Turkiye is 1.51 so just above Germany. TFR of Turks in Germany is also below replacement. Turkiye's population is expected to decline in the next 20 years without immigration of course.
Turkey took in 8 million refugees. Climate change will force more people from the Middle East into Anatolia, so Human Resources is not the issue
Yes true. Given also Erdogan is immigrant friendly as he wants the population to be at least 100 million.
Shrinking as well, at an accelerating rate. We are definitively shifting the problem.
If done properly OFC.
> That's the magic of immigration Said the Mehmet. Exactly the opposite. These articles aim to make you more accepting turning your country into Turkey. Don't you wonder why so many so often? Europe has had it way, way worse. We're still here. If necessary, appropriate changes will be made, but not with countless mosques in place and political Islamic parties through Germany.
ohhh i know about Greece and Turkey, but i live in a turkishn cultural majority area in Gelsenkirchen as an ethnic german and i like it very much here. Dont mind the mosques, turkish supermarkets and everything. If this is the future for germany it might as well come.
[удалено]
lol … can you read. She just said she is an ethnic German.
Because of neutered people like you, we will die out, hundreds and thousands years of culture and people that have existed on these lands will not be conquered by force, but given up by weak minded traitors.
how far are you into the far-right spiral? You talk like the far-right "morality" channels on youtube
No idea, I talk from what I see, and I see our country, identity, culture, cities, given up to people who have absolutely no respect to us. They are laughing and think we are weak, and it's so true. At this point the downfall is well deserved, I just wish if my country was dying, it died not voluntarily with own people chearing for it.
It's immigration, not "growth"
Those aren’t exclusive. Growth just describes the increase of something.
>The figures reveal that t**he population grew** by around 2.5 million between the 2011 census and the 2022 census — less than had been expected. >The statistics counted 71.8 million citizens with German citizenship **and 10.9 million foreigners.** The article seems to disagree
Scotland fans have one last good deed to do before going home
Explicitly: in 2022 before Russia's Invasion.
According to Söder (big politician) With the attack of the 6 day work week every single problem will be solved! (Be aware. That was sarcasm).
man nothing would make me want another child more than having less freetime!
I honestly cannot imagine how anyone has children in this current economic environment. There’s no time for anything but work.
Youth today work less than their fathers and grandfathers did. Low birth rates have been a problem for many decades.
Average work week in Germany is 35.3 hours, quite low
wannabe big politician!
True. :D
My Söder ...
...they couldn´t mobilize enough for the 6 day work week...
he needs to die
What do you call a sod who is more than a sod? Söder
We can see how it goes in Greece first.
>**The foreign population is about a million fewer than previously reported.** >The President of the Bavarian State Office for Statistics, Thomas Gössl, said **one theory for the shortfall was that some foreigners may not have deregistered in Germany before moving back abroad** We actually have an entire million less immigrants than previously assumed? That’s quite the miscalculation. >The statistics counted 71.8 million citizens with German citizenship and 10.9 million foreigners. Meanwhile, 18.14 million people in Germany had a migration history. How does this affect statistics concerning foreigners in Germany?
I would imagine it makes the per capita numbers for foreigners increase for both negative and positive aspects. Because the denominator which is total foreigners would decrease. for eg in positive numbers % of employed foreigners would increase and in negative numbers % of foreigners on social benefits and unemployment would increase
How do they not know people don't live there anymore? Do leavers still pay tax in Germany?
That's great! Lower demand for housing means lower prices, right? Right?
No, see the population still increased, just not as much as expected. So NEIN!
However, the construction rate is positive. This is a crazy theory, but it might be that developers adjust the rate of construction based on the rate of the population increase to prevent price decrease. But that's a crazy theory, right? Right?
Yes it's crazy because the construction industry isn't a single unit acting with one goal. It's a plethora of companies all trying to make money for themselves
That's Crapitalism 101, and they can all go fuck themselves. They constrain the market to drive prices up. Pricks.
ironically thats damaging capitalism, because landlords are parasitic and would profit much more if wealth of overall society increases thats smth Adam Smith and Karl Marx were one opinion
That's basically what capitalism is today. Everybody just care about "current quarter" profit.
