Realidades Paralelas

A pesar de que se habla tanto del debate secesionista catalán es difícil ver datos contrastados y sin manipular acerca del impacto de una posible independencia de Cataluña. 

Yo personalmente dejo de lado las razones históricas, porque creo que la decisión sobre nuestro futuro debe estar basado en el análisis del presente y en nuestras expectativas. Es decir, como español, no me parece mal ni bien la independencia de Cataluña en función de lo que haya sucedido en tiempos de los Reyes Católicos, o en la guerra de sucesión de 1714. Me parece que lo que cuenta es la voluntad de la gente, y el análisis de qué es mejor para la calidad de vida de los españoles en el futuro. Y digo de los españoles porque, por un lado, entre ellos cuento a los catalanes mientras no se produzca esa supuesta independencia y porque por otro lado, de producirse, serán ellos los que tengan que preocuparse de su calidad de vida (sin que yo quiera ningún detrimento o perjuicio para ellos dado el caso).

Yo pienso que una Cataluña independiente es ciertamente viable. Hay estados en el seno de la Unión Europea que son más pequeños en población y PIB y no por ello inviables. De igual manera, una España sin Cataluña me parece también viable. También me dice la intuición y la lógica que en tanto que separados, ambos serán menos fuertes: Cataluña como estado pequeño y joven difícilmente tendrá algún peso a nivel internacional, y el ya reducido de España sería aún menor. Yo veo poca ventaja en la separación en términos objetivos. 

Ahora en términos subjetivos es otra cosa. Por un lado, entiendo (aunque no comparto) que haya gente que crea que sería más feliz si tuviese un pasaporte catalán, y no español. No entro en las razones de ese sentimiento, pero creo que existe en un número no despreciable de personas. Yo por mi parte sería feliz con uno europeo: ni español, ni gallego, ni nada. Europeo. Pero sé que soy minoría, y bien minoritaria. 

Siguiendo con lo subjetivo, si la independencia permitiese que el debate político en España dejase para siempre las cuestiones territoriales seria genial. Para ambas partes además. Por desgracia, dado que hay un elevado numero de catalanes frontalmente contrarios a la independencia veo difícil que el problema quedase resuelto con la independencia. 

Lo que hecho de menos en todo este debate es un poco de luz y claridad en las implicaciones de esa independencia. Por ello he intentado recabar y validar algunos datos para empezar. He leído con frecuencia que Cataluña es la locomotora de Espana, y muchos de mis amigos no españoles tienen la percepción de que es "casi la mitad de la economía española". Veamos la verdad, con datos disponibles para todos:

• España tiene 46 millones de habitantes, de los cuales 7,5 millones viven en Cataluña, es decir casi un 16% del total (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograf%C3%ADa_de_Espa%C3%B1a). 
• Andalucía  con 8,4 millones (17,85% del total) y Madrid con 6,49 millones (13,75% del total) son las otras dos comunidades autónomas con mayor población junto con Cataluña por lo que las voy a tomar como referencia. (además, no hay nada más español ... no? :-) )
• España tiene un PIB de 1,049 billones de Euros en 2012 (http://www.datosmacro.com/pib/espana).
• Cataluña tiene un PIB de 198 mil millones de Euros en 2012, es decir un 18,8% del total de España (http://www.datosmacro.com/pib-ccaa/cataluna). 
• Madrid por su parte con 188 mil millones representa un 17,9% del total del PIB (http://www.datosmacro.com/pib-ccaa/madrid ). 
• Andalucía tiene un PIB de 140 mil millones, es decir un 13,3% del total (http://www.datosmacro.com/pib-ccaa/andalucia)

Estos datos son importantes porque como dije, hay gente que tiene la impresión de que Cataluña es el "motor" económico de España, o que España depende de Cataluña económicamente. Es evidente que es una de las regiones más desarrolladas de la península, y un porcentaje importante del PIB, pero representa, en 2012, menos del 20% del total. También es evidente que el 16% de la población que vive en Cataluña contribuye significativamente más al PIB que el 17,85% que vive en Andalucía, pero menos que el 13,75% que vive en Madrid (en proporción). 

Y es que yo veo que al margen de singularidades culturales, la realidad de Cataluña es similar, o igual incluso, a la del resto de las regiones de España. Ciertamente muy similar a la de Madrid en cuanto a motores de la economía nacional.

En todos los casos, a nivel nacional como regional, se ha vivido un momento de auge y crecimiento en los últimos 15-20 años, y un despertar duro a la realidad de la crisis en los últimos cuatro. Y hablo de despertar porque se ha vivido de una ilusión. Para demostrarlo, veamos los siguientes gráficos, tomados del sitio www.datosmacro.com:

En todos los casos, el crecimiento acelerado del PIB per cápita ha estado ligado a la burbuja inmobiliaria y al crecimiento de la deuda pública, que fue moderado hasta 2008. Desde ese año se ha sostenido la caída del PIB disparando el endeudamiento. 

Evidentemente es un tema complejo, pero viendo estos datos es difícil creer que la mala o peor situación de la economía en Cataluña es culpa del resto del país. La deuda que se muestra allí para las comunidades autónomas ha sido contraída por ellas mismas.

Que pasa entonces si Cataluña se independizase?

La deuda pública española, que incluye la administración central, las autonomías y los ayuntamientos, representa el 84% del PIB en 2012. En 2011, el 76% de esta deuda era contraída por la administración central (http://www.finanzas.com/noticias/economia/2012-03-16/682440_deuda-publica-espanola-cerro-2011.html). Si aceptamos el mismo dato para 2012 (que es mucho aceptar, pero no he encontrado el reparto del 2012), y repartimos esa deuda en función del PIB de las comunidades autónomas y le sumamos la deuda de cada una de ellas, una eventual Cataluña independiente tendría una deuda de unos 199 mil millones de euros, es decir el 100% de su PIB. Madrid con el mismo análisis tendría unos 162mil millones de euros de deuda, o un 84% del PIB. Andalucía por su parte tendría unos 126mil millones de deuda, un 90% del PIB.

Está claro que se puede discutir si el reparto de la deuda central se debe hacer en función del porcentaje del PIB, o de la población. En el último caso Cataluña tendría una deuda de 128 mil millones o un 65% del PIB. Igualmente Madrid bajaría con esa cuenta hasta un 59% de su PIB. 

Pero teniendo en cuenta que la deuda ha contribuido en gran medida a aumentar el PIB primero y a sostener su caída después, el punto admite debate. Es decir, Cataluña es tanto mas "rica" en cuanto ha participado más de la locura endeudadora del conjunto de las administraciones.

Esto tiene otras mil consideraciones, como la evaluación de la cuantía de inversiones realizadas por región en función de esa deuda y un largo número de etcéteras.  Considerando que Cataluña se quedaría con número de activos importantes, es más que razonable que el Edo. Español negociase un reparto de la deuda más cercano al basado por el PIB que al basado por población. Todo hipotético, claro, pero es parte de la gran complejidad de la negociación de una futura independencia. Sin embargo, nadie habla de ello. En particular, dentro de los claros proponentes de la independencia, como los dirigentes de ERC y CiU. Tampoco entiendo el mutismo respecto a estos temas de los dirigentes nacionales del PP, PSOE, o incluso UPyD. 

Hasta donde llega mi conocimiento este tema no está claro en derecho internacional tampoco. El reparto  de la deuda en la separación entre la República Checa y la Eslovaca se hizo en función de la población, pero esa separación fue sustancialmente diferente: ambas partes estaban de acuerdo en la secesión, y en ambas regiones por mayoría aplastante. Seria como si en Cataluña el 99% de la gente estuviese a favor de la independencia, y en el resto España el 99% a favor de otorgarla. No es el caso. 

Para más información sobre estas consideraciones, en este artículo en inglés se menciona el tema y otras opciones ante la eventual secesión de la región de Quebec: http://global-economics.ca/dth.chap8.htm.

Otro tema es la nacionalidad de los ciudadanos alcanzada la independencia. En el caso de los eslovacos y los checos, parece que en general los checoslovacos han tenido que optar por ser checos, o eslovacos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_nationality_law), pero no las dos. 

Es otro tema escabroso, porque a diferencia del caso checoslovaco, un porcentaje más que importante de la población de Cataluña no quiere la independencia ni dejar de ser españoles (si atendemos a los votantes del PPdC, C's y PSC podemos hablar de entre un 25-35% por lo menos). No sería justo que estos pierdan la nacionalidad española. Tampoco sería de recibo que el 52% que se confiesan independentistas (http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20130911/54381289182/diada-52-catalanes-favor-de-la-independencia.html ) conservase la nacionalidad española de producirse la secesión. 

España sería en todo caso un país con entre 2 millones y siete millones y medio de residentes en el extranjero, sólo en la eventual Cataluña independiente! … Con lo que ello representaría de gastos administrativos, de pensiones, etc. Hay que recordar que todo español que llega a la edad de jubilación y no tiene medios tiene derecho a una pensión no contributiva.

