Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

The Imitation Of Germany

by afew Sat Feb 4th, 2012 at 09:03:50 AM EST

Media peddling of received wisdom likes to dwell on the Economy to Emulate du jour. Seeriouss People™ are reported or filmed saying they've crunched the numbers or just returned from a visit to such and such a place, and my word they're impressed. Journalists repeat the puffwords "successful, vibrant, surging, stellar, GDP growth, full employment..." In the 1980s, in the French media at least, it was Japan. Then Japan hit a rock and has since gone off the radar. In the Blair years, it was the UK England London. No more now. For long it was the "insolent good health" of the American economy, just when that economy was rotten to the core. Don't hear that any more. These days it's Germany.

So Nicolas Sarkozy went on six French TV channels last Sunday, with much pomp and obsequious journalists asking predetermined questions, to say he was going to make France imitate Germany. Raise VAT, reduce employers' payroll contributions, put an end to the 35-hour working week, weaken collective bargaining even more than in Germany with enterprise-by-enterprise renegotiation of hours and pay (more of one and less of the other). As usual with Sarko, it was smoke and mirrors, since he was announcing as decisions on his part measures that would be applied after the presidential elections... when he stands a good chance of being an ex-president, and the measures of not being applied. But, through the smoke, it's an image that he wants to project of the tough guy telling it like it is, and "like it is" is TINA - Germany is right, we have no choice but to copy the Germans.

If anyone wonders why any other eurozone country, France in this case, should want to copy Germany, Sarkozian smoke billows. Too much emphasis on German exports might sail close to the dangerous waters of the effect of those exports on the eurozone. So it's the success of the German economy - GDP growth, full employment - that is touted.


Looking at German employment figures (see also the comments), it became clear that new job creation in Germany, for over a decade, was almost exclusively down to part-time work at fairly short hours, taken up in the majority by women. That looks like women taking part-time positions to bring a little money into households that need it.

While overall real earnings stagnate year-on-year, the Federal Employment Agency gives the figure of between 11 and 12% of those in employment as holding jobs that are beneath the social security contributions threshold - "mini-jobs" at €400 a month, or one euro an hour jobs for the longterm unemployed, for instance. The French newspaper La Croix, in a survey of Germany, cites the economic research institute DIW as giving the figure of 1.2 million wage-earners in 2010 receiving an hourly rate of <= €5 (five). (There is no cross-sector guaranteed minimum wage in Germany). Full-employment economy? Not so much.

Ah, but what about those more than 3% GDP growth numbers we keep hearing about? Growth numbers always depend on where the economy is coming from, and Germany has come back from a well-marked trough. As pointed out by Francisco Vergara in Alternatives Economiques, the climb back is already out of puff. From DESTATIS:

German GDP has risen to its level of the first quarter of 2008, just before the financial crisis, and shows signs of stopping there and stagnating, as DIW's respected Economic Barometer forecast shows:

The IMF forecasts GDP growth for Germany of 0.3% over the year 2012. Taken all in all, that means that German GDP has regained its level of before the financial crisis, and will go on stagnating there (as it used to).

Full employment not, stellar GDP growth not, why should any country wish to emulate Germany?

Oh, the industrial and financial bourgeoisie is raking it in on the export economy? Right, silly me. Whatever was I thinking of?

Display:
Francisco Vergara is a Chilean philosopher and economist. He has a website here offering articles and papers in French, Spanish, and English.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2012 at 09:31:47 AM EST
Fabian Lindner had an article in Social Europe covering pretty much similar issues: Following Germany's Lead to Economic Disaster...

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2012 at 12:40:52 PM EST
Very good article.

Following Germany's Lead to Economic Disaster

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's explicit goal was to create a low-pay sector in which the long-term unemployed would find jobs. The lack of minimum wages and the higher pressure on the unemployed caused a severe downward wage trend.  The share of the low-pay sector (less than 9 € per hour) in overall employment strongly increased from 15 % in 1998 to 22 % in 2005 and hasn't fallen since. It is now close to the size of the British low-pay sector but with one difference: without minimum wages, there is no bottom for German wages. Tax cuts and pressure on the poor had their natural consequence: nowhere in the OECD did inequality increase as much over the last ten years as it did in Germany.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2012 at 01:26:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If we're honest, the left-wing project is really now lacking useful examples to point to, anywhere in the developed world.

That's not a reason to give up, but it's not a happy thought -  we're arguing for the creation of a kind of state that no longer really exists.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2012 at 01:58:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
These days, Korea is starting to look more developed than most Eurozone countries.

