Federico Reyes Heroles
It is not true; it is false that if you do not work, then you cannot have a good standard of living. That is the discourse of the past. Here, the government, the Mexican State, has to support…
I hear the expression. It is unbelievable. This is the 21st century. We can all slip up. But it was not; it is a conception of life. It is and has been for five years the maximum policy of the populism that governs us. The candidate of the ruling party, the one who proclaims the need to continue along the same path as her political father, says it convinced and to convince. She should have consulted a minimum manual on the subject out of respect for science and citizens. Today, we know much more about the topic. Natural resources are, without a doubt, a key factor for a country to prosper and for its population to obtain better living standards. Mexico has them, and although we have exaggerated about it, we are privileged because of its territory, biodiversity, geographic location, coasts, jungles and forests, mining resources, oil, solar and wind energy potential, and climate.
But that is not enough, and the candidate should know that. There are vast countries -for example, Argentina, which is almost 3 million square kilometers with a relatively small population of 45 million- with a per capita income of 13,650 dollars. Austria, with 10 million inhabitants, does not reach 100,000 square kilometers. However, the per capita income is more than 50,000 dollars. While Argentina has 16 inhabitants per km², Austria has 107. The less a country depends on natural resources – agriculture in Austria is only 1.2% of GDP – and the more industry and services it has, the richer it will be. It is in Adam Smith, but also in Marx, that labor is the axis of conflict. Today, we know that true prosperity comes from human labor, social division, capital accumulation, savings, and technification.
Behind it is a buzzword, uncomfortable but essential: productivity. That is, how much can we do with certain allocated resources? Many indices measure the productivity of companies and nations. One of them is productivity per hour worked, which is used by the OECD, a club to which we fortunately belong because that is how we compare ourselves with countries that have achieved high living standards. Ireland, of which little is said, had in 2019 a productivity per average hour worked of more than 100 dollars. Norway followed it with $93. Italy, Spain, and Canada were in the middle of the table. The last place was occupied by Mexico and falling. We work more hours; we produce less. Productivity is closely linked to the level of education. More than 100% of primary and secondary education coverage is in Ireland. At the tertiary level, it is around 80%. In Mexico, this level barely exceeds 40%. In Mexico, more is spent on education, but… quality. Why did the National Institute for Educational Evaluation (INEE), in charge of this mission, disappear? Why did the budget of the teacher training colleges be cut in half? If you do not work or are not productive, you cannot have a “good standard of living,” whatever it may be, and poverty will hardly decrease. No modern State can assume this responsibility: to reduce poverty… without work.
Savings are missing; without them, a country does not capitalize, is not more productive, and does not prosper. By advancing by leaps and bounds, Botswana saves the equivalent of 32% of its GDP. Mexico, 20%. Argentina, 18%. Sustained growth can only be obtained from 25% or more of GDP. Nothing has been done in recent years to achieve this; on the contrary, public money has been squandered as never before, and investment has been scared away. That is the bill.
Gross Savings as a percentage of GDP
It is false to say that a good standard of living is possible without work. The discourse of the future is about work, productivity, and savings.
Pure lies, falsehoods
Further Reading: