El cord-cutting como tendencia


Enrique Dans

El cord-cutting, personas que dejan de pagar su suscripción a la televisión por cable para empezar a consumir contenidos a través de la red, está convirtiéndose en un tema serio en los Estados Unidos.

El año pasado, un millón de suscriptores de este tipo de servicios se dieron de baja en los mismos, y en lo que llevamos de este año la cifra ya alcanza los cuatrocientos mil. Entre 2008 y 2011, se calcula que más de dos millones y medio de hogares se dieron de baja. Aunque pueda haber cierta discusión con respecto a las cifras, algunos hablan ya del cord-cutting como “the new file-sharing“, una tendencia imparable que la industria interpreta como un problema de precios, mientras los usuarios buscan otras cuestiones que la industria no les sabe proporcionar.

No hablamos de un problema de sustitución por descargas a través de medios alternativos como bit-torrent (aunque lógicamente sea una opción que también existe), sino más bien de servicios ofrecidos por compañías que como Netflix, Hulu, Apple o Google, complementados con sitios como las propias páginas web de las cadenas de televisión o YouTube. Existe incluso un caso polémico con denuncias cruzadas en ambos sentidos, Aereo, que también está despertando cierto nivel de atención.

El problema del cord-cutting no son las cifras, sino lo que subyace detrás de ellas. En los años que viví en los Estados Unidos, la suscripción a canales premium de televisión era un indicador del estatus socioeconómico: si alguien intentaba averiguar como era tu situación económica, era normal que te preguntase si habías visto un contenido en tal o cual canal. Con el tiempo, sin embargo, la suscripción a servicios de televisión por cable se está convirtiendo en sinónimo de “soy tecnológicamente iletrado y no sé acceder a contenidos de otra manera”. Quienes están optando por el cord-cutting ya no son personas que necesitan ahorrar dinero en una situación de crisis económica o los que no consumen televisión, sino los consumidores sofisticados, los que buscan otra manera de acceder y consumir contenidos que les gustan.

Es una tendencia que ya hemos visto antes: los libros electrónicos no comenzaron su adopción entre clientes que querían ahorrarse el dinero que costaban los libros en papel, sino entre quienes consumíamos más libros. Si ves una adopción tecnológica que toma cuerpo de naturaleza precisamente entre tus consumidores más ávidos y más rentables, ten cuidado, y sobre todo, no malinterpretes los síntomas. En mi casa, con una persona que escribe sobre contenidos televisivos, el canal que claramente se consume más proviene del ordenador que vive al lado del televisor. Y cuando hace unos días me llamó alguien de Telefonica para venderme Imagenio (¡cinco llamadas a mi móvil desde el 1004 a lo largo de la mañana hasta que finalmente contesté, creo que es algo que debería ser denunciable como acoso!!), no tuve la más mínima duda al decir claramente que no me interesaba: simplemente, no es un servicio que nos llame la atención en absoluto. Los contenidos a los que queremos acceder están simplemente en otro sitio.La dirección que sigue el tema es clara: incremento progresivo de la oferta en la red. El cord-cutter ya no se siente como un paria que se lo pierde todo, sino que tiende a tener acceso a cada vez más alternativas, muchas de ellas vinculadas a modelos comercialmente viables. Es, simplemente, una cuestión de tiempo que, como comentábamos hace unos días, empecemos a ver el modelo tradicional de la televisión como una cosa del pasado. Si no se produce por decreto, acabará teniendo lugar de manera natural. Mientras algunos siguen obsesionados con controlar la televisión de toda la vida como cuando había un solo canal, todo indica que las tendencias de consumo van a terminar apuntando en otro sentido.

En cuatro meses el pan subió 30% a pesar del congelamiento del trigo y la harina

Se trata de un aumento que duplicó a la inflación de octubre a febrero. Polémica por la composición de precios en medio de las versiones por posibles intervenciones.


La secretaria de Comercio, Paula Español


Entre el 15 de octubre de 2019 y el 11 de febrero de este año el precio del kilo de pan en los principales centros urbanos del país aumentó un 30% pasando de 100 a 130 pesos en promedio dependiendo de la zona y los costos de los comercios.