But of course, Korea has an actual industrial policy. Funny how that works.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2012 at 03:30:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And it occurs to none of these worthies that imitating Germany's economic policies when you do not have Germany's economy might be a problem. Reminds me of the meme of "think and vote like the rich and maybe you will become rich".

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2012 at 03:45:55 PM EST
It's the most basic trick in marketing: sell the aspiration, not the product.  Thus when you see the Bacardi ad with the beautiful women beachside you are being sold a lifestyle to aspire to, not a liquid. The liquid or brand is merely the pavlovian stimulus for the desired experience.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2012 at 07:13:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The comparision with the rich is appropriate as being rich is to have claims on others labor, and the mercantilistic strategy followed by such countries as Germany, China and Sweden, depends on there being others who are comfortable with issuing claims in exchange for products.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Sat Feb 4th, 2012 at 09:33:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
if ou just look at the last five or sic years the laboue market and up tp point growth loks different. (Not the development of wages)

That is important because as far as I know nobody in Germany claims that the german model or whatever was successfull until 2006 or so.

I will start with the employment report of January 2005:
(actually the oldest available):

In november 2004:

overall employed: 38.96 million
employment in jobs subject to full social security payments:      26.75 million
self-employed:  4.32 million
marginally employed:  4.86 million

in November 2011:

overall employed: 41.47 million (+ 2,51)
employment in jobs subject to full social security payments:      29.00 million (+ 2,25)
self-employed:  4.56 million (+ 0,24)
marginally employed:  4.89 million (+ 0,02 )

So the growth in employment is not a marginal employment growth anymore and self-employment and employment in social security jobs grow at the same rate.

Now on to part-time and full time employment: according to eurostat LFS, it is:

Fulltime:   24.231,5 Q3 2005    25.758,9 Q3 2011
part-time:   7.560,8 Q3 2005     9.203,0 Q3 2011

So 1.5 million full-time and 1.7 million part-time jobs gained.

As you can see, the numbers do support the current opinion in Germany, that there is a "employment miracle".

Higher economic growth in 2006 and 2007  - 3,9% and 3,4% according to the OECD influences the opinion in Germany on having found the right model again too.

by IM on Fri Feb 3rd, 2012 at 07:52:52 PM EST
if ou just look at the last five or sic years the laboue market and up tp point growth loks different. (Not the development of wages)

That is important because as far as I know nobody in Germany claims that the german model or whatever was successfull until 2006 or so.

There's a term in applied statistics for selecting arbitrary subsets of your data ex post and attempting to make inferences based on them. It's called a fishing expedition. If that epithet sounds derogatory, then that's because it is.

The figure below illustrates why you should not go on fishing expeditions:


(h/t: Greg Laden)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2012 at 08:27:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are calling me a climate change denier? And you want to compare climate science to fucking economics? Severe case of physics envy, what? And if that sounds derogatory it's because it is.

And why is using 1999 or 2000 as starting point any less arbitrary?  

Economic cycle? Now problem: I will compare the third quarter of 2009 and the third quarter of 2011? Won#t make you happier, I guess.

by IM on Sat Feb 4th, 2012 at 04:25:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are calling me a climate change denier?

No, I'm saying that you're using shit statistics. That .gif was just the most handy one to illustrate your particular brand of statistics mistake. I could have made the same point by stripping it of axis labels and header, but that would have required a .gif-editor.

And why is using 1999 or 2000 as starting point any less arbitrary?

It's not, but it's more likely to be meaningful, for the simple reason that you have a bigger data set. If the longer timeline gives you one trend, and a shorter subset of that timeline gives you the opposite trend, it's the shorter one that's more suspicious.

Economic cycle? Now problem: I will compare the third quarter of 2009 and the third quarter of 2011? Won't make you happier, I guess.

No, it doesn't, because you're still picking out an arbitrary subset after the fact and doing a statistical analysis on that and only that subset. To justify that, you need to argue that (a) something interesting happened to the fundamentals in 2006 (or 2009 if you want to do that) that justifies running a test for breaks in the trend. "It started working in 2006" is not a change that justifies testing for breaks in the data. "The new minimum wage came into force in 2006" is a change that justifies testing for breaks in the data. And (b) your statistical estimator is sound.

You haven't and it isn't.

There are ways to detect breaks in time series. There are ways to take cyclical components out of time series. Just picking a perceived break point or two arbitrary dates out of your time series is not one of them.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2012 at 04:51:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So you admit 1999 is as arbitrary? And look, you should admit to yourself that the labour market is not the climate and labour market data not a temperature record. The thirty or forty years you need in climate science don't make much sense in a view at the trends of the labour market. I could start in november 1971, but would that really gave us any useful trend? Or in 1948 or 1919 or 1871 or 1815. Would you really do this?

