The picture of a Spain with closed borders to immigration paints a picture of an aging society, but also of significant losses, both in population and in the workforce in essential sectors such as care, education, and healthcare. There would also be an inevitable increase in taxes and even the closure of schools, bars, shops, and farms. This almost dystopian scenario answers the following question: what would Spain be like in 2075 if migration flows were reduced by 30%, following the restrictive policies implemented by almost all members of the European Union?

The lack of talent and qualified personnel to fill job vacancies is not only a problem for companies, but also affects economic growth. The employers' association of the Vallès region, Cecot, has issued this warning and raised the issue in a report entitled Towards a sustainable labor market 38 proposals to address the problem, which has various facets, ranging from demographics to changes in the labor market. Among the proposals are aligning school hours with work schedules, promoting active and reversible retirement, and further encouraging teleworking, among others aimed at attracting more talent to companies.

When he was the European Union's top diplomat, Josep Borrell described Europe as "a garden," in contrast to the "jungle" that is much of the rest of the world. On paper, this supposed garden is based on the security and capacity for citizens to progress economically and materially, guaranteed by a strong state that redistributes wealth through taxes, but above all through basic services. In other words, the defining element of European progress is the so-called welfare state. Despite Borrell's positive words, the viability of this welfare state is being questioned across the continent, doubts that also affect Catalonia and Spain. What future, then, does the welfare state system, on which the Catalan economy is based and on which millions of people depend to a greater or lesser extent, have?

"We will regain control of the welfare state." This is one of the promises highlighted by the Swedish Social Democratic Party in its political program. (Six months) In the lead-up to the elections, the debate on the management of public services promises to be one of the key issues shaping the agenda. Sweden in the 1980s, under Olof Palme, became one of the pioneering countries in implementing a comprehensive welfare state and solidified its place in the global imagination as a model society to emulate. The myth, to a greater or lesser degree, persists, especially in Southern Europe, but the reality is that in Sweden much of the management of public services has been privatized, and that supposed welfare paradise no longer exists.

George Steiner warned that civilization is a very thin layer: beneath the skin of culture, there is always the harshness of the elements. The European welfare state was, in essence, a response to this fragility, a system designed to reduce individual exposure to economic risk through strong public institutions and stable redistribution mechanisms. For decades, the model worked. Sustained growth, increased productivity, and balanced demographics. These conditions allowed for the expansion of social rights without jeopardizing fiscal stability. Today, the framework is different. Potential growth is lower, the population is aging, and pressure on structural spending is increasing. In this new context, it is worth asking whether a welfare state, which is the essence of our European model, is sustainable. In Catalonia and Spain, it depends fundamentally on four variables: productivity, the labor market, public funding, and the tax structure. Is the economy productive enough?

A state's capacity to sustain universal public services is directly linked to productivity. More productive economies generate higher wages and, therefore, greater tax revenue without the need for a significant increase in taxes. In the case of Catalonia and Spain, average productivity remains below that of the main countries in the European region. A significant portion of economic activity is concentrated in low value-added, labor-intensive sectors. This model is capable of generating employment but with limited revenue. The consequence is structural: with low-wage jobs, even if they have high value (such as elder care), the capacity of governments to expand or even maintain the current level of social spending is reduced. Without a transition towards capital-, technology-, and knowledge-intensive activities, the growth in public revenue will be insufficient to absorb demographic and social pressures.

]]>

European societies are experiencing a profound malaise that is difficult to summarize. It is economic, but also cultural, generational, and territorial. It translates into a feeling that the promises of democracy are either late or never fulfilled. And it is this context that cynics and populists exploit to erode trust in institutions and portray migrants, feminists, or Brussels as the scapegoats.

]]>

Everyone has people in their circle of acquaintances, whether close or distant, whose living conditions have worsened. We are living amidst a persistent and growing malaise.

]]>

Finland remains the happiest country in the world according to theWorld Happiness ReportDespite its struggling economy battling stagnation, the unemployment rate is already the second highest in the EU (only behind Spain), and imbalances in public finances are leading to significant cuts in its prized welfare state. Not so many years ago, the Nordic country was an example of what are known as... countries frugal and one of the EU's most fiscally disciplined partners. Now things have changed, and the country's public debt is projected to reach 90% next year, almost 50% higher than in 2019. The public deficit has also risen this year to 4.5% of GDP, a figure higher than the 3% of GDP tolerated by Brussels.

