series
authors
data
Product: book
ISBN-10: 0-520-25188-1
ISBN-13: 9780520251885
Publisher: University of California Press
Country:
Year: July 9, 2007
Edition: 1
Size: 13.97 x 21.34 x 1.52cm
Number of pages: 160
Weight: 295gr
Binding: hardback
ISBN-10: 0-520-25188-1
ISBN-13: 9780520251885
Publisher: University of California Press
Country:
Year: July 9, 2007
Edition: 1
Size: 13.97 x 21.34 x 1.52cm
Number of pages: 160
Weight: 295gr
Binding: hardback
editions
order
catalog
description
Product Description
Although middle-income families don't earn much more than they did several decades ago, they are buying bigger cars, houses, and appliances. To pay for them, they spend more than they earn and carry record levels of debt. In a book that explores the very meaning of happiness and prosperity in America today, Robert Frank explains how increased concentrations of income and wealth at the top of the economic pyramid have set off »expenditure cascades« that raise the cost of achieving many basic goals for the middle class. Writing in lively prose for a general audience, Frank employs up-to-date economic data and examples drawn from everyday life to shed light on reigning models of consumer behavior. He also suggests reforms that could mitigate the costs of inequality. Falling Behind compels us to rethink how and why we live our economic lives the way we do.
Copub: Russell Sage Foundation
Although middle-income families don't earn much more than they did several decades ago, they are buying bigger cars, houses, and appliances. To pay for them, they spend more than they earn and carry record levels of debt. In a book that explores the very meaning of happiness and prosperity in America today, Robert Frank explains how increased concentrations of income and wealth at the top of the economic pyramid have set off »expenditure cascades« that raise the cost of achieving many basic goals for the middle class. Writing in lively prose for a general audience, Frank employs up-to-date economic data and examples drawn from everyday life to shed light on reigning models of consumer behavior. He also suggests reforms that could mitigate the costs of inequality. Falling Behind compels us to rethink how and why we live our economic lives the way we do.
Copub: Russell Sage Foundation
reviews
Good overview of the US economic development 
I liked this book. I will recommend it to anyone who is interested in reviewing social aspects of economic development in the US.
I liked this book. I will recommend it to anyone who is interested in reviewing social aspects of economic development in the US.
who is cool depends on who is cool
The first college I went to was a small community college out in the middle of nowhere. Most of its residents were extremely poor people fresh from the factory. In such an environment, I felt very wealthy and did not see the need to buy better clothes. I soon transferred to Michigan State University. Talk about a sea-change. Suddenly, I was the odd man out. My clothes were otiose, my habits slovenly and my look unkempt. It was extremely stressful (I am sure my HPA was going nuts pumping cortisol like crazy). I needed a new wardrobe. Not only that, but I need a conspicuously expensive and ridiculous one. If you take this experience and apply it across the middle class board, you have Mr. Frank's book. You see, all of the middle class is in a positional arms race over goods like cars, houses, clothes, watches, and other oddities, while skimping over public goods, insurance, and saftey. Frank compares this arms race to animals who constantly get bigger antlers to compete and get females. Soon the antlers are so big and cumbersome that they are a handicap in many ways. Yet, if a mutation 'attempts' to take over the population and make smaller antlers, the bigger antlers will win because animals that possess them can fight better and monopolize the females. Frank calls this the »smart for one, dumb for all« principle. I think the reasons are fairly obvious. Similarly, if we would all agree to limit the size of our house and cars and pay more for roads and parks, we would all benefit. However, there is always going to be that one idiot who gets the bigger house and the SUV. Now he is rolling in attention, going to the best school, and safer than ever in his huge SUV. All it takes is this small spark to ignite an all out war for position. But, remember, since position is relative, we end up in the same spot anyway! Except, we are now skimming on the important, non-positional public goods. Frank's book is a short, lucid, and compelling account of what is going on with the middle class. I think he gives short shrift to role of the media and corporations, but his theories and ideas do have the benefit of being parsimonious and logical. Great book.
