Up to 36% of children in Berlin are poor

this time magazine article, courtesy of yahoo states that up to 36% of children in berlin are poor. Time magazine

This was widely reported last week (and the FR with three pages of coverage and very detailed map is right next to me). Poverty is defined as 764 Eur income a month for a single person and 1376 for kid-free couple in Germany (ie. less than 60% median income). The graph shows 17-19% of people in Berlin in this category (within a range of "less than 9%" around Munich / Hamburg / Stuttgart and "up to 27%" in parts of MV). No surprise that the % of kids is higher, simply because poorer people have more kids overall.

What has been interesting the last week is the debate about the fertilitiy of those on benefits.

As you have more and more children the marginal costs decrease but if you are on benefits your income increases.
There has been the notion played by citics of the welfare state that the poor are "breedling like rabbits" just for the money.

That opens up a HUGE jar of worms regarding payments for fertility and the state deciding who should re produce or not...

I don't understand.

If they are breeding like rabbits to up their benefit payments why would they then need fertility treatment?

And if they don't breed like rabbits, then who is going to do all the 'socially useful' jobs in the future?

Where does the problem lie?

36, not 35, not 37, but 36% of them are poor. It was 36.1% untill we found one of them had a hoard of kinder bueno's under their bed/cardboard box

the problem is. and this was mentioned by some politician in baden würtemberg a few years ago, if only the poor and poorly educated are having kids germany is in for a rough ride.

but the problem with that argument is that just because a family is poor, doesn't mean the mom and the kids are stupid. but i do sort of understand what he was getting at.

i just think it's sad. more than 1 in 3 children in berlin are poor. i had a really long conversation with someone accepting charity donations for poor kids so that they can have some place to go after school and get a warm meal. i thought it was quite sad.

i guess berlin women are too poor to pay the 500 euros for an abortion.

what is FR? do you have a link to this article???

FR is the Frankfurter Rundschau. Here is a collection of articles from the last two weeks.

Greedy little Bastard!

I was reading an interesting article a while ago that was referencing this trend in the US. During recessions, people have more children, and in areas with lower socio-economic levels, people have more children. It really has nothing to do with people wanting to reap the benefits they get to have children, and more to do with the fact that when one or both partners are not working, they are home more and therefore end up having more time on their hands to get pregnant.

First of all, let's get real for a second. Like a dear friend of mine from Chile has said: "Poverty in Germany can really only be defined as a lack of luxury." Nobody is barefoot and starving here.

I read a really interesting op-ed piece about this study and they made some good points. Wish I could remember where I read it so I could post a link. Anyway, one of the problems with this 60% of median income way of defining poverty is this: if tomorrow 500 billionaires moved to Germany the percentage of people living in poverty under this definition would actually rise. The median income just went up and therefore the percentage of people falling below the 60% mark just went up too. Nobody actually has less money or a lower standard of living, but more are now "poor".
Which leads me to cost of living: Berlin being a fairly cheap city 764€ will actually stretch a lot further than in Munich or Hamburg. So who's standard of living is actually lower: the Berlin resident that has 700€ income or the Munich resident that has 1000€ income?

I thought those were some interesting points that I wanted to share. I'll see if I can find the op-ed piece.

Sorry but they should go to Africa and see what poverty means!

I see what you're saying, but I have to say if I was living off 764 Euro I think I'd be struggling pretty bad and consider myself poor.

Well, poverty is really much more than what is described here. It is starving, not having a shelter to put one's head down, not enough to clothe oneselves.

If I was living on 764 Euros a month, I would consider myself just not rich, I would not be able to buy what I like, but I would be able to buy what I need.

maybe moving out of prenzl'berg would remedy that? just kidding!

Anyway, the point is that a family in a richer part of Germany like Munich is probably far worse off with a larger amount of money that might put them above this poverty threshold for this study than a family in Berlin that comes in under the 60% of median income in Germany. Therefore this study is more than a little questionable in its results. Sure 764€ aren't a lot to live on, but "poverty" is relative. i found it especially poignant that next to the article linked is a picture of some poor Indian kid and a link to an photo spread titled "Slumdog Entrepreneurs". i guess it's supposed to be uplifting, but contrast and compare and try and come back to talk about poverty in Germany with a straight face.