Germany: Number of unemployed highest in 10 years | Hacker News Reader

Germany: Number of unemployed highest in 10 years

dw.com

55 pointsrntn44 comments

Germany’s economic model is broken [0], weak consumer confidence [1] and 3 consecutive years of recession looms [2]. IMF puts it the best “Germany’s Real Challenges are Aging, Underinvestment, and Too Much Red Tape” [3]. It’s easier however to blame nuclear power (I do believe nuclear would help but too much emphasis) and immigrants (many of whom without which Germany would be in further crisis). Then, Germany will wonder why parties like AfD are having a major say in the parliament.

[0] https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/germany-economic-model-bro...

[1] https://www.wsj.com/economy/weak-german-consumer-confidence-...

[2] https://www.dw.com/en/germany-2025-economic-growth-forecast-...

[3] https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2024/03/27/germanys-rea...

Interesting take.

The government hasn't put out numbers how many job losses are tied directly to energy prices - but there's hundreds of articles like: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/24/basf-cut-jo...

Also, immigrants are unemployed at a higher rate than non-immigrants (7% higher for recent immigrants: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp1606.pdf).

I imagine this has little impact on the non-immigrant population - but it is a contributor to why total unemployment is rising (the headline).

Germany is in a weird state. On one hand, it really does have vacancies for jobs, On other hand it has onerous beaurcraric red tape which doesn't allow immigrants (extremely capable, not just refugees) to do those jobs mostly due to language but also other things. It seems to have created this dilemna for themselves.

Not difficult to see if you live in the country.

Every single immigrant speaks perfect German, most of them refuse to speak English.

It's more the opposite in Sweden from my experience.

So, good luck with the language project, I guess.

Leaving people with no future causes a lot of trouble for everyone in the long run.

Energy, being a commodity, is priced at the marginal rate. In other words, its price is currently based on the cost of LNG fed generators. This would be true whether or not Germany had more nuclear.

> and immigrants (many of whom without which Germany would be in further crisis).

Unlike many other countries, Denmark tracked statistics based on immigration status and origin, and found non-Western immigrants to be economically a net-negative:

https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/the-effects-of-immigration-in-... (includes link to official Danish govt. report)

Publishing such findings would be racist in Germany.

People will, as always, interpret this Danish study in whichever way suits their ideological beliefs. However, let me point out that, ideology aside, it is possible for a population to both be a net fiscal negative and yet have a positive influence on the economy.

An extreme instance of this is in slave societies. Slaves don't pay taxes and therefore are a net negative fiscally. Yet the taxes slave owners pay are largely drawn from slave labour and in fact the economy is essentially reliant on the slaves' work.

Likewise, it is possible that immigrants take on low-skilled, low-paid jobs, which are essential to the economy despite not directly contributing fiscally. This then could free the natives to perform more lucrative jobs and thereby contribute more than if immigrants were not there.

In Germany and particularly in the East, immigrants bring in 5.8% of the gross domestic product in value. Without immigrants, the economy would decline and with them, it actually grew.

https://www.iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Studien/Kurzber...

> found non-Western immigrants to be economically a net-negative:

Not really. Some non-Western countries do have positive contributions.

> immigrants bring in 5.8% of the gross domestic product in value

"As of 2019, around 13.7 million people living in Germany, or about 17% of the population, are first-generation immigrants." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany

Your comment is not related to my comment even though you quoted it.

It is directly related. I'll let you figure out how.

As someone living in Germany my opinion is that migration itself is not the real issue: The vast majority of migrants settle in big cities, which remain economically vibrant and offer a high quality of life¹. In contrast, rural areas—where migration is far less common—are often where the strongest opposition to immigration is found².

This pattern may sound familiar to Americans. In the U.S., cities like New York and Los Angeles have large immigrant populations but remain economic powerhouses, while rural areas—where immigration is relatively low—often show the highest levels of anti-immigrant sentiment³.

The real issue isn't migration itself but economic neglect. Under Angela Merkel, Germany pursued neoliberal economic policies that prioritized privatization and austerity, particularly affecting state-funded infrastructure, with crumbling bridges and (compared to what existed prior) dysfunctional systems. Rural areas, which depend more on public investment for services like hospitals, transportation, and education, suffered disproportionately[4]. The same pattern is visible in the U.S., where the decline of manufacturing and the erosion of public services have hit rural areas hardest, fueling resentment toward an urban elite perceived as benefiting from globalization[5].

This is where migration becomes a scapegoat. If people in struggling rural areas feel abandoned by the government while seeing urban centers with visible immigrant populations receiving public investment, they may (wrongly) conclude that immigrants are the reason for their economic struggles. This misdirected resentment, rather than any real economic harm caused by migration, is what drives much of the anti-immigrant sentiment in both Germany and the U.S. [6]

The solution isn't restricting migration—it’s reinvesting in rural communities, improving infrastructure, and addressing the economic roots of resentment. Without that, xenophobia will persist, even in places where immigrants are few and far between.

¹: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2023/10/international-m...

²: https://www.fes.de/referat-demokratie-gesellschaft-und-innov...

³: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/02/the-most-an...

[4]: (It appears superscript signs bigger than 3 aren't supported on Hn) https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.82967...

[5]: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-left-behind-rural-ame...

[6]: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/567191/the-far-righ...

As someone living here as well, kind of agree.

Additionally right extreme movements take advantage of this, by being the main parties helping to take care of rural areas, improving school infrastructures and such, getting people to vote on those that show up, an old trick already used last century.

On my own point, it appears that 79% percent of Germans are of the opinion that migration isn't the most pressing topic: https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Nur-Minderheit-haelt-Migration-f...

Seems like a non-story. Highest X in 10years in a country just isn’t that interesting folks, nor is it that long of a timespan.

It’s also seemingly been brigaded by immediate comments all along the same lines all posted in under a minute of each other.

While I agree with the other comments, that expensive energy is making it difficult for industry in Germany to continue thriving, I think it is not the root cause.

The main problem I perceive (as German in Germany, but I see it all over Europe) is weak leadership. Our current chancellor was pretty much universally perceived as a weak leader. Our ruling politicians have resorted to unambitious projects and smallest common denominator compromises. Germany could have become a global leader in green technology, we had all the ingredients. But in the end we were afraid to make a full commitment, investments were promised then cancelled, laws were promised then not passed, etc. This flip-flopping has made it difficult for industries to make reliable plans and to invest in new technology.

Everybody knew there was a high likelihood Trump would be back and that would mean America first again. We had 8 years to prepare. We did nothing and now again we are surprised he is in power and complain about the effects on Europe. We had 8 years to make ourselves more independent of his political games, we did nothing.

I feel like none of our current big parties have a real vision and strategy for the next 10, 20, 30 years. We are just drifting along hoping it will turn out alright

In the end I think this search for strong leadership is the reason many people are turning to right-leaning if not straight up neonazi parties.

The good news is, the potential is still there. We have a well educated population, energy prices are coming down, our industry is still world leading in many places we just need to use our knowledge and power to become a serious player in this multipolar world again

As one of the most industrialized countries on the planet, it still blows me away how backwards it actually is.

As a small business owner in electronics manufacturing, I have decided not to incorporate a GmbH. It’s not worth the hassle. There is bureaucratic rot everywhere and the number of regulations is only increasing. Even trying to export products outside of the EU past 1000 EUR incurs unnecessary processes that have costs and delays. Why?

Then you have this progressive righteousness that has fuelled deindustrialization in Germany which is simply insane, and the fact that political leaders entertain this nonsense is dangerous. Germany missed the mark so heavily and it will cost decades.

Socialist policians want more regulation in order to protect consumers and citizens. A lot of socialist politicians never have worked in a real job producing anything, so it does not register on their radar that protecting consumer may harm businesses. For them businesses are magical factories of GDP run by evil business sharks that need to be kept in check and more regulations are better.

Oh well. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

The page does not open for me directly; see https://archive.is/93mRQ

The scoop: «The unemployment rate rose by 0.4% since December to 6.4%, the preliminary figures show. That meant the number of unemployed people in the country was 187,000 higher than in January 2024, reaching a total of 2.993 million, the agency reported.»

From the linked source: January 2024 was 6.1%

What I wonder is whether the problem affects regular people to the point where conditions are worse than in the US. Sure, being unemployed is bad, but it's not necessarily a death sentence if a country has decent health care and a social safety net.

Here's an article (German, sorry) about Stihl (chainsaws) threatening to leave Germany

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/stihl-saegenhe...

For me what he says doesn't make a lot of sense. For instance he threatens to go to the Swiss who, he even concedes, has higher wages. Also he complains about too much regulation while he concedes that it is a EU thing. Then he says construction costs in Germany are so high. I have a hard time imagining that construction costs in the Swiss are lower than in Germany.

They certainly aren't, and if there is something Switzerland is known for, are high costs, red tape and regulations.

Taxes are high, spending has risen from Putin's invasion, energy is more expensive.

Less money for investment, less work, more unemployment.

On the face of it, stopping the invasion before it happened was extremely important, and a missed opportunity.

if only they were ever so slightly less afraid of nuclear reactors.

Actually kWh price is around 30 cents [1], which is similar to e.g. California [2]. I think the problem is more likely to be a world-wide trough in demand (Germany famously relies mainly on exports), combined with the fact that wages have practically been stagnating for the past 20 years [3].

[1] https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/energiemonitor-strompreis-gas...

[2] https://www.energysage.com/local-data/electricity-cost/ca/

[3] Sum all entries in the left column, you'll get 0: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Arbeit/Verdienste/Realloeh...

> Actually kWh price is around 30 cents [1], which is similar to e.g. California

California isn't the world's factory - precisely because it has bad energy policy (if you want cheap energy - i.e. you're a factory).

The US economy is famously more than 65% domestic demand driven, and according to [1] California is the state with the most manufacturing in the entire US. So it is absolutely a huge factory.

[1] https://www.industryselect.com/blog/top-10-us-states-for-man...

> California stands as the center for manufacturing output in the United States with over 35,000 manufacturing firms and employing over 1.2 million Californians. Since California supplanted New York in 1965, our manufacturing firms have created new industries and supplied the world with manufactured goods spanning aerospace, computers and electronics, and, most recently, zero emission vehicles.

from [2] https://business.ca.gov/industries/manufacturing/

Manufacturing is ~10% of GDP in California: https://nam.org/state-manufacturing-data/2021-california-man...

California is only the largest manufacturer because it's BY FAR the largest state economy.

Manufacturing was ~20% of German GDP (down to 18.5%): https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/manufacturing-value-add...

If you keep having higher energy than the rest of Europe and the world - you'll keep shrinking your manufacturing as a percentage of GDP (and manufacturing jobs).

> If you keep having higher energy than the rest of Europe and the world - you'll keep shrinking your manufacturing as a percentage of GDP (and manufacturing jobs).

That's correct, but what you describe is an intentional continuation of the general trend of transitioning from secondary to tertiary sector, which has been on-going for several decades. Absent any major disasters or wars I suspect it will taper off at a level only slightly higher than California in percentage of GDP in the long term (40-60 years).

I'm afraid that even if the construction were expedited to the highest possible degree, a new nuclear power plant would take 5-6 years to go online.

If only they had been ever so slightly more friendly towards nuclear reactors, not the France or Korea level, of course, but still. And maybe trusted Mr Putin a tad less. 2022 was a wake-up moment, but 2014 and even 2008 were rather clearly audible signals. Alas...

I am glad that we are afraid. The real costs (no subsidies, fuel, waste and dismantling fully paid by owner) of nuclear are just too high. Hinkley Point in the UK is a warning. Investments are far more effective in solar, wind and storage capabilities. Market prices reflect that very well already.

How many places are there with solar + wind providing the baseload capacity?

I'm all in favor of solar and wind power. But they need batteries to be useful around the clock. The batteries are $100 / kWh, and this number dwarfs the cost of solar installations proper.

Storage capacity has to be built along with solar and wind parks. Its already happening. But more investments are required ("more effective" than nuclear). And the electric grid must be decentralized further to accommodate decentralized storage (from your wall-box at home to industrial storage facilities). And it must not stop at borders.

Regenerative energy already surpassed all other means of energy production in 2024: https://www.bdew.de/media/documents/2024_12_18_Die_Energieve...

Battery prices are declining for some time now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-10/electric-...

And even larger storage capabilities are built: https://standort-sachsen.de/de/aktuelles/news/detail/n1474-g...

(I am actually working for a grid operator)

No it doesn't and it isn't.

If you're working for a grid operator tell me how many TWh you need to sustain a 1-in-20 - A 1-in-goddamn-20 - dunkelflaute in a single large European nation, multiplied by cost of storage. Not the "decline", the absolute cost, and what percentage of GDP it would be. Compare and contrast to military expenditure at a time of near-war.

I also know these numbers.

Solar in Germany makes no sense. A third of the year the country is plunged into darkness. Ultra high voltage power lines and solar farms from Morocco which has pretty much perfect weather year round for solar would be a much better investment but then there is the question of national security risk like NS2

Are you arguing from your gut, or do you actually have some numbers? From all I read, wind and solar are significantly cheaper than nuclear power, with costs of solar expected to keep decreasing.

Yes, I have some numbers. Wholesale electricity costs since 2020 have repeatedly exceeded 700 - SEVEN HUNDRED - Euros per MWh (1). Because it was dark and still, a condition every single European in the last ten thousand years has known to exist. That's your number.

I won't ask you what impact you think that has on, say, steelmaking, because I've lived it. I've picked the tenders and the Euro steel was not competitive with Chinese steel if it was free, due to uncertainty in delivery date.

China spent approx 2x Hinkley Point on nuclear. It has 30 GW of capacity in return. That works in winter. I would do nasty things to get that for my country.

(1) Naturally, French nuclear is literally not allowed to access this price, and must sell at 45. Because FREE MARKET.

I don't see how your numbers (for which a source and some additional context would be appreciated) support your original point ("solar in Germany makes no sense").

As an actual counterpoint, please consider this recent study by Fraunhofer ISE [1], which provides average generation costs for various types of power plants. Even with current battery prices, large scale PV plants supported by battery systems are significantly cheaper than coal, gas and nuclear plants -- and this advantage is expected to increase with falling prices of both battery storage and PV systems.

[1] https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/...

There is a gigantic difference in solar irradiation between winter and summer

https://weatherspark.com/d/148124/12/22/Average-Weather-on-D...

On the other hand we could have much higher numbers of wind powered electricity if folks didn't spent their time doing lawsuits to prevent them being built.

Nuclear power is great for clean, safe electricity generation. But it can't really substitute for natural gas as an industrial feedstock and heat source, which is why much of the German chemicals industry is moving to places like Ohio.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com