This is a question I've often asked myself - albeit from in the US rather than from Germany. While I cannot answer your specific question, I can at least tell you where I landed after asking myself the same question.
> quality of life, politics, social life, social net and tax situation just reached their 30 year low.
I first recognized that this trend was not restricted only to where I live. And so you recognize that this is not about fleeing your location specifically, and is moreso about fleeing a set of conditions that exist in many places and looking for a location that is not characterized by these conditions. The difference I think is important.
Second, I recognized that these conditions are temporal - that is to say that they were not always the case and need not necessarily always be the case in the future. Furthermore, a location without these conditions today is not guaranteed to be free of these conditions in the future. And so any change of location could very well be just temporary - I might need to move again in some X num of years.
Third, when you look at for example Californians fleeing the state and moving to places like Austin, TX - bringing along with them ideologies that are anathema to that of the legacy population, you recognize that it is not just geography that defines the conditions of where one lives, but to a greater degree the people who are living there.
Putting this all together, I arrived at the conclusion that fleeing could at best be a temporary solution and that I would be better served by building relationships in my local community which would produce a higher quality of life for my family. The way you push back on the trend is to re-establish your roots with your people, your nation, and its history. Fleeing will only result in greater isolation and disconnectedness from those around you.
> quality of life, politics, social life, social net and tax situation just reached their 30 year low.
I first recognized that this trend was not restricted only to where I live. And so you recognize that this is not about fleeing your location specifically, and is moreso about fleeing a set of conditions that exist in many places and looking for a location that is not characterized by these conditions. The difference I think is important.
Second, I recognized that these conditions are temporal - that is to say that they were not always the case and need not necessarily always be the case in the future. Furthermore, a location without these conditions today is not guaranteed to be free of these conditions in the future. And so any change of location could very well be just temporary - I might need to move again in some X num of years.
Third, when you look at for example Californians fleeing the state and moving to places like Austin, TX - bringing along with them ideologies that are anathema to that of the legacy population, you recognize that it is not just geography that defines the conditions of where one lives, but to a greater degree the people who are living there.
Putting this all together, I arrived at the conclusion that fleeing could at best be a temporary solution and that I would be better served by building relationships in my local community which would produce a higher quality of life for my family. The way you push back on the trend is to re-establish your roots with your people, your nation, and its history. Fleeing will only result in greater isolation and disconnectedness from those around you.