As it happens, at least my start point isn't arbitrary at all: growth in Q1 2005: -0.1%, growth in Q2 2005: +0.7. Start of crisis Q2 2008. So I could compare Q1 2005 and Q1 2008 or Q2 2008 and Q2 2008.But you won't like the results either.

And:

>. To justify that, you need to argue that (a) something interesting happened to the fundamentals in 2006 (or 2009 if you want to do that) that justifies running a test for breaks in the trend. "It started working in 2006" is not a change that justifies testing for breaks in the data. "The new minimum wage came into force in 2006" is a change that justifies testing for breaks in the data.>

No problem: Hartz IV started January first 2005. correlation, if you ask me, but you wanted that sort of argument.

by IM on Sat Feb 4th, 2012 at 06:12:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So you admit 1999 is as arbitrary? And look, you should admit to yourself that the labour market is not the climate and labour market data not a temperature record. The thirty or forty years you need in climate science don't make much sense in a view at the trends of the labour market. I could start in november 1971, but would that really gave us any useful trend? Or in 1948 or 1919 or 1871 or 1815. Would you really do this?

Depends on what question I wanted answered. If I want to answer the question "what was the impact of German reunification on West German manufacturing?" I would look at the twenty years since and the twenty years preceding reunification. If I want to answer the question "what is the impact of Hartz IV?" I would look at all data since the reunification. Why the reunification? Because that's such a major confounder that disentangling the confounding effects of the reunification will be a bigger project than analysing Hartz IV.

Is this arbitrary? Yes, to some extent. All statistics involves arbitrary judgment calls in specifying your model. But notice that I give reasons for my picking those particular dates. If you can give other reasons for picking other dates, we can have a discussion about which dates are more reasonable. If you just pull a set of dates out of your ass, then we can't have a meaningful conversation about their relevance.

Alternatively, one could go the other way: Use one of the several statistical methods that finds breaks in the data itself, and use the location of those break points to sanity-check one's model of the economy.

No problem: Hartz IV started January first 2005. correlation, if you ask me, but you wanted that sort of argument.

I also wanted a properly specified model.

But I can actually well believe that the German "success" since 2006 is due to Hartz IV, because it dovetails nicely with what one would expect from a mercantilist wage suppression strategy. So it's intuitively reasonable.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2012 at 06:28:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
>If you just pull a set of dates out of your ass, then we can't have a meaningful conversation about their relevance.>

That is idiotic. I used the same sources of data as the diary under discussion. And as you admitted my end nd start points were as arbitrary or non-arbitrary as in the diary.

 >I also wanted a properly specified model.>

A model of what? And why should I care what you wanted?

 >But I can actually well believe that the German "success" since 2006 is due to Hartz IV, because it dovetails nicely with what one would expect from a mercantilist wage suppression strategy. So it's intuitively reasonable.>

Your intuition, if you look at the developments of wages since 1990, is wrong. These certainly was no statistical break in 2006.

by IM on Sat Feb 4th, 2012 at 06:34:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One reasonable reason for taking 1999 as a starting point is that it was the introduction of the euro as currency of account.

And, when you compare 2005 to now, don't forget that for years before that, the German economy was losing fulltime jobs and replacing them with part-time.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2012 at 08:14:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The euro caused it?

>And, when you compare 2005 to now, don't forget that for years before that, the German economy was losing fulltime jobs and replacing them with part-time.>

True, but and that is my point, in 1999 - 2011, the 1999-2005 period and the 2006-2011 period look quite different.

by IM on Sat Feb 4th, 2012 at 02:42:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not saying the euro caused anything - I'm referring to the time series examined by Rexecode and the OFCE in my previous diary, that looked at the euro period. It's not an entirely arbitrary choice.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2012 at 04:12:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The numbers you cite are not easy to understand.

IM:

overall employed: 41.47 million (+ 2,51)
employment in jobs subject to full social security payments:      29.00 million (+ 2,25)
self-employed:  4.56 million (+ 0,24)
marginally employed:  4.89 million (+ 0,02 )

a) 41.7 mn total employed - 29 mn with social security = 12.7 mn

b) 4.56 mn self-employed + 4.89 mn marginal = 9.45 mn

c) a - b = 3.25 mn unaccounted for

What kind of non-social security jobs do these 3.25 mn have?

IM:

Fulltime:   24.231,5 Q3 2005    25.758,9 Q3 2011
part-time:   7.560,8 Q3 2005     9.203,0 Q3 2011

Q3 2011: fulltime 25.8 mn + part-time 9.2 mn = 35 mn (as against a total of 41.7 mn)

Where are the 6.7 mn others?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2012 at 08:46:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
>What kind of non-social security jobs do these 3.25 mn have?>

I should have added this: about 2 million civil servants should be in there. Don't know about the remaining million.