Lo que tengo claro de todo esto es que no veo la ganancia en calidad de vida para nadie, y no veo la justificación de que la calidad de vida en Cataluña sea peor por culpa de no ser independiente. El problema de Cataluña de falta de crecimiento económico, de tasa de desempleo, de exceso de deuda, etc. es similar al del resto de España y es debido la incompetencia de los sucesivos gobiernos a los que sus ciudadanos han votado. De los gobiernos centrales, y en su caso muy particularmente, de los autonómicos también, que no en vano es la comunidad más endeudada (se mida como se mida). Sin olvidar que Aznar ha gobernado cuatro años con apoyo de CiU, y entre Gonzalez y Zapatero sumaríamos al menos doce del mismo apoyo, incluyendo cuatro con apoyo igualmente de ERC ... 

Visto esto, como he escrito más arriba, yo no soy contrario a la independencia. Creo que si se produce tendremos dos países más pequeños y menos capaces, que tendrán los mismos problemas que ya tenían (o más), pero que podrán salir adelante. 

Como tono jocoso, creo que la liga de fútbol española no será lo que era, y nos tendremos que acostumbrar al Madrid - Valencia, Madrid - Sevilla o algo así como sustituto del Barça. Peor lo llevará la liga catalana, que esa sí estará condenada al nivel de las equivalentes de Dinamarca o Noruega (con todos los respetos).

Finalmente, vale la pena leer este artículo en El Pais de Alberto López Basaguren (catedrático de Derecho Constitucional en la Universidad del País Vasco) sobre el tema de la independencia de Cataluña y el llamado derecho a decidir:

http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/09/10/opinion/1378806390_942181.html

Es muy bueno.

Two big challenges for large companies

Running a large company must be a very challenging thing, no doubt about it. Much like running a country, or a at least country's region, given the economic size of certain large corporations.

Without trying to oversimplify its challenges, I think if I'd have to pick what are the two biggest challenges for any large company I would say they are talent retention and to avoid becoming arrogant. Of course, I write humbly from the position of someone who has never been even a first line manager (pretty much for my own choice though, but still, no management experience).

Talent retention is a big challenge, and I am talking talent at all levels: executive level, engineering, task workers, ... all. I will write more about this in another post to share some ideas I have about this on a bigger picture about the relevance companies should give to human resources. There are companies that care very little about talent retention, but even those who take pride in being recognized as great places to work (which should help retain talent) face a challenge to ensure key talent doesn't leave.

Talent does not follow money. Does not follow work-life balance either. Money and work-life balance help, there's no doubt about it, but really talented people seek a lot more than that. They seek recognition for once, in a fair way usually - although egos are sometimes very difficult to conciliate with justice, and talented people aren't exempt of ego-related issues. But I believe that more than anything, they seek to accomplish things. That is, perhaps, the most important thing for real talented people I have met: make things happen, accomplish their ideas.

When very smart people can't find the way to accomplish the ideas they bring forward, they inevitably will leave to go places where they can do it. It is very difficult however to always accomodate for running all bright ideas forward, and even more difficult to recognize which ideas are great. It is also a challenge to identify which individuals are really top and key talent. It happens, very often on large companies, that people who take credit for good things aren't the ones that were actually originating and sometimes not even the ones making them happen. Let's leave it at that.

Talent retention. In my opinion, all companies should REALLY try implementing through HR systems a way to "flag" who is top talent, and make sure they can work in the right environment. Having talented people leave has potential catastrophic consequences: the great ideas you will be missing, will in turn become the great ideas of your competitors.

And then, there's arrogance. I have recently read a white paper from a company I will not name (a company I like very much still) in which you can see them self-praising for their solutions as being best fit, even more, the only ones that fit a certain environment, for they were the ones creating the market for starters. How soon, and how easy it happens, a company can become arrogant to think that way of themselves. So arrogant they even write it! ...

Arrogance is bad, very bad. For one, it usually creates a bad image and reputation, for nobody likes it. But it also puts people in a mind set which will drive them to make mistakes. The arrogant can't recognize its own failures, and therefore will either try to hide them, or simply ignore them. Both will lead to one thing only: bigger failure.

Of course, to recognize a challenge is one thing, and to have solutions to overcome it is another. I have some ideas for potential solutions, but I'll leave them for another post. Another day. Maybe one day I'll have enough free time.

The importance of education: opportunities

The debate is open everywhere. For personal reasons though, I follow it more closely in Belgium and in Spain. As a consequence of another debate (austerity vs. public/fiscal incentives), many governments are cutting spending in all areas, including education.

