Germans under 25 gave the AfD 16% of their vote in the European elections, with particular support in the east
Paul Friedrich, 16, could not wait to cast his first ballot and had no doubt which German party had earned his support in the watershed European elections.
“Correct, I voted AfD,” he said proudly in the bustle of the commuter railway station in Brandenburg an der Havel, an hour from central Berlin.
The far-right Alternative für Deutschland made particularly stunning gains on Sunday among young voters. For the first time in a national poll, 16- and 17-year-olds could cast their ballots – a reform that had been strongly backed by left-leaning parties.
After overwhelmingly supporting the Greens five years ago, Germans under 25 gave the AfD 16% of their vote – an 11-point rise – helping place the party second behind the opposition CDU-CSU conservatives and well ahead of the Social Democrats of the chancellor, Olaf Scholz.
The AfD tapped deep wells of support in the former communist east, winning in every state including Brandenburg, where it claimed 27.5% of the vote.
…
And his concerns echo those of many teenagers and twentysomethings in town: fears of war spreading in Europe, inflation, economic decline, “unchecked” immigration and, above all, violent crime, which they say is rampant when they use public transport or hang out in public spaces at night.
deleted by creator
It’s true, to an extent, but not because migrants bad. You can look at this, but the short of it is that the stats you see in the news are like that mostly because they’re counting illegal immigration and illegal stay as crimes in their stats, which as you can probably guess is pretty flawed. You remove that and the numbers look… still bad but a lot more realistic. Then you realize that migrants are more likely to be poor young men (aka the demographic most likely to commit crime). As the article explains, Syrians for example are actually underrepresented in crime stats, because they tend to be complete family units (most Syrians in Germany were allowed to bring their families over) so the demographics are more representative of a normal society.
deleted by creator
Germany doesn’t report crime as clearly as the Danish do but the countries share a lot of similarities.
https://inquisitivebird.substack.com/p/the-effects-of-immigration-in-denmark
What? Where do you live? I live in near a big city in California, crime is out of control There’s no consequences for many street level crimes now, especially retail theft. I have personally seen people run into stores, grab stuff and run…while employees are just hiding, scared. They call the cops, who won’t come because they’re backed up with more “severe” crime in the city… so, it continues, and continues. Who’s to blame? The cops, who are already stretched thin? The homeless, because hey, they need to eat too! I mean, it’s nuts…I feel like I live in a third world country sometimes…
deleted by creator
I’m glad that crime is down, overall, but it effects people differently depending where they live. I live in California, and drive for a living…traveling to Northern and Southern California often… while some violent crime is down, things like car break-ins, retail theft, petty burglary, and hate crimes have not really changed. Again, people will only react to what they have personally experienced. I was in San Francisco last week… it’s still a shit show. Homeless using drugs, crazy people walking around threatening everyone, theft… nothing has changed.
deleted by creator
Weak bait.
No retail worker cares if their slave master gets robbed, try again
So, make retail theft legal? I’m being serious…should we just not care if people steal?
No, but there is a moral distinction to be made between stealing your wallet and stealing from a multi billion operation. Would you agree to that?
Who do you think pays for the lost inventory?
Who do you think pays for extra security that prevents theft?
What does that have to do with anything?
Simple example – lets say you’d lose 2% of your inventory per year to theft if you did nothing. Your gross income would go down by 2%, so you compensate by raising your prices by 2%.
Now let’s say instead you want to lose ~0% to theft. You’ll have to hire guards, or more likely, contract out to a security company. That’s now going to add to your annual expenditures, let’s say 5%. If you want to compensate for that, you’d need to raise your prices by 5%.
So, here’s the question – what’s actually the better option for the company? It’s hard to say without real life numbers and estimates. But basically, it wouldn’t be worth beefing up security if you’d pay more for that versus what you’d lose to theft.
And that’s only the monetary side of things. Having very public incidents if the thief doesnt cooperate would be bad for business. Worst case scenario, the thief fights back and has a weapon. You’re going to lose waaaaay more in sales than you would’ve if you just let them keep the contraband.
This is why a lot of companies are more lax on shoplifting these days. It just really isn’t worth it. Plus, a serial shoplifter is going to show their face again anyway, and you can quietly accost them preemptively.
Those are the same department of costs if you operate a store. Either you have some amount of theft or you have security that prevents theft. Either way you’ll have to put the costs on your customers. If your customers feel your prices are too high that just means you are doing a bad job at balancing the two.
At a societal level it’s kinda the same. You can invest a lot of money into police or you can invest into social programs so that stealing doesn’t seem like a good option to most. You’ll have to balance the two.
On both levels it’s you the individual that has to bear the costs.