In the 25 May video, I react to hearing that Albin Kurti had talked about a fourteenth salary while in Switzerland. At the same time, I describe electricity cuts and roads that make an ordinary journey uncomfortable. That contrast is what annoyed me: the big promise and the small things that still do not work.

My account of the outages is a personal observation, not a citywide reliability survey. And a reaction to a reported speech does not establish the final terms of a salary scheme.

There is, however, a later primary source worth adding. In his 13 September 2026 government-programme speech, Kurti described an initiative for a thirteenth salary in the public and private sectors, with the aim of later planning a fourteenth. That is the government’s stated ambition. The speech alone does not establish a universal, immediately payable fourteenth-salary entitlement.

What would a fourteenth salary actually add?

Assume every payment is the same €600 gross and the regular monthly amount stays unchanged. Twelve payments give €7,200 a year; thirteen give €7,800; fourteen give €8,400.

What extra salary payments change. 12 payments: €7,200; 13 payments: €7,800; 14 payments: €8,400
Illustration: equal gross payments of €600; not an official salary or policy costing.

Moving from 12 to 14 payments adds €1,200, a 16.7% increase in annual gross pay. Moving from 13 to 14 adds €600, or 7.7%. The starting point changes the percentage, even though the final number of payments is the same.

Spread across 12 calendar months, those annual totals are equivalent to €600, €650 and €700 a month. That is a comparison of annual income; it does not mean the employer would deposit €700 every month. Taxes, contributions and any eligibility rules would determine the actual amount someone takes home.

These are arithmetic examples, not Kosovo’s average wage and not a quotation from a policy document.

Who receives it, and who pays?

A salary announcement becomes assessable when four things are clear: eligible workers, the payment amount, whether it repeats, and the funding source.

For scale, 10,000 hypothetical workers × one additional €600 gross payment = €6 million before any employer-side costs. Two such additional payments would cost €12 million. Neither worker count is an estimate of the scheme’s beneficiaries. The purpose is to show why “one more salary” needs a budget as well as a slogan.

A proposal covering private employers also needs clarity about which obligations fall on businesses and which are publicly funded. A public-sector allocation cannot simply be treated as a payment for everyone who works.

More pay and better services belong in the same discussion

Households can welcome additional income and still expect dependable electricity, maintained roads and honest delivery dates. We should be able to ask for the cost of a pay policy and the performance of a public service without being pushed into party loyalty.

A useful service comparison would use repeated records: how long outages last, how many people are affected, which faults are repaired and whether they return. My complaint in one video cannot supply all of those figures. It can explain why they matter.

That is also why I separate shelf prices from affordability in the Kosovo–Germany grocery comparison. A bigger annual income can change purchasing power. It does not automatically fix everything that makes daily life expensive or difficult.

Sources and calculation notes