A very dear old friend of mine (David Esteves, r.i.p.) used to tell me "it's not about spending less, it is about producing more". Therefore in the debate of austerity vs. public spending I am inclined to neither, but to find common sense and middle ground.

To cut spending in education seems like a bad idea. To check whether you are spending intelligently in education is another story. To make teachers work more hours for the same money, as Esperanza Aguirre wants to do in Spain in an attempt to reduce spending, is hardly a prove to spend more intelligently. Teaching is not easy. It is a hard job. I don't put up every teacher in a pedestal. But teachers do deserve greater credit that they are often given.

I think we should spend more, and better, in education. More and better in forming better teachers.  There are many areas where you can reduce spending, including education. I am sure contracts for common good purchasing can be streamlined, IT equipment put into leasing contracts to reduce long term cost of ownership due to constant IT renewal, telephone, electricity and many other utilities bills can surely be reduced by simply renegotiating contracts with providers or by better controlling its use.

If you are going to make teachers work more hours for the same money, make it work for them. Make them use more time to prepare lessons, to attend trainings, to learn about the use of new technologies ... but not to try to make more with less. That won't pay back.

It is about opportunities. I think of myself and I can't help to think where would I be today if I had not had the chance to have good education. To go to college. Would I have make a living? Sure I'd have ... most likely not like the one I have. Most likely I would not be in a position to give to my children the opportunities I try to give them.

Same applies for politicians. They too, should think "where would I be if I had not had the opportunity to study?". Those of us with college degrees seem to take it for granted. Many would say "nobody has given me anything for free, it's all my hard work". I too can say the same. I worked hard at school, and at college. But I'd be lying. My parents gave me all that ... and for free. They took the bill, and not just in money, but in their personal efforts during sometimes very tough times. Not all have that luck as I did.

Politicians should think of that. Should think that they too, would not be where they are without an opportunity for good education.

Mind the reader, if there is any ... I am not a leftist. Quite the contrary if I have to say. But I prefer to not put myself in anybody's ranks, right or left, and try to just think of common sense ...

The comfort dilemma: our well-being as part of the problem

From Wikipedia:

Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.


I believe it was Plato who wrote "Necessity, who is the mother of invention". This is so true. Our brains work best when they are challenged. It is when we face difficulties that we bring the best out of ourselves. Certainly this is how I work. On a more positive side, it means motivation is what makes us do better. What better motivation than a true need?

As a society too, I think this is true. The bigger the challenges on an organized and educated society, the greater the progress. There are many examples throughout history for this, recently examples from how Japan or Germany recovered after WWII, or the US after the crack of 1929.

In the western world, particularly in Europe, we live today in the days of better living standards for the widest part of the population ever in human history. This great - but expensive and unfinished - accomplishment is in itself a big part of Europe's problems in my opinion.

Of course I do not mean to say we should give it away. Quite the contrary. But I think that such good living standards have led to western society, at least in Europe, to become ... lazy. I think the wider population is looking to relax and enjoy rather than to work to progress further. I believe from our education, and certainly the media bombarding us today, the idea of "take time for your self, enjoy life" is becoming imprinted in our minds.

It is a dilemma. What is the point to work hard if you don't enjoy the produce of your work? ... and if you do not work hard, how do you produce enough to enjoy life at all? There needs to be a balance.

Quite clearly, in today's world, the majority of the population in India, China and many other countries are willing to make bigger sacrifices that the average european would in terms of work/life balance. The challenge is that for Europe to maintain its competitiveness in such environment then, innovation becomes key. We need to do more with less, we need to be able to do what others can't do. It is the only way to generate value, when others are ready to do what you have been doing, but for less money. But innovation too, requires effort, dedication, passion.

There are of course the small number of individuals who have creativity naturally come to them. But we are not all a Steve Jobs quite evidently. In turn, we need as many people as possible working on new ideas and new ways of doing things, and I would say we need this at all levels in the society. This is a challenge in our days, where less and less people want to put a lot of dedication to their works "because the rest of their life is more important".

The solution is in education. Newer generations need to learn very well that our (their) current living conditions didn't come for free, and should not be taken for granted. They should be taught that sacrifice and hard work are a real value. Only this way we will have future generations which can find the right balance between sacrifice and leisure. Which will help preserve and grow our well being, while also help bring the same living conditions to the rest of the world.

I find shocking to learn about a trend in our education systems to simplify things. To impose an approach based on theories that children do not need to learn based on evaluations, that you can always learn playing, etc.  In my opinion, the easier we try to make it for our children, the less "adequate" they will be in the word of tomorrow. Natural Selection has been teaching this to us through millions of years of evolution.