La cuestión es que en dicho periodo el precio del kilo de trigo en el mercado local se mantuvo estable, con vaivenes, en torno a los 13 pesos. La bolsa de 50 kilos de harina, en tanto, fue moviéndose hasta encontrar un valor aproximado de 1.200 pesos.



El dato surge de un informe de la consultora Kimei Cereales, que preside el corredor Javier Buján, como respuesta a la idea de algunos funcionarios del Gobierno de volver a intervenir el mercado de trigo para garantizar el programa "Precios Cuidados".


"El precio de la harina llegó a valer en octubre 1.200 pesos, lo mismo que ahora. Sin embargo, el valor del pan desde fines del año pasado a la fecha subió un 30% por efecto de la inercia inflacionaria de la economía argentina", explicó Buján.




"La Argentina cuenta con pleno abastecimiento de trigo para este año. Los rumores sobre posibles intervenciones están completamente alejadas de la realidad y demuestran un desconocimiento del funcionamiento del mercado de granos", agregó Buján.


Un informe realizado por la Fundación Agropecuaria para el Desarrollo de Argentina (FADA) muestra que el precio del pan está compuesto por el trigo (11,8%), la harina (4,2%), los impuestos (17,7%) y los costos propios de las panaderías (66,3%).

Al respecto, David Miazzo, economista jefe de FADA, dijo que "el precio del trigo se multiplica por siete desde que el cereal sale del campo hasta el producto panificado que terminan comprando los consumidores en los comercios minoristas".


Sobre el peso de los impuestos en el precio del pan, cabe mencionar que, según FADA, tres de cada cuatro tributos van dirigidos a las arcas nacionales, un 22,7% lo cobran las provincias, al tiempo que un 3,3% lo reciben los municipios.


En este sentido, la economista Natalia Ariño comentó que "la mayor parte del precio de los alimentos están compuestos por los costos de producción, elaboración y comercialización. En el caso del pan estos costos alcanzan casi el 60%".

Como sea, este miércoles en el recinto de la Bolsa de Comercio de Rosario (BCR) el trigo disponible cotizó a 12.040 pesos por tonelada, mientras que la posición julio en el Mercado a Término de Buenos Aires (MATBA) cerró a 207 dólares por tonelada.

El marketing político de la dictadura









En el período 1976-1983, la dictadura militar montó un vasto aparato publicitario para no sólo adoctrinar a los ciudadanos y legitimar su accionar, sino también para acallar y desmentir a los organismos de derechos humanos, y denuncias desde el extranjero, catalogados por los militares como la "campaña antiargentina".



En las décadas de 1970 y 1980, Burson-Marsteller organizó la campaña de la dictadura militar argentina (1976-1983) destinada a impedir las denuncias internacionales por violaciones a los derechos humanos, siendo la autora del conocido slógan «los argentinos somos derechos y humanos».




En el libro The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein dice que:


Victor Emmanuel, el ejecutivo de Burson-Marsteller que estaba a cargo de vender al mundo el nuevo régimen favorable a las empresas de la junta de Argentina, le contó a un investigador que la violencia era necesaria para abrir la economía "proteccionista, estatista" de Argentina. "Nadie, pero nadie, invierte en un país envuelto en una guerra civil", dijo, admitiendo también que no fueron solo guerrilleros quienes murieron. "Mucha personas inocentes probablemente fueron asesinados," le contó a la autora Marguerite Feitlowitz, pero, "dada la situación, se requería una inmensa fuerza".

Por el servicio y las gestiones cobrarían alrededor de medio millón de dólares. Y trabajarían en coordinación con el organismo estatal creado para la organización del evento, el Ente Autárquico Mundial 78 (EAM 78), a cargo del capitán de navío Carlos Lacoste.


En su libro "La vergüenza de todos", el periodista Pablo Llonto explica la estrategia encarada por Burson: "La agencia había concentrado sus actividades de propaganda en dos tácticas: la utilización de los íconos argentinos que mejor impacto tenían en el extranjero y el soborno escondido de periodistas a los que se los invitaría a escribir sobre ’un país distinto’ (...) Para el segundo paso, Burson elaboró listas de periodistas americanos y europeos a los que se podía embarcar en primera clase, alojarlos en los más elegantes hoteles y rodearlos de acompañantes que los convencerían de la paz argentina."


