Talk:Poverty in Germany

Article needs further improvement

This article is in need of further improvement. I translated from the German wikipedia. However i did not translate a single article, but translated from several mostly from "Armut" and "Kinderarmut in den Industrieländern". I also translated something from "AWO-Studie" and "Kinderreport 2007". For authors see "history"-"Versionen/autoren" on the German articles. Sorry for my english. I know my translation is anything but perfect. Please help improving this article. It would be greatly appreciated.—Resilienzi (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

4% of poor children are being attmited for Gymnasium

I think that's what AWO said: "Von 100 Kindern, die bereits während ihrer Kindergartenzeit als arm galten, schaffen nach der Grundschule gerade einmal vier den Sprung aufs Gymnasium – bei nicht-armen Kindern sind es 30." Are you worried because the fact that they already have been poor in preschool was not mentioned? I would love to mention it, but my english is not good enough. Do not know how to say this?--Resilienzi (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(concurrent edit) In the source it says: "Von 100 Kindern, die bereits während ihrer Kindergartenzeit als arm galten, schaffen nach der Grundschule gerade einmal vier den Sprung aufs Gymnasium."

The following is a different statement: "According to a AWO-Study only 4% of pupils who are poor are atmitted for Gymnasium."

I hope this is clear. Tomeasy_talk 11:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is what really worries me. By far not all children go to Kindergarten. Especially not the poor, as we state elsewhere. We should not manipulate the source.

Why is the statement about 9% poor pupils less interesting? If we put this number in relation with 17% of the children being poor, it gives becomes the most interesting fact to state, I think.

Don't worry about your English. I am also not a native speaker. As time passes the style of the article will improve. There are many people around who are very good at it. Tomeasy_talk 12:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(concurrent edit) Sprichst Du Deutsch? Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob ich Dich richtig verstanden habe.--Resilienzi (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since we are currently editing a lot at the same time, which is part of the confusion I guess, I will wait some time for my next reply. I hope in the meantime my intention becomes clear. German is my mother tongue. Tomeasy_talk 12:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ich glaube, dass ich jetzt Deine Intention verstanden habe: Es sollte erwähnt werden, dass von 100 armen Kindergartenkindern vier aufs Gymnasium gehen. Wie würde man das sagen? Only 4% out of all children, who had already been poor as preschoolers are atmitted for Gymnasium? Ich bin möglicherweise nicht die ideale Person, um diesen Artikel auszugestalten, da weder Deutsch noch englisch meine Muttersprache ist. Deutsch kann ich allerdings sehr gut und ich lebe auch in Deutschland. Englisch spreche ich weit weniger gut. Da jedoch dieses Thema in der englischen WP bislang ganz gefehlt hat, habe ich mir gedacht: "Ixh fang einfach mal an" und hoffe, dass es weiter ausgebaut wird.--Resilienzi (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your German seems to be perfect. I would have guessed you are a native speaker. However, you should write in English on this page as others might be interested in it later. You can use my private talk page for German discussions. Tomeasy_talk 12:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tomeasy said: Why is the statement about 9% poor pupils less interesting? If we put this number in relation with 17% of the children being poor, it gives becomes the most interesting fact to state, I think. Maybe both facts should be mentioned?!?--Resilienzi (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it get a little bit complicated now, but I would like to show that there is something wrong with the source. Namely, the 4% and the 95 fact do not go well in hand.

Take 100 children, 17 % of which are poor. Hence, 17 poor and 83 rich children, where rich means here nothing else than non-poor. (Here is the only assumption that comes from my side: The chance to later join the Gymnasium depends for both groups equally on whether Kindergarten was visited.) From the 17 poor children 4% will visit Kindergarten and from the 83 rich kids 30%. Hence, from 100 children 24.9 rich visit the Gymnasium and 0.7 poor, together 25.6 children. From this group (27), however, 0.7 poor children make only 2.7% and not as the source claims below 9%.

This is extremely far off, too far actually to explain it by the made assumption. To be precise, the 2.7% value might in reality be a little bit higher, if the percentage of poor children not having visited Kindergarten, but joining Gymnasium after primary school was much much higher than 4%. However, it's not realistic that these two numbers differ extremely. Hence, the source contradicts itself.

NB: People who dislike thinking of fractions of children simply multiply all children numbers by 1 million ;-) Tomeasy_talk 12:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat later the source also states that visiting Kindergarten is beneficial to the educational career of a child. Therefore, it insinuates that from 100 poor children not going to Kindergarten even less than 4% are joining Gymnasium directly after primary school. This closes the circle. I do not rely on my own assumption anymore when I state that the source makes at least one error somewhere. What consequences do we have to draw from that? Tomeasy_talk 13:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hartz concept

"Meanwhile, Hartz IV has become a synonym for the class of non-working poor" Xx236 (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC) The sources are realtively obsolete - 2007, 2008.Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)