]]>

In recent weeks, we have witnessed an intense debate in the media, especially in the newspaper ARA, regarding the fiscal contribution of immigration to the welfare state. However, a significant part of this debate has been built on partial or outright biased interpretations of a phenomenon that is, by definition, complex. In this column, I would like to return to the empirical evidence and briefly explain what the most recent studies analyzing the Spanish case tell us.

]]>

The economic narrative against immigration is often based on the idea that most immigrants only find low-paying jobs, meaning they will end up receiving more from "our" welfare state than they contribute. They are, therefore, a bad deal. This argument would be economically irrefutable were it not for the fact that a large part of the local working population finds itself in the same situation. If immigrants represent a net cost to the public purse from the moment they arrive, this segment of the local population has had this cost since birth.

]]>

Four weeks ago I published an article in which he pointed out that low-paid immigration – the kind that attracts our tourism, our agriculture and our personal care services – undermines the welfare state, since the taxes and social contributions that these people bear are less than the cost of the services they will receive throughout their lives.

]]>

It's becoming a commonly accepted misconception that immigration makes the welfare state unsustainable. However, the data tells a different story: the autonomous communities with higher immigration rates have higher per capita tax and social security revenue than those with lower or no immigration. This is obviously not because the workers are immigrants or not, but because the communities with high immigration rates have higher employment rates, which they wouldn't have achieved with the native population alone.

]]>

One of the most valuable economic lessons I've ever learned came from one of the most important economists of the 20th century, Paul Samuelson. He explained that the economy works like a soda cooler, which consists of a tube open at both ends. You put a warm bottle in at one end, and the pressure forces a cold bottle out at the other. The idea is simple: you need to invest resources to get results. So far, so obvious. But what happens when a "populist" (that was his term) says that you don't need to put any soda in, but that you just need to put your hand inside the tube to pull out a cold bottle? And when it runs out, you repeat the process again and again. As long as the audience is willing to turn a blind eye to reality (and there are always many willing to do so), the populist will triumph politically. The problem is that when their term ends, those who remain will have to put in many bottles before they can pull out any.

]]>

We are experiencing a period of great disorientation in most of our societies, and this situation is jeopardizing the relative peace and progress that characterized the second half of the 20th century. We are experiencing this quite acutely, both here and around the world, and therefore there is no need to explain it again. But it is urgent to analyze its causes and take the necessary measures to avoid a truly disastrous crisis for the people who live and will live in the coming years. We have seen and will see books on this subject, but I will limit myself now to a specific perspective, as reflected in the title of this article.

]]>

Unmitigated humiliation for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The week that was supposed to mark the first anniversary of Labour's return to Downing Street –It is fulfilled this Friday–, has been the week in which the power of the premier was practically reduced to ashes and in which he was accused of making "Dickensian cuts" to social benefits for the most vulnerable. In a severe blow to his moral authority and to the legitimacy of the party leadership, Starmer saw this Tuesday night the passage of the bill reforming the Individual Contributions for the Disabled (known as welfare bill) has been practically decapitated at its core by an internal revolt of unprecedented proportions, which has forced the government to bow to the rebels' force with last-minute concessions minutes before the vote. who have spoken out against.

]]>

I cannot help but think, seeing the situation that has been continually reaching us in recent months from all parts of the world, that we have reason to be very concerned. But, at the same time, I also believe that we have the obligation to do, within our possibilities, something to help remedy it. Obviously, I leave aside the enormous nonsense and nonsense that the political leaders of some large countries are proud of, whose behavior only deserves total rejection from me. I wonder how so many people of different ages and social positions can support them, both in self-sufficient and democratic countries. I think that things are happening that we do not fully understand, but nevertheless I want to make some considerations that can help combat the large amount of false or manipulated information that circulates and that leads many to make emotionally intense but generally erroneous decisions. If a better diagnosis is made, remedies can begin to be proposed.

]]>