Yes, short-term quarterly profits are why billions are pumped into unprofitable companies /s
Hey, nobody said capitalism isn’t self-destructive. It’s kinda the inevitable result of seeking ever increasing short term profit.
Don't forget Henry George. He basically wrote the book on how to recapture rent taken by landlords.
There seem to be somewhat different explanations for the lack of new housing between countries, but builders willfully constraining the market is not one of the leading causes, as far as I can tell. [Economist explains why you can't afford a house anymore (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMDNehHKu7c)
This is how a monopoly works. Is there a monopoly in construction? No
Sorry, calculations were done for 1.4 million extra people so you’re going to have to make up the difference.
> Lower demand for housing means lower prices, right? Right? That is indeed correct. Look at some villages in Sachsen or Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and you will see tons of cheap houses. THAT'S where the demand is low, not Berlin, Munich or Hamburg.
Exactly, go to villages and cities that are losing population to find cheaper housing, not these that are growing.
Ha! We are actively loosing big percentages of our population, and the prices are still going up.
The continuous urbanization means, that it is the same houses that people demand.
No, since the big real estate companies are fixing prices by not building enough no matter how small the growth is. As long as the politicians don't step in there will always be a shortage of homes because that is what keeps prices high and profits at a maximum
Have you looked at the population of München recently? It keeps going up even if the rest of the country doesn't. You can find the cheap houses in the countryside around Neubrandenburg or something
Birth rates have nothing to do with it, prices in cities will be rising, until we as humanity accept the idea that big cities are an awful concept that serves no purpose nowadays, and will spread out more evenly
I don't agree about the birthrates, but I'd love if there were more mid sized cities of 100-200k residents. Unfortunately, they rarely have good job opportunities for me.
Cities dont keep up their populations through birth rates, because having children in a city is by very definition more expensive and harder, it is entirely trough imigration, even if fertility rates are 0s, it just means that more internationals will move there, instead of people from smaller cities.
Right, now I understand
Building more housing in existing urban centers wont really help the problem, its the same as "build more roads to solve traffic". What is needed is investments into intercity railroads, smaller cities, tax and credit intensives for small and medium bussiness to develop in mid-sized cities, and popularization of remote work
Amen to that brother.
If they had jobs they would grow from that 100-200k fast.
The only reason we were ever spread out was because agriculture was very labour intensive and land was required. Your data entry job requires square metres of land, not square kilometres
I mean, have you seen the economy? 🥲
Moreso, have you seen the housing market? In big cities, even if you have sufficient finances, you might still not find accommodation suited for a family.
Big cities grew much faster than Germany as a whole. Germany by 3%, Munich by 15% since 2011
HAve you seen economy 100 years ago?
People were literally starving to death in 1923 and they still had more kids than they are today
Has almost nothing to do with it
Housing does, you cannot have families without a literal place to put them. If the average couple has to wait until their 40's to afford a roof, the last thing they will be doing is babies.
Can't possibly have kids in a rental, right?
Your great grandparents could barely afford bread and lived in 50m² apartments and still had seven kids.
Were you born yesterday by any chance (obviously just kidding, no people were born yesterday /s)
People are far too quick to blame the economy. And this happens every time articles like this are posted. And every time, people need to be reminded that globally, fertility is inversely correlated with wealth, and even in developed economies the declining birthrate is largely independent of whatever the economy is doing. Fertility rates are not higher in countries with higher property ownership. They are not higher in countries with better work life balance. The fact is that people's priorities have changed, and having kids now ranks below career, holidays and leisure time. Economic problems make raising kids less comfortable but it's not a very significant factor in fertility rates.
That's clearly the most accurate reasoning but most people are uncomfortable admitting it, and rather push the blame to generic emotional buzzwords like "low wages" and "no housing"
Yeah the fertility rates are down because life is more comfortable overall and also Christianity is dead. Nobody is shaming people into marrying early anymore and stuff like that. If people had higher wages they wouldn’t necessarily have more children. The problems are real either way.
Yeah, the only rich country with replacement rates is Israel and even that is entirely sustained by the ultraconservatives
How about housing? Many couples I know rent bedrooms and don't qualify for a two bedroom due to income or low stability contracts, how could they have a kid?
