A study of the economic research institute DIW occupied: arms are not only poorer there are more. Meanwhile, the incomes of the rich grew in 2009 further ( www.freitag.de )
It may well be that the vocabulary of economic inequality is quite limited and therefore tapped and therefore is a cliché: The company will for years, "split", the poor will have more " getting poorer, "the rich" get richer ". All the more welcome, therefore, is when the computer busy by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) in Berlin inject new facts and new insights into the debate and revive this date. The on Tuesday published DIW Weekly Report is about the "polarization of income" and announced in the title: "The middle class loses.
The data of the DIW staff Jan Goebel, Martin Gornall and Hartmut Häußermann are clear: the middle class income is shrinking in favor of the lower and upper income groups. To the "median", which is the median income, around three classes were formed. "Down" is less than 70 percent of the median, in 2005 about 860 € net per month for a single. "Center" are more than 70 but less than 150 percent of the median in 2005 to € 1844. "Up" are net income of more than 150 percent of the median, which in 2005 were therefore about 1844 € per month. (For corresponding 2009er values would each add 7 percent expected)
Since 2000, Goebel says, "Watch how a so-called absolute polarization. It has been in these lower and upper regions not only individuals, but whose income is . even grown apart "In other words - and this must now be brave voice aesthetes -". the poor are getting poorer and the rich were getting richer Bottom "households" So the percentage of increase "of 17.8 percent in 2000 to 21 7 percent in 2009. At the same time their average net income adjusted for inflation fell from 680 € to 645 € in 2008. The "middle" declined since 2000 from 66.5 to 61.5 percent of households. The proportion of 'top' households was indeed in the crisis year 2009 for the first time back very slightly, but increased the income of these households over the projection center "once felt," the authors write.
basis of the DIW calculations is the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), a collated data from household surveys in the mountain DIW, which in many parts is more accurate and scientifically more recyclable material than, say, the Federal Statistical Office. The merit of the current study now that she misses not only the observed increase in years of poor and poverty, but also shows how the distances are equal across income groups. This polarization of income, write the authors, is in batch mode. The first highlight was the mid-1990s reached, the polarization was even slightly off, but for 2000 to 2006 "jumped" to rise.
The authors explain that trigger the rise of some of the upper layers, the descent of many in the lower layers in the affected middle class that can do what was described as the status of panic. Would other people for the damage or threatened loss of status held responsible tragedies "to the spread of discriminatory Preferences for and compromise "the stability of democratic decision-making".
criticized DIW researchers Goebel that the "austerity package" of the federal government relates only to the lower income areas. He says: "When you see the trend we observe, it must ask: Why should people with high incomes do not have savings contribution"
Little can be added. For now.
0 comments:
Post a Comment