For more social frugality: just settle for a little less!

Contradictory demands are popular. Against the government's attempts to save money in the health system, the following message is: We need more appointments in doctors' offices, not fewer. However, calls for higher health insurance contributions to finance this are rarely heard. There is a demand for better care for citizens in need of care, although their share of the care costs already appears to be too high. The state should also contribute to private energy costs in order to reduce the cost of living. But no one wants to pay higher taxes.

“Affordability” is the new term for the old social question. All groups in society demand an improvement in their material situation. The poor, the middle and the rich all agree that prosperity must increase. Seen this way, social associations say nothing different than business associations.

The left and the center left also do not face the contradictions that arise from this attitude. The question is: Where will the funds come from in the future to pay all the claims?

The taz is an independent, left-wing and opinionated daily newspaper. We have been arguing in our comments, essays and debate texts since the taz was founded in 1979. We often cannot and do not want to agree on an opinion. That's why you'll find some completely opposing positions here - all part of the very broad left-wing spectrum of opinions.

The economic situation in Germany could look like this in the coming decades: Society generates less profit than before, but has to bear higher costs. There are many reasons for this. Some products – vehicles, for example – that ensured local prosperity for a long time are no longer selling well worldwide. At the same time, many local companies are missing out on innovation leaps in areas such as electric cars, batteries, artificial intelligence, communications technology and platforms. Because the baby boomers are retiring, there is a shortage of workers. Migration will hardly be able to adequately absorb this; the center right and the right-wing extremists are preventing that.

The many old people also cause higher costs for social security. In addition, fossil energy is becoming more expensive. Added to this is the big chunk of defense spending. If Germany and Europe want to maintain their independence from Russia, China and the USA, it will cost gigantic sums of money. Revenues will therefore increase less quickly than before and may even stagnate while costs rise. Therefore, no explosion of prosperity is to be expected in the next 30 to 40 years. Maybe we as a society will be able to maintain our standard of living. But increase private wealth, higher incomes, more pensions, better social benefits? Hardly, at least not for the majority.

At this point, leftists and left-liberals like to say: If you took it from the rich, there would be enough money. It is true that large incomes and assets are growing disproportionately. But the sums that could realistically be skimmed off there are not enough for everything.

It would therefore be a wise political strategy to at least prepare for this development variant of rising costs and falling revenues and to consider its possibility in order to avoid surprises. Through a certain frugality, for example. In practice, this could mean the following as a social adaptation strategy: prosperity no longer increases significantly, but the quality of life can perhaps still increase. Motto: No more, but better.

Private households could, for example, give away their individual vehicles and share one with their neighbors - as long as you don't need the car every day to get to work. This saves costs and opens up space for green spaces in the former parking spaces. Instead of expensive new electrical appliances, you can buy good, used ones for less. You could also join organizations that pick up food from supermarkets and health food stores in the evenings in many cities so that it doesn't get thrown away - without having to pay for it. In this way, a small part of the purchase could be saved without sacrificing quality. Reducing private costs may also make it possible to do a few hours less paid work.

This text first appeared in wochentaz, our weekly newspaper from the left!

Every week, wochentaz is about the world as it is – and as it could be. A left-wing weekly newspaper with a voice, attitude and the special taz view of the world. New every Saturday at the kiosk and of course by subscription.

And instead of calling for the garbage collector, the garbage lying around on the sidewalks can be cleaned up yourself in a joint effort. If you arrange to meet up with the neighborhood and then set up a grill and leave a case of beer next to it, you might even have fun. And people who mistrust each other start talking.

The same applies to the new paint job in the classroom - which unfortunately the city administration has not been able to do for years. Older people report that something like this was not uncommon in the 1970s or 1980s. The West Berlin master painter renovated the neighboring kindergarten free of charge at the weekend. He was assured of the gratitude and orders of the neighborhood.

Community spirit means looking around, making public space your own business, talking to people, taking responsibility, and even keeping the shared infrastructure in order. This can ease the burden on the state. But the state could also become more frugal. The political possibilities are diverse. Just an idea to show the scope: Civil servants could pay social contributions for their pensions, as all employees subject to social insurance do as a matter of course.

Today, the retirement costs of many teachers, police officers and department heads are financed through general taxes. Paying 9 percent pension contributions from civil servants' salaries certainly means a cut, but it would relieve the public coffers of billions of euros. Saving money in some places in order not to keep expanding the supply state does not have to be neoliberal.

Social romanticism, collectivism? Such ideas have actually been discussed much more widely than today, including in this newspaper. The economist Niko Paech and the green environmental politician Reinhard Loske recommended “sufficiency” – an attitude that was based on doubts about eternally possible growth. It fell out of fashion in the 2010s, when economic growth and ecology seemed to go hand in hand.

Of course, you have to be able to afford frugality. Poor people are less likely to be able to do this because they spend most of their money on rent, food and necessary mobility. Frugality is a model for the middle and the wealthy. Nevertheless, politicians should talk about it. It is said that they can only lose by asking them to give up. But they also have to manage expectations and try to reduce the political tensions between unrealistic expectations and sobering reality.

Such a debate must of course go hand in hand with justice policy. The wealthier half of the population can tolerate certain reductions in their material well-being. The meager economic gain that may be left over the next few decades should go to people who earn little, work two jobs a day and have little to live on.

Totally unrealistic? After 250 years of a growth economy, the slowdown will occur at some point anyway, gradually. That doesn't have to mean zero growth, but perhaps only 0.5 percent instead of 1.5 percent growth in gross domestic product. If only because the world population will probably pass its peak this century. The engine runs, but a little slower.