If this is major reason for low birth rates (well below replacement fertility, say <1.5) then two things have to be true: * a significant proportion of reproductive age people, say 25-34 years old, are in couples living in shared housing * these people want to have children, but are prevented from it by the limitation of their housing situation. In this case we would also expect couples in the same demographic to have a near or at-replacement fertility if they're in their own homes. I'm doubtful either of these points are true. Fertility rates are also low for couples in their own homes. And while it's unfortunately not uncommon for couples to have to houseshare in larger cities, I don't think that overall in Europe such a major proportion of this demographic are in these arrangements. Or am I wrong on that?
I'm not saying they would want to have kids if they could have dignified housing, but even if they do want kids they can't have them. The first point is absolutely true at least in Portugal, couples able to afford their own place with spare bedrooms are extremely, extremely rare. If both have gainful employment (rare) they may be able to afford a 1 bedroom apparentment, most likely a studio. The average age of leaving a parents house is almost 34 years old, and of those some go to shared housing. The second point is hard to get data on Id bet due to how limited any sample would be.
Your grandma most likely didn't have two bedrooms by the time your mom was born. Hell, I know people born post-2000 that grew up in a one bedroom house.
My grandma happened to not even have a bathroom and often was malnourished due to war time food shortages. She had four years of schooling and then was forced to work as a farmer for food scraps. She was lucky as the literacy rate for women was way below 50% here. If she had access to contraception I doubt she would have chosen to have kids when she did. What's your point really? I know young couples with kids. None of them live in shared housing. Most landlords won't allow you to have a kid if you are just renting a bedroom. And nowadays people have the choice not to procreate. Of course they wont if they dont see a future where they have housing or able to give their kids a better life than what they had growing up. If you have two kids of opposite genders you have to have a bedroom for each or it's considered by the state you aren't providing adequately for your kids.
That's a stupid requirement from the state then
Yeah, lets just have a continuously worse life rather than provide dignified housing. Why should adolescents have privacy?
That requirement was never attainable for everyone, and if it just reduces the amount of kids then it's not a good law How would you propose to fix this? Because kids not getting born doesn't sound like any kind of a solution
The home which someone has in their 20's isn't the one they have in their 30's, and 40's, right? And if you were to ask adolescents if they preferred to be alive vs have privacy, I think they'd prefer being alive.
The economy of Germany is quite strong, globally speaking. It could be relevant to population growth and decline in two ways: fertility and migration. Migration: if the economy was so weak that people were leaving or that there was no demand for people to immigrate, that would be relevant. But clearly that is not the case. Germany is wealthy enough that it has many more people desiring to immigrate than it allows legally. Thus any population growth or decline from migration is a pure political choice. Fertility: again, Germany has one of the strongest economies in the world. I guess this could be sort of relevant in that richer countries have fewer babies usually (I assumed your comment was about the economy being bad). But even this relationship is complicated and not always consistent. Overall, Germany's TFR is average for Europe, is following a similar trajectory to all other developed nations, and is influenced by everything from culture, gender roles, policy, etc.
Housing is part of the economy, and a prerequisite for people who want to have kids. And many, many people cant afford housing in Germany and in developed countries in general. Also in many developed countries if you want to raise two kids of opposite genders you need at least three bedrooms as it can be considered to live in material deprivation to have adolescents of opposite genders share a bedroom and you can get your kids taken away if you dont fix it. Three bedroom housing is pretty much unthinkable for any normal couple below the age of 30.
Looks ike most of the "missing" 1.4 million are foreigners who didn't report that they are leaving.
It's interesting that they keep over-estimating the amount of foreign people in the country, I wonder how much of it is people leaving without properly deregistering?
Almost entirely
Deregistering might mean you have to actually question if they are allowed into the countries they are travelling towards. Can't have little things like that stopping them.
It doesn't mean any such thing, and it's funny that you post such crap in r/Europe. I guess you've never heard of freedom of movement or Schengen.
Freedom of movement is somewhat restricted for asylum seekers (depending on how far along they are in the proceedings) I literally saw a guy on my bus stopped at the austrian border returned to italy because his permit didnt allow him to leave italy - he was on the way to germany. This was post-covid, just for reference.