The first college I went to was a small community college out in the middle of nowhere. Most of its residents were extremely poor people fresh from the factory. In such an environment, I felt very wealthy and did not see the need to buy better clothes. I soon transferred to Michigan State University. Talk about a sea-change. Suddenly, I was the odd man out. My clothes were otiose, my habits slovenly and my look unkempt. It was extremely stressful (I am sure my HPA was going nuts pumping cortisol like crazy). I needed a new wardrobe. Not only that, but I need a conspicuously expensive and ridiculous one. If you take this experience and apply it across the middle class board, you have Mr. Frank's book. You see, all of the middle class is in a positional arms race over goods like cars, houses, clothes, watches, and other oddities, while skimping over public goods, insurance, and saftey. Frank compares this arms race to animals who constantly get bigger antlers to compete and get females. Soon the antlers are so big and cumbersome that they are a handicap in many ways. Yet, if a mutation 'attempts' to take over the population and make smaller antlers, the bigger antlers will win because animals that possess them can fight better and monopolize the females. Frank calls this the »smart for one, dumb for all« principle. I think the reasons are fairly obvious. Similarly, if we would all agree to limit the size of our house and cars and pay more for roads and parks, we would all benefit. However, there is always going to be that one idiot who gets the bigger house and the SUV. Now he is rolling in attention, going to the best school, and safer than ever in his huge SUV. All it takes is this small spark to ignite an all out war for position. But, remember, since position is relative, we end up in the same spot anyway! Except, we are now skimming on the important, non-positional public goods. Frank's book is a short, lucid, and compelling account of what is going on with the middle class. I think he gives short shrift to role of the media and corporations, but his theories and ideas do have the benefit of being parsimonious and logical. Great book.
Working Harder for Average
The dictum »context is everything« is certainly true when it comes to assessing the value of material goods. In Falling Behind, economist Robert H. Frank shows that what we consider »average« or »good enough« in a home or car is determined by context: what are others around us driving? where are they living? Is a `79 Chevy Nova is adequate (or even luxuriant)? The answer to this depends on the cars driven by others around us. This context varies between Cuba and the snazzier parts of L.A. Context matters in assessing the value of many things: cars, real estate, appliances, clothing. Not all goods are evaluated in this way: Frank categorizes those that are as positional goods. Frank lays to rest the notion that wanting what others have is greed or envy, or that we are duped by snazzy advertising. Rather, it is natural to judge one's own assets in terms of local context. Having less than the »norm« has tangible consequences for professionals: Doctors or lawyers who fail to keep up appearances will be judged as incompetent. People who choose to buy smaller homes will end up in poorer neighborhoods, and suffer their attendant problems. The inflation of positional goods is driven by income inequality. Since the 1970's, the incomes of those at the very top has risen dramatically, while those at the bottom are now earning about the same or less. (If you want clear graphics and elucidated statistics on rising income inequality, look no further than chapter 2.) However, changing standards for what constitutes a luxury home or car have »trickled down« so that middle-income Americans now need to spend more to achieve average. Frank likens the arms-race style inflation of positional goods to the metaphor of the stadium. If one spectator stands up, he/she will get a better view. But if everyone stands, they will all have the same view as before, except they will have given up their comfy seats. The author calls this behavior »smart for one, dumb for all.« Frank outlines what working and middle class families have had to sacrifice to achieve the new average: time, equity, and investment in public works. Workers must live farther from work to afford average, and have longer commutes. They work longer hours, and sleep less. Families don't save as much, and they go into debt. People who feel strapped for cash are less willing to pay the taxes necessary to maintain roads and schools, so these services get cut. For all that I enjoyed this book, I cannot rate it a 5. While the tone through most of the book was jargon-free and accessible to the non-economist, Frank lapses into dense econo-speak in places (notably chapters 6 and 7). Frank also delves into »Darwinian« hypotheses in chapter 6, which only detracted from his larger point. After all, he had already made the case for the positional judgement of goods. The evo-psych explanation lacks any evidential support, and merely stating that it is the »biological,« or, worse yet, »Darwinian« point of view is not sufficient for it to be taken seriously. The final chapters redeemed this book for me, as the author proposes a novel, progressive tax solution: taxing consumption while exempting savings. A progressive marginal tax rate on consumption would reward those who save rather than spend, limiting the inflation of positional goods as people opt for smaller mansions and more utilitarian vehicles. The tax is not regressive: People earning modest salaries can apply their deduction to their taxable consumption, so that they are not penalized for being unable to save. If you want to know why the rich get richer, the poor and middle class can't get ahead, and houses and cars seem to have doped up on steroids since 1970, give this book a read.