El plan puesto en marcha incluía "utilizar" la imagen de personajes populares de la farándula, el espectáculo y el deporte nacional, como por ejemplo, el automovilista Juan Manuel Fangio, el boxeador Carlos Monzón, el tenista Guillermo Vilas, los actores Carlos Balá y Juan José Camero, o el relator de fútbol José María Muñoz, para mencionar algunos.

Fangio viajaba al exterior a hablar de la "verdadera argentina". Monzón daba exhibiciones de boxeo en los campamentos del ejército para los soldados que capturaban guerrilleros. Muñoz sería "la voz" del mundial, instando al pueblo argentino a mostrarse ordenado y prolijo en las canchas, no tirando papelitos, ya que nos estaban viendo en el exterior. Balá decía constantemente en los televisores de cada argentino: "vamos muchachos, con buena letra, y va a ser mundial".

La mitad de las empresas argentinas no puede encontrar personal calificado

Los puestos relacionados con la tecnología son los más complicados de cubrir





El 54% de los empleadores a nivel mundial manifiesta tener dificultades para cubrir posiciones específicas, alcanzando así el resultado más alto desde el comienzo de la encuesta que realiza la consultora laboral ManpowerGroup.

Aunque con cuatro puntos porcentuales menos, la tendencia sigue la misma línea en Argentina.

Desde la última investigación realizada en 2018, Argentina logró reducir la Escasez de Talento un 2%, dejando de ser el país con el nivel más alto de la región. En este sentido, Brasil (52%), México (52%), Perú y Colombia (ambos con 54%) se encuentran por encima de nuestro país.

En 2015, Argentina había ocupado uno de los porcentajes más bajos, cuando se ubicó en 37 por ciento. Sólo un año antes había llegado al 63 por ciento.

En el resto del mundo, los empleadores de Japón (88%), Rumania (86%) y Grecia (77%) reportan las mayores dificultades para cubrir puestos vacantes, mientras que los del Reino Unido (27%), Irlanda (23%) y China (16%) afirman tener más facilidad.


La investigación indica qué atrae a las personas a trabajar en una organización y qué las hace quedarse para que los empleadores puedan encontrar, construir y conservar el mejor talento. Si bien lo que los trabajadores desean varía según la geografía, el género y las etapas de los ciclos profesionales, el estudio evidencia el valor que los trabajadores le asignan a la autonomía sobre cuándo y dónde se realiza el trabajo, el bienestar para equilibrar la vida laboral y personal y la movilidad profesional.

"Resulta indispensable contar con una estrategia integral de talento basada en los deseos de los trabajadores" sostuvo Gustavo Aguilera, Director de Right Management y Capital Humano de ManpowerGroup Argentina. "Con un fenómeno de Escasez de Talento tan agudo, los empleadores se enfrentan al desafío de satisfacer las necesidades y los deseos de una fuerza laboral cada vez más exigente" remarcó.

En cuanto a los puestos más difíciles de cubrir, al igual que la última edición de hace dos años, se encuentran los técnicos, seguidos por los oficios calificados y los trabajos relacionados a las Tecnologías de la Información (TI).

Por otro lado, las pequeñas empresas son las que tienen más dificultades para cubrir los puestos de trabajo. Luego se ubican las microempresas, las medianas y, por último, las grandes corporaciones.

Para llevar adelante la 13° Encuesta Global de Escasez de Talento titulada "Para cerrar la brecha de las habilidades: Conocé lo que los trabajadores quieren", ManpowerGroup consultó a 14.000 personas en quince países. La finalidad es comprender qué los atrae a una organización, qué los mantiene allí y cómo eso varía según la ubicación geográfica, el género y las diferentes etapas de su carrera.

Marca 'Chino"; identificación indirecta, diferenciación, segmentación





Las elecciones generales de Perú de 1990 se realizaron el domingo 8 de abril de 1990 y el domingo 10 de junio de ese mismo año. Se renovó totalmente el Poder Ejecutivo y el Poder Legislativo del Perú.

En estas elecciones, Alberto Fujimori logró su primer mandato.

El novelista Mario Vargas Llosa, lanza su candidatura por su partido Movimiento Libertad, el Partido Popular Cristiano de Luis Bedoya Reyes y Acción