each school semester […]. Even though the legislative materials simply refer to experience showing that EUR 100 can enable even children from families in need to be well equipped at the beginning of the school year […], underfunding is at least not evident. The amount of EUR 100 per annum is not substantially below the average expenditure determined for this need […] on the basis of the income and consumption survey. Nor has plaintiff no. 3 in the initial proceedings for 1 BvL 10/12 submitted that he is unable to cover his school requirements in the first half of the school year with the EUR 70. 3. The requirements for updating the levels of standard needs in the years in which no reassessment […] is undertaken do not, unlike the previous arrangements (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <242 and 243>), deviate unreasonably from the structural principles of the chosen method of determination. In principle, the legislature is, by means of having enacted the challenged provisions, complying with its obligation to react to changes in economic conditions such as price rises or increases in consumer taxes, by ensuring that current needs are covered (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <225>; 132, 134 <163, para. 72>). 136 a) Extrapolating on the basis of price developments in the items of expenditure from which consumption relevant in terms of standard needs is constituted is just as compatible with the Constitution (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <244>) as a mixed index taking into account not just the development of prices but also that of wages and salaries. The legislature has given sound reasons why [this is done]. Greater weight must however be given to price developments […] for it is precisely their real value which needs to be secured by benefits for covering minimum physical subsistence […]. The lesser consideration of the development of wages and salaries shall take account of the state of development and conditions of life (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <222>) and to a certain degree follow the development of affluence in society (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <242 and 243> […]). It is true that the development of wages is not in itself an adequate measure for updating the level of benefits to secure a dignified minimum existence; again, however, it is decisive that as a result, a dignified minimum existence is in fact secured (see C I 1 b aa; C II 2 c above). 137 b) The legislature has acted within its leeway by making the deviating arrangements for updating benefits per 1 January 2011. […] 138 c) Delaying the updating of benefits by six months in each case is within the bounds of what is reasonable. It is true that the first update to be oriented to annual periods […] did not take place until 1 January 2013, which is why there is a six-month gap between the end of the most recent comparison period and the date of the update, meaning that price rises during that period have not been taken into account. This delay of six months can, however, be explained by the amount of time it necessarily takes for determining the rate of change, including for the process of issuing the regulation required for the update […]. The update in the next year also makes up for the development of prices in the missing period. 139 26/29