Supported by benevolent powers throughout life

From our education series Rhetorics 101 for the Condescending Journalist

The main reason why this post about the very German benefits system Hartz-IV is not in German: The tone of the article we will quote merits wider distribution because it shows what folks in "middle Germany" can read about other residents stuck on basic social benefits.

Sometimes it needs a slip of the tongue to get an insight into the thinking of public figures, sometimes the feeling of being in a protected space. Both statements may show up on the internet.

Sometimes people get paid to let loose. Like Rush Limbaugh, or the author of an article in German daily FAZ, Von guten Mächten lebenslang gestützt [Supported by benevolent powers throughout life]*.

We read this one because we thought it would tell us how friends, churches, or charities were supporting Germany's most needy. The start of the article is fine, it asks the question why one million German's have never been able to get off the basic restricted benefits system Hartz-IV since its introduction about ten years ago. 

The article goes on to tell us about some 12 or so common issues found among this group, many struggling with multiple issues.

After this, the author lets loose, and we rubbed our eyes as the journalist moves to a real life example of living under the protection of a benevolent system. 

A 41 year old woman, divorced, one child. Apartment costs of 771 a month (rent, heating, power), no child support payments from the ex-husband and father of the kid.

So, the author picked a working woman who receives supplementary benefits, not full benefits. The claim "supported throughout life" is based on her unfortunate upbringing, which can be interpreted as blaming a child for the failings of the parents.

He goes on to say "Derzeit verdient Nazli etwa 900 Euro netto im Monat. Glaubt sie zumindest" [At present, Nazli makes about 900 Euros after taxes a month. At least, that's what she thinks.]

The first sentence is a statement of fact, the second is gratuitously condescending, as in see, she does not know her exact income. Add that she just changed jobs and the new boss offered her around 1100 before taxes, which make about 900 take home. Add that she looked up the after taxes pay on the internet. 

Point to take away: Plant doubt through casual writing "At least, that's what she thinks.", than recover with the changed jobs, etc. You can easily defend this as factually correct, despite "she thinks" and "she looked it up on the internet" adding nothing beneficial to the story. You simply wanted to add a human touch and show that she knows how to use the internet.

It gets better: Die Schwachstellen des deutschen Sozialrechts kennt auch Nazli freilich ganz gut. [Nazli is quite familiar with the weak points of the German social benefits system]. 

If you expect an illustration of how people can fall through the cracks, you are wrong. The author elaborates on what he sees as a weak point. The lady had a boyfriend for years but never moved in with him. He quotes her: „Wenn du Hartz IV beziehst, kannst du da nicht zusammen wohnen.“[If you get Hartz-IV, you cannot live together.]

Next, he explains that the boyfriend had a sufficient income and, had they moved together, she would have received less money from the Jobcenter. The gentle author has more: Dann doch lieber eine eigene Wohnung und volle Bezüge. Man ist ja nicht blöd. [So, better to have your own place and full benefits. One is not stupid.]

Points to take away: How to go negative using a positive "One is not stupid." Do not mention that some young German military widows received super pensions of 100% of their spouses salaries and failed to marry their next partners because the pension would have gone away.

She makes a few Euros on the side now and then by cutting hair, she somehow has enough money for new cell phone contract when her current mobile goes kaput in the rain. He cites the store price of the phone as 300 to 500 Euros, but says it is less with contract. The cat she bought on eBay for 80 Euros is mentioned, as is the fact that she smokes a packet of cigarettes a day. The author tells her that's 150 Euros a month she could save by quitting cigs. 

[A truth Nazli does not want to hear. Her otherwise friendly voice takes on some undertones of irritation. "Hey, it's my only vice." Shouldn't that be allowed.]

Points to take away: She cheats by making a few Euros on the side. Make point that new phone in store costs 300 to 500 Euros, then mention she does not pay that because she has a two year contract. Do not use "fact" for potential saving of 150 a month on cigs, use "truth". Do not mention that the benefits include child support, which the government will at least try to claw back from the delinquent ex-hubby. Leaving out the right details, adding emphasis in other places is a skill.

We do think that the author of the article is a good writer, maybe not an excellent one, but who are we to judge?

When the blogster wrote this training piece, the FAZ article had not garnered any reader comments yet. 

We went back and checked. Predictably, there are those who hail the journalist's work as spot on, as revealing how people live well without much effort supported by those who work. But other comments show that nuanced thinking is alive and well among the readers. 

* [brackets denote translated text, our translation, feel free to critique]