What if low salaries are the problem?

Reading an article about salaries in Spain which confirms what we all know: vast majority of the population with a job (there's 20% unemployment at the moment of this writing) fits on the salary segment between 641€ and 1100€. To be noted that 641€ is the minimum salary as per current law. This is what leads to the term "mileuristas", which can't be translated and isn't a real spanish word (yet) but means "those who earn around 1,000€".

To me this is a big problem. And I wonder if it is the biggest problem of all. I think so in two ways:

(1) People with salaries in that range make very small contributions through income tax. This has two bad consequences. One is that they rely a lot on "help" from governments and/or family to make a living, and the other one is the fact that they can't contribute much to the state budget (means a large number of people is working, but their effort can't sustain the state).

(2) Because of the clear discrepancy between those salaries and the actual cost of living, these people can't consume much (they don't have money to do it). This is certainly bad for the economy. It is clear that if more people can buy goods and services, economic activity increases.

A third problem is that "mileuristas" also have a hard time to make an independent living. This creates a bigger social problem, as they need to live with their parents until they are in their 30s and 40s (they can't afford living on their own), because it becomes almost impossible to make up a family. There is also the difficult to assess impact in the overall frustation and creation a sentiment of "I can't do anything" which is very bad for the society as well.

So while many say we need to lower salaries in Spain, and it may be true in some cases/industries, overall I think the opposite is true. This is simplistic, I am sure I am losing many angles, but if there'd be a policy from the state to bring significant tax deductions to companies who invest benefits in raising salaries, I believe things would change for good.

The companies could (and should) increase salaries based on goals and productivity - so, not to everybody just because, but more to those who earn it. This wouldn't cost them money, because what they spend in salary increases they get back as tax relieves, hence the impact on the labour costs is zero.

Of course you would say: yeah, but now the state will get less money (as it is giving it back in tax deductions to pay for the salary increase). Absolutely BUT, a part of it will come back through income tax paid by the employees, and another part by increase in consumer spending and therefore ingress through VAT. This would also incentivate the overall economy and we should see growth.

As long as salaries are "just" (and in Spain, at the moment, they are not), I think the best model is to lower the taxes on companies and let individuals (employees) pay more (within reason). This works because it incentives companies to hire and grow, and creates potential for consumer spending.

Moreover, the more people feel they "pay" to maintain social welfare, education, etc. the better: people feel committed, and also demand more from politicians.

With low salaries, you create the spiral of politicians offering help and subsidies to the low income classes, which then become dependents (clients) on such politicians. Sets the stage for populism. Very bad. This is where Spain is at today. Needs changing.

Señorio ... (or lack of it)

Señorio is a Spanish word which would translate for 'lordship'. But the concept is that of elegance and courteous behavior. In soccer, Real Madrid is a club which has always proud itself in such behavior.

Rivals would criticize that Real Madrid rarely honor the concept and as of late, Barça has claimed to be THE club in Spain that truly acts and conducts themselves with "señorio" as opposed to Real's bad manners. In fact, they call it "seny" for they prefer to use the catalan word in many cases. Real's bad manners have all to do now a days with Mourinho, of course, the all-evil coach responsible for bringing Real Madrid into Champions League semi-final after eight years absence and winning Spanish Cup after 18 years of not seeing that title ...

Then, yesterday, months after the high tension lived between the two clubs when they faced each other four times in four weeks, we saw some surprising comments from Barça's president. After all tension was relieved (almost forgotten), after they won (brilliantly) the Champions League and Spanish Liga. He threatened Real Madrid to break relations with them if they would misbehave again ... but, alas, being so nice as they are, he also said he was willing to give Real a second chance (for everybody deserves one, even Real).

Amazing. This is "seny" in its maximum expression. Funniest thing is, Barça's president says he will break relations if they see Real misbehaving again (for which Barça people seem to be the only qualified judge of course). Well. So what?! ... It is ridiculous. Kid's thing: you are not my friend anymore, and I don't talk to you.

No te gusta el café? Pues toma dos tazas ...

The title translated means "You don't like coffee? Have two cups then". Yes, I was not blogging in three years and today I have started not one, but two blogs. Reason is that really it does not fit to use the same blog to talk about the lack of government in Belgium after one year of the elections, and the latest networking technology evolutions. People reading one couldn't care less about the other (with exceptions).

Yeah, there's categories on the blog and such, but overall, I think it makes more sense to have two different blogs. So this one will be more ... personal, and "Out of Nillo's mind" more professional, or simply about technology.