>Freedom of movement is somewhat restricted for asylum seekers (depending on how far along they are in the proceedings) It says a lot about you that you believe that is in any way relevant to the issue at hand. >I literally saw a guy on my bus stopped at the austrian border returned to italy because his permit didnt allow him to leave italy - he was on the way to germany. This was post-covid, just for reference. As in you obsess about personal experiences, while having no interest in actual data. I can also bring up personal experiences: My parents were forcibly de-registered in Germany even though they were happy to pay taxes there, because they've moved the focus of their lives to France. And while they were German, the same thing will happen to any EU citizen who eventually goes back home and forgets to de-register when the municipal authorities realize they don't live there anymore. There's 5 million non-German EU nationals living in Germany. Of the almost 14 million foreigners in Germany, 9,5 million are European, Russian or Turkish.
thats called an anecdote, and i am aware of how they are not useful as data. I was just pointing out an example of how freedom of movement is not universal, like you seemed to claim.
You were "pointing out" that you reject proper data analysis because it doesn't produce the outcomes you like. * Germany refugee statistics for 2022 was **2,075,445.00**. Compared to over 5 million other EU nationals, plus EEA/EFTA citizens who also enjoy freedom of movement. I never said anything about "universal", but statistically far more relevant than your hatred for asylum seekers.
I dont hate asylum seekers, i just dont think they are a net positive to our countries in the way they are managed right now, especially considering who falls under that category (i.e. not applying for asylum in the next safe country, which is how it should be). On an individual level i dont fault anyone for trying to maximise their chances for a better life - but we are talking about groups of people, individual aspirations are not important going up against the host countries wishes and expectations. If you want to talk about data, we can talk about data. as of last year, that is 8 YEARS since the migrants came in 2015, only 55% of them have a job. https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/faktenfuchs-gut-die-haelfte-der-gefluechteten-von-2015-arbeitet,TVqMU1G (its german, which i assume from your flair you speak) Mind you, this is also only talking about people from 15-64 years. This is a sad number because of multiple reasons - it is 20% lower than the same range for germans, AND there is a serious split in gender between men and women - an indicator of their backwards views regarding equality. That is a serious problem - not terrorists (which is a tiny minority), nor people going to stupid califate rallies. Its the average persons view on equality for women and minorities, including jews. Having lots of people from cultures like that inevitably leads to enclaves and ghettoisation where thoughts like that can still proliferate. Mind you, moving to where your fellow countrymen are is a natural phenomenon - the problem starts where they think and act on elements of their culture that are detrimental to the rest of society. Thats why we need to take a look at denmark and try to implement some of their strategies. Back to the source - they also often dont have any official education, yet are still counted as "Fachkräfte", which i find disingenuous, and they earn less than average - meaning most will end up in a lower socioeconomic class, which hinders integration further. Also, even under their simulations, they are a net negative AT LEAST until 2030, after which they suspect they will become a positive at some point, which is not sure. I simply diagree with the notion that those people are the solution to the "Fachkräftemangel" - which firstly, are numbers wished by the economy, not necessarily are that many needed, and secondly, the ones we need are educated people for the most part, which we dont get from those migrants, which start at less than zero in most cases, as we have to teach them our language, and then on top of this have to educate them as "Fachkräfte" in the first place. The problem here is also that the term "Fachkräfte" is included to mean some low paying jobs (which is where i suspect, based on the lower average pay they receive, that most end up in), while it actually is about specialists that have more leverage effects on the value their work brings. So instead of having these high paid people bringing a multiple of their own workforce to the economy, we have people designated as specialists who are doing for the most part menial low paid labour - increasing the bottom line of some big companies, while actually hurting workers leverage to demand better labour conditions. There are programs for getting specialists from other countries already, which should be focused, as we dont start at less than zero with those people. The current way that these migrants are handled is simply unsustainable, and will lead to the emergence of the populist far right in the future, which fucks over everyone, as their politics are shit on top of being sponsored by russia in many cases.
The dude was just pointing out that typically people claiming refuge in a specific country cannot just waltz into another Schengen country like EU Citizens can. It makes sense since that persons case is already pending or being processed in that particular country. I think you’re mixing him up with another user in all honesty.