The dictum »context is everything« is certainly true when it comes to assessing the value of material goods. In Falling Behind, economist Robert H. Frank shows that what we consider »average« or »good enough« in a home or car is determined by context: what are others around us driving? where are they living? Is a `79 Chevy Nova is adequate (or even luxuriant)? The answer to this depends on the cars driven by others around us. This context varies between Cuba and the snazzier parts of L.A. Context matters in assessing the value of many things: cars, real estate, appliances, clothing. Not all goods are evaluated in this way: Frank categorizes those that are as positional goods. Frank lays to rest the notion that wanting what others have is greed or envy, or that we are duped by snazzy advertising. Rather, it is natural to judge one's own assets in terms of local context. Having less than the »norm« has tangible consequences for professionals: Doctors or lawyers who fail to keep up appearances will be judged as incompetent. People who choose to buy smaller homes will end up in poorer neighborhoods, and suffer their attendant problems. The inflation of positional goods is driven by income inequality. Since the 1970's, the incomes of those at the very top has risen dramatically, while those at the bottom are now earning about the same or less. (If you want clear graphics and elucidated statistics on rising income inequality, look no further than chapter 2.) However, changing standards for what constitutes a luxury home or car have »trickled down« so that middle-income Americans now need to spend more to achieve average. Frank likens the arms-race style inflation of positional goods to the metaphor of the stadium. If one spectator stands up, he/she will get a better view. But if everyone stands, they will all have the same view as before, except they will have given up their comfy seats. The author calls this behavior »smart for one, dumb for all.« Frank outlines what working and middle class families have had to sacrifice to achieve the new average: time, equity, and investment in public works. Workers must live farther from work to afford average, and have longer commutes. They work longer hours, and sleep less. Families don't save as much, and they go into debt. People who feel strapped for cash are less willing to pay the taxes necessary to maintain roads and schools, so these services get cut. For all that I enjoyed this book, I cannot rate it a 5. While the tone through most of the book was jargon-free and accessible to the non-economist, Frank lapses into dense econo-speak in places (notably chapters 6 and 7). Frank also delves into »Darwinian« hypotheses in chapter 6, which only detracted from his larger point. After all, he had already made the case for the positional judgement of goods. The evo-psych explanation lacks any evidential support, and merely stating that it is the »biological,« or, worse yet, »Darwinian« point of view is not sufficient for it to be taken seriously. The final chapters redeemed this book for me, as the author proposes a novel, progressive tax solution: taxing consumption while exempting savings. A progressive marginal tax rate on consumption would reward those who save rather than spend, limiting the inflation of positional goods as people opt for smaller mansions and more utilitarian vehicles. The tax is not regressive: People earning modest salaries can apply their deduction to their taxable consumption, so that they are not penalized for being unable to save. If you want to know why the rich get richer, the poor and middle class can't get ahead, and houses and cars seem to have doped up on steroids since 1970, give this book a read.