>Where are the 6.7 mn others?>

I used the LFS numbers to get numbers on full-time and part-time employed. This are the numbers for employed, excluding the 4 million self-employed.

>The numbers you cite are not easy to understand.>

But I did use the same sources you did.

by IM on Sat Feb 4th, 2012 at 02:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The thing is, LFS numbers don't add up to 41 million employed. I don't know why.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2012 at 04:15:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
39,224.4 Q3 2011 total employment

10,069.8 Q3 2011 part time

29,154.6 Q3 2011 full time

There is gap of about 2.25 mill. Now the LFS data is Q3, but of course there wasn't employment growth of 2.25 mill between Q3 and Q4. It isn't self-employed either, that would be 4.2 mill. probably they excluded soldiers, but there aren't 2.25 mill. professional soldiers in Germany. civil servants would (barely) fit, but that would be unusual.  

Eurostat explains:

>Employed persons are persons aged 15 and over who performed work, even for just one hour per week, for pay, profit or family gain during the reference week or were not at work but had a job or business from which they were temporarily absent because of, for instance, illness, holidays, industrial dispute, and education or training.>

>Employees are defined as persons who work for a public or private employer and who receive compensation in the form of wages, salaries, payment by results or payment in kind; non-conscript members of the armed forces are also included.>

So they do include soldiers; mysterious.

by IM on Sat Feb 4th, 2012 at 04:40:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are employees like sales representatives who are paid according to sales or production and don't have working time exluded from full time and part time employment statistics?
by Jute on Mon Feb 6th, 2012 at 07:20:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Rather than time series, here's a picture of the proportion of part-time jobs in total for the 3rd quarter of 2011, from LFS Eurostat:

The Netherlands are the champions, as always. Germany has, all the same over 1 in 4 jobs part-time.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Feb 5th, 2012 at 12:27:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
German Exports Slump Faster Than Forecast as Crisis Damps Growth: Economy - Bloomberg

German exports fell four times more than economists forecast in December as the sovereign debt crisis damped growth across the euro region.

Exports slumped 4.3 percent from November, when they rose 2.6 percent, the Federal Statistics Office in Wiesbaden said today. Economists predicted a decline of 1 percent, according to the median of 17 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey. French business confidence held near its lowest level in more than two years in January on recession concerns, the Bank of France said in another report.

While the German economy, Europe's largest, probably shrank 0.25 percent in the final three months of 2011, data this year suggest it may avoid recession, which is commonly defined as two consecutive quarterly contractions. Business sentiment jumped to a five-month high in January and factory orders gained 1.7 percent in December, driven by demand from outside the 17-nation euro area.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Feb 8th, 2012 at 02:20:51 PM EST
There as here it only seems to matter if they can avoid fulfilling the official definition of (insert negative economic indicator here.)

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Feb 8th, 2012 at 02:31:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think France if going to post 0% growth this quarter in order to avoid two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

tens of millions of people stand to see their lives ruined because the bureaucrats at the ECB don't understand introductory economics -- Dean Baker
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 8th, 2012 at 03:15:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
PM. Perception Management. Not any real econometrics.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Feb 8th, 2012 at 03:57:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Insight: The dark side of Germany's jobs miracle | Reuters

(Reuters) - Anja has been scrubbing floors and washing dishes for two euros an hour over the past six years. She is bewildered when she sees newspapers hailing Germany's "job miracle."

"My company exploited me," says the 50-year-old, sitting in the kitchen of her small flat in the eastern German town of Stralsund. "If I could find something else, I'd be long gone."

Stralsund is an attractive seaside town but Anja, who preferred not to use her full name for fear of being fired, cannot afford the quaint cafes.

Wage restraint and labor market reforms have pushed the jobless rate down to a 20-year low, and the German model is often cited as an example for European nations seeking to cut unemployment and become more competitive.

But critics say the reforms that helped create jobs also broadened and entrenched the low-paid and temporary work sector, boosting wage inequality.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Feb 8th, 2012 at 02:26:14 PM EST
Afew this is a very nice dairy, many interesting links to explore.

After seeing people in Athens burning the german flag I must stress that it is not Germany or a germanic model failing, but the austerian, blind monetarist model that is failing. Perhaps a theme for a another diary, austerianism starts to feel as the greatest enemy of Federalism.

luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]protonmail[dot]ch) on Wed Feb 8th, 2012 at 05:04:16 PM EST
Thanks, Luis.

Germany, that was the major member state that supported federalism most, has unfortunately long since taken a different tack.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Feb 9th, 2012 at 03:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]