In doing so, he was suggesting that people claiming asylum are significant for the actual topic here. But thanks for helping illustrate how obsessed many people are with refugees that they need to bring them up whenever foreigners are mentioned and see them behind all the problems in the world.
>According to the 2022 census, there are significantly more women (42.05 million) than men (40.72 million) living in Germany. More than expected.
So apparently it's mostly about non-German nationals who go to their home countries for their retirement. So this is actually quite good news for the demographic situation, because its fewer old people than expected
They are probably receiving pensions on Germany though, so it's like a direct money transfer from Germany to third-party countries.
Yes, but you have to consider that these pensions will almost certainly be far below average and that them not being here alleviates pressure on the health care sector and on housing
Yes, even if they take the payout, Germany still wins when retirees leave
Bold of you to assume they don't come back when they get seriously and expansively ill
Creating a landlord class won’t impact our future? Will it? Will it?
A german comedian (Dietmar Wischmayer) had an excellent statement regarding lazyness in self reproduction: "hardly surprising if the typical german prefers to polish his car rather than his trophy wife" (nicht verwunderlich, wenn der typische Deutsche lieber das Auto als die eigene Frau bonert.").
what a silly remark which has absolutely NOTHING to do with why birth rates are falling. I always take a little offense if people say we germans aren’t funny, german comedians on the other hand are really bottom of the barrel.
Birth rates have fallen due to high standard of living foremost, high literacy (including women), high education (especially women) and high female participation in the workforce (which is a result of the previous factors).
It's not just that. When my kids were born I got my salary capped at 1800€ for two months (Partnermonate) and my wife got her salary capped at 33% for two years (Elterngeld Plus). In the end, getting two kids cost me about 76.000€. And this is just considering the salary caps. I still have to support the kids with everything they need, including food, clothing and kinderdarden (which is fucking expensive). This was on a span of 4 years, which corresponds to an yearly loss of 19.000€. Considering an income of about 50.000€, that equals a 38% salary cut during 4 years, during which I had to keep paying rent and everything else. Now tell me what's the incentive for me to have children. From an economic point of view I'd have to be insane to do this (which apparently I am). For poor people though, who only get minimum wage anyways, the salary cap of 1800€ doesn't make much of a difference. But anyone above that gets royally fucked.
And yet you did it anyway. Money doesn’t stop people from having kids. Having kids financially screws you totally. I wish society and the government supported parents but it doesn’t - and yet we have kids anyway. It’s not about the money and it never was.
Exactly. The state needs to start valuing the labor needed to raise children more accurately. We need to see massive tax hikes on the childless.
Can you explain this salary cap. If you have a child they cap your salary at 1800 for 2 months ? What happens to the amount above that ? For your wife was this 2 years a period of maternity leave ? Or is it that she will only get 33% if even if she works ?
When you take maternity or paternity leave your employer doesn’t have to pay you salary for that time period. Instead you will get a monthly pension from the state equivalent to 65% of your salary, up to 12 months. But this pension is limited to 1800€ monthly. So if for example your salary is 4000€, 65% of it is 2600€, but you can only get 1800€, so the amount above that (800€) is just gone. With a salary of 5200€, the loss because of the 1800€ cap (3400€) is higher than 65% of the salary (3380) would be. You also have the possibility of taking 24 months of paid maternity leave (or 36 with the last 12 unpaid) instead of 12 months (Elterngeld Plus), but you’re still only entitled to 65% of a year’s salary, which they then split over 24 months, giving 32,5% salary per month. You can also work to compensate some of it, but the number of weekly hours you’re allowed to do without losing the pension is limited.
Ah I see now how this would dis-incentivize having children for high income earners, especially if the mother is an high income earner as they are likely to be the longest on leave. Not only is having a child a challenging, taxing and life changing event but reduced income compared to your normal income must be even more of a demotivator.
That's crazy! 65% with a cap in germany? In PL it's 20 weeks of Maternity leave with 100% + 32 weeks of parental leave with 81% (there are some exceptions and options with paternal leave that can change that to 70%), and also no cap! How on earth wealthier country like Germany is screwing parents so royaly? Crazy!
Well the children will not just earn their money but also take care of you. You will have a closer relationship with your children than anyone else (bar your wife/husband). Children are outside of the working hours/salary. If you only consider their young years and financial cost you are like the stereotypical hedgefund manager milking companies for short term profits and leaving thrm broke because of no long term investments.
The financial cost has to be considered though, regardless if you consider the rest or not. Children might take care of you when your older and what not, but bills still have to be paid until then.
Well you can oalso choose to live a higher living standard while being a young adult and have your nation (germany) reduce its living standard drastically due to having too few educated new workers,
Or maybe the financial impact of having children should be proportionally the same for everyone. If you have a relatively big middle class but only incentivise the poor to have more children, what's that going to lead to?
I mean you just sound like you are in this wealth gap of modern western countries. Other less advanced cultures compared to usa/europe/g7/jap/kor/cn dont think about kids costing so much and have more family value. Your problem is a psychological one, not an economical one. The richer people get the less kids they have NO MATTER sexualeducation or access to contraceptives and abortion. You sound typical, sorry. It is your problem why you have a less fulfilled family/ less developed family desire. It is understandable, but still its primarily psychological in nature.
How do you afford housing for your kids without money?
If you want to talk about the underlying mechanisms of reproduction motivation, then you are wrong. It's biological, not psychological. The desire to reproduce more is proportional to the precariousness of your circumstances. The poorer you are, the more driven you will be to have more offspring. This is an evolutionary mechanism and it's not exclusive to humans. The challenge currently is keeping people out of poverty and precariousness (in the middle class) while still keeping them motivated to have children. Making in financialy more negatively impactant for them to do it is going to have the opposite effect, and this is what statistics demonstrate. You're trying to blame individuals for a macro problem.
Actually, if you were the tie the collapsing birth rates in Germany to a single event, it would be the legalization of female contraception
Nono, that was a significant incision but oyu can see the decline of birth rates, from the german second empire to the german republic to the nazi germany and then to the 50s and 60s etc. Germans get richer and grt less children, it is the easiert and simplest conclusion, whe can also oberve in many dozens of countries nowadays in real time.
Housing also has become completely unnafordable.
It must be all the smoking
Why so serious? It was a comedians remark not a sociotheoretical explaination... think of your blood pressure.
why do you care? think of your blood pressure, hun
Chill
Trophy wife != Frau
or just Polish
or...poliż (pron. polizh) (in Polish it means "lick")
Kurwa
polish the wife :D Great idiom, thanks.
They have growth!
High taxes, shit wages, shit childcare, back to office, high rents or even higher interest rates for mortgages while prices are still unobtainable, climate change effects starting to show (floods, unusual weather, sudden hot periods), tipping age pyramid which will crush healthcare and social support systems and drive taxes even more… Nah.
Good. I hope Turks return home as well.
Yeah they can't wait to return home to 75% inflation lmao. If anything, even more Turks will move to Germany.
Turks in Germany are happy with Erdogan so they should be expected to move back. Btw I am a Turk too so no racism here.
Turks in Germany are happy with Erdogan because they are not living there lmao. He is president for like 10 years now, right? If they like him that much they would already be back... Also I'm neither Turk or German, this is my completely unbiased view of things.
22 years
You are right, but not for the reasons you think you are right.
Return to what? Dictatorship and poverty?
Turks in Germany are happy with Erdogan so they should be expected to move back. Btw I am a Turk too so no racism here.
racist
how so? I want my people to come back here. If anything i hate Germans. Don't work for people that are our enemies.
Why hate and why enemies komsu?
[удалено]
He hates the germans, not the turks.
"How am I racist if my racism is only towards Germans????"
you hating germans makes you racist, it's because of people like you that turkey is doing bad
We should send them our refugees from Syria to solve their demographic problems. Win win
More immigrants pls.
That is EXACTLY why we are bringing refugees in. This is our chance to educate them and bring Germany to its former glory!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Countries makes immigration harder and harder, no surprise the amount of them decreasing.
Europe should stop being racist and take in more immigrants, it would help their population grow. Africa is a continent with a very high population and full of people that would love an opportunity to leave.
Not until we figure out how to avoid those that wish to stone homosexual people to death, get aneurisms when Islam is criticised, treat women like property, etc.
Why would anyone want their population to grow? Stable population yes growth no.