Premised on a normative assertion … 
Dr. Robert Frank's work is symptomatic of the graduate educational system in America. Dr. Thomas Sowell's analysis of research/teaching schools in chapter 4, Academic Facts and Fallacies, in his book »Economic Facts and Fallacies« explores some of the underlying causes. In Dr. Walter E. Williams' book, »Liberty Versus the Tyranny of Socialism«, on page 256, in an article titled Straight Thinking 101, Dr. Williams explains the difference between positive and normative assertions. Positive assertions can be tested by empirical evidence, while normative assertions are opinion and cannot be proven empirically. Dr. Frank's assertion that affluent Americans earn and spend too much is normative, and therefore suspect. He must first prove his hypothesis that affluent Americans earn and spend too much before he can go on to prove that others are harmed as a result of their spending. Here's my normative statement, one's time would be better spent reading »Economic Facts and Fallacies« or »Liberty Versus the Tyranny of Socialism« than reading »Falling Behind: How Rising Inequality Harms the Middle Class.« See: [ … ] Economic Facts and Fallacies Liberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism: Controversial Essays
Dr. Robert Frank's work is symptomatic of the graduate educational system in America. Dr. Thomas Sowell's analysis of research/teaching schools in chapter 4, Academic Facts and Fallacies, in his book »Economic Facts and Fallacies« explores some of the underlying causes. In Dr. Walter E. Williams' book, »Liberty Versus the Tyranny of Socialism«, on page 256, in an article titled Straight Thinking 101, Dr. Williams explains the difference between positive and normative assertions. Positive assertions can be tested by empirical evidence, while normative assertions are opinion and cannot be proven empirically. Dr. Frank's assertion that affluent Americans earn and spend too much is normative, and therefore suspect. He must first prove his hypothesis that affluent Americans earn and spend too much before he can go on to prove that others are harmed as a result of their spending. Here's my normative statement, one's time would be better spent reading »Economic Facts and Fallacies« or »Liberty Versus the Tyranny of Socialism« than reading »Falling Behind: How Rising Inequality Harms the Middle Class.« See: [ … ] Economic Facts and Fallacies Liberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism: Controversial Essays
Interesting thoughts on the design of the US economic system 
I have never read any of Frank's other books before reading this one. I have read over 200 books on investing, and this book piqued my interest because I have always been interested in income inequality. Wilfred Pareto, the Italian economist, found interesting phenomena when he researched who had most of the income and wealth in Italy in the early 1900's. He was surprised to find that 20% of the population had 80% of the income or 80% of the wealth. He found the same phenomena when he researched England in the late 1800's. This phenomenon has come to be called the Pareto Rule … or the 80:20 Rule. If you check the USA today, you will find Pareto's Rule is still alive and well. 20% of the population has about 80% of the income and about 90% of the financial wealth. I have been interested in finding out why this phenomenon has held across 3 countries for over 100 years. The author conveniently forgot to show the actual income distribution of the U.S. in his charts. He chose to only show the percentage change in income for each of the 5 deciles groups. The whole premise of this book can be summed up as follows: -Income inequality has increased in the US the last 40 years -Rising income inequality is a bad thing -One reason for the rising inequality is technological changes and the George Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -The other reason for the rising inequality is that an »arms race« is created when the middle class sees the wealthy have more toys … and therefore the middle class must spend more on bigger houses and fancier cars -The recommended fix is to switch from a progressive income based federal tax to a consumption based tax system (where savings are not taxed) and taxes would be increased for the wealthy -The additional tax revenue would be used to provide more needed Federal Government services One key assumption of this book is that US income inequality has increased the last 40 years. According to Wikipedia … the Gini Coefficient for the US in 1967 was 39.7 and it increased to 46.3 in 2007. I'm not sure it is appropriate to ratio these two Gini numbers … but if it is … this is a 17% increase in income inequality (the Gini Coefficient is supposed to be a metric for assessing income inequality). A 17% increase over 40 years doesn't seem that dramatic to me. Given the large number of data sources required to calculate the Gini Coefficient … I doubt a 17% increase is even statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Another challenge to this key assumption is that Pareto's findings (20% of the population have 80% of the wealth) have held up over 100 years across three different countries and the 80:20 ratio has not changed significantly. Based upon these 2 factors, I have my doubts that income inequality has really increased in the US the last 40 years. Another premise of this book is that middle class citizens have no recourse except to go into debt and spend more to keep up with the Jones's. Way back in 1849 when Charles Dickens wrote David Copperfield, Mr. Macawber says, with respect to money: »Income 6 pence a week, expenditure 5 pence a week, result happiness: Income 6 pence a week, expenditure 7 pence a week, result misery.« In Stanley's Millionaire Next Door, he found that most millionaires chose to live below their means so they could save money … invest the savings … and eventually be millionaires. Many people intentionally stayed in homes in middle class neighborhoods with decent school systems … versus neighborhoods with big houses and the expectation (and expense) of sending your kids to private school. These Millionaires were frugal on their expenses for clothes, watches, vehicles, and houses. In fact, many bought vehicles using the $ per pound ratio to get the best value (Ford F150's rank high on the $ per pound ratio). I would contend that many people are free to choose to their lifestyle … so as Stanley says … they can choose to own a lot of cattle … or be all hat and no cattle. The author seems to contend that 100% of the people have no choice but to participate in the arms race. The author also suggests the current public school system is a well designed one because it caps educational costs versus the arms race which would result if vouchers could be used to attend any school. One wonders if vouchers could be used to attend any school … including the amount of property tax paid … would this encourage some free market competition and possibly lower total educational costs? I have often wondered why our current U.S. system penalizes savers. Taxes are delayed if you save in a defined contribution retirement plan … savings beyond these plans is almost penalized. First, the money is taxed as federal, state, and social security taxes. Once you invest it, another government tax of inflation must be paid … plus federal, state, and income taxes on any interest or capital gains. With inflation currently running higher than interest rates on savings accounts … there is not much incentive to save. I might be in favor of switching our tax system to a consumption based system like the author advocates, but with some additional caveats. The caveats would be a 40-year transition of switching Social Security from pay-as-you-go to an individual account in low cost index funds like the current Thrift savings plan for government employees. I would also like to see total taxation capped at 15% of gross earnings (including local, state, and federal taxes) … unless during a Congressional declared state of war. I am also concerned about the »law of unintended consequences« if we change our tax system. I do not agree with the author's plan to increase taxes on higher income earners … giving the government more of our dollars to spend … and waste. I tend to side with Milton Friedman who believed that if government action is taken in pursuit of economic equality that our political freedom will suffer. In a famous quote, he said: »A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.« Although you may not agree with the author's recommended fix, his book does cause one to think about how our US economic system is designed. At some point of high enough income inequality … the 80% of the population who does not have the income and wealth will vote themselves a share of the income from the 20% who take all the risk and generate all of the jobs (unless you believe the 20% with the money donate enough money to control our political system). If you want to become one of the 20% who have all the income and wealth, you might want to read some of the books noted below. They may help you eventually enter the top 20% group. Index Mutual Funds: How to Simplify Your Financial Life and Beat the Pro's The Richest Man in Babylon Bogle on Mutual Funds: New Perspectives for the Intelligent Investor The Millionaire Next Door The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time-Tested Strategy for Successful Investing, Ninth Edition The Coffeehouse Investor: How to Build Wealth, Ignore Wall Street, and Get On With Your Life The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing
I have never read any of Frank's other books before reading this one. I have read over 200 books on investing, and this book piqued my interest because I have always been interested in income inequality. Wilfred Pareto, the Italian economist, found interesting phenomena when he researched who had most of the income and wealth in Italy in the early 1900's. He was surprised to find that 20% of the population had 80% of the income or 80% of the wealth. He found the same phenomena when he researched England in the late 1800's. This phenomenon has come to be called the Pareto Rule … or the 80:20 Rule. If you check the USA today, you will find Pareto's Rule is still alive and well. 20% of the population has about 80% of the income and about 90% of the financial wealth. I have been interested in finding out why this phenomenon has held across 3 countries for over 100 years. The author conveniently forgot to show the actual income distribution of the U.S. in his charts. He chose to only show the percentage change in income for each of the 5 deciles groups. The whole premise of this book can be summed up as follows: -Income inequality has increased in the US the last 40 years -Rising income inequality is a bad thing -One reason for the rising inequality is technological changes and the George Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -The other reason for the rising inequality is that an »arms race« is created when the middle class sees the wealthy have more toys … and therefore the middle class must spend more on bigger houses and fancier cars -The recommended fix is to switch from a progressive income based federal tax to a consumption based tax system (where savings are not taxed) and taxes would be increased for the wealthy -The additional tax revenue would be used to provide more needed Federal Government services One key assumption of this book is that US income inequality has increased the last 40 years. According to Wikipedia … the Gini Coefficient for the US in 1967 was 39.7 and it increased to 46.3 in 2007. I'm not sure it is appropriate to ratio these two Gini numbers … but if it is … this is a 17% increase in income inequality (the Gini Coefficient is supposed to be a metric for assessing income inequality). A 17% increase over 40 years doesn't seem that dramatic to me. Given the large number of data sources required to calculate the Gini Coefficient … I doubt a 17% increase is even statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Another challenge to this key assumption is that Pareto's findings (20% of the population have 80% of the wealth) have held up over 100 years across three different countries and the 80:20 ratio has not changed significantly. Based upon these 2 factors, I have my doubts that income inequality has really increased in the US the last 40 years. Another premise of this book is that middle class citizens have no recourse except to go into debt and spend more to keep up with the Jones's. Way back in 1849 when Charles Dickens wrote David Copperfield, Mr. Macawber says, with respect to money: »Income 6 pence a week, expenditure 5 pence a week, result happiness: Income 6 pence a week, expenditure 7 pence a week, result misery.« In Stanley's Millionaire Next Door, he found that most millionaires chose to live below their means so they could save money … invest the savings … and eventually be millionaires. Many people intentionally stayed in homes in middle class neighborhoods with decent school systems … versus neighborhoods with big houses and the expectation (and expense) of sending your kids to private school. These Millionaires were frugal on their expenses for clothes, watches, vehicles, and houses. In fact, many bought vehicles using the $ per pound ratio to get the best value (Ford F150's rank high on the $ per pound ratio). I would contend that many people are free to choose to their lifestyle … so as Stanley says … they can choose to own a lot of cattle … or be all hat and no cattle. The author seems to contend that 100% of the people have no choice but to participate in the arms race. The author also suggests the current public school system is a well designed one because it caps educational costs versus the arms race which would result if vouchers could be used to attend any school. One wonders if vouchers could be used to attend any school … including the amount of property tax paid … would this encourage some free market competition and possibly lower total educational costs? I have often wondered why our current U.S. system penalizes savers. Taxes are delayed if you save in a defined contribution retirement plan … savings beyond these plans is almost penalized. First, the money is taxed as federal, state, and social security taxes. Once you invest it, another government tax of inflation must be paid … plus federal, state, and income taxes on any interest or capital gains. With inflation currently running higher than interest rates on savings accounts … there is not much incentive to save. I might be in favor of switching our tax system to a consumption based system like the author advocates, but with some additional caveats. The caveats would be a 40-year transition of switching Social Security from pay-as-you-go to an individual account in low cost index funds like the current Thrift savings plan for government employees. I would also like to see total taxation capped at 15% of gross earnings (including local, state, and federal taxes) … unless during a Congressional declared state of war. I am also concerned about the »law of unintended consequences« if we change our tax system. I do not agree with the author's plan to increase taxes on higher income earners … giving the government more of our dollars to spend … and waste. I tend to side with Milton Friedman who believed that if government action is taken in pursuit of economic equality that our political freedom will suffer. In a famous quote, he said: »A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.« Although you may not agree with the author's recommended fix, his book does cause one to think about how our US economic system is designed. At some point of high enough income inequality … the 80% of the population who does not have the income and wealth will vote themselves a share of the income from the 20% who take all the risk and generate all of the jobs (unless you believe the 20% with the money donate enough money to control our political system). If you want to become one of the 20% who have all the income and wealth, you might want to read some of the books noted below. They may help you eventually enter the top 20% group. Index Mutual Funds: How to Simplify Your Financial Life and Beat the Pro's The Richest Man in Babylon Bogle on Mutual Funds: New Perspectives for the Intelligent Investor The Millionaire Next Door The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time-Tested Strategy for Successful Investing, Ninth Edition The Coffeehouse Investor: How to Build Wealth, Ignore Wall Street, and Get On With Your Life The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing
keywords
- American history
- Americas (North Central South West Indies)
- Business & Economics – General
- Consumer issues
- Consumption (Economics)
- Demography
- Economic Conditions
- Income distribution
- Income distribution – United States
- Middle class
- Political Science – Public Policy – General
- Population & demography
- Public Policy – Economic Policy
- Social Classes
- Social Science
- Social Science – Discrimination & Race Relations
- Social Science – Social Classes
- Social Studies – General
- Sociology
- Sociology, Social Studies
- Sociology – General
- The Americas
- United States
related products
Ph.D. Robert Frank
Three Rivers Press; 2008
paperback
- search
Demolition of Stuttgart Main Station
an architectural monument of exceptional importance
an architectural monument of exceptional importance
livestream of an infamous action
more info: http://www.hauptbahnhof-stuttgart.eu
more info: http://www.hauptbahnhof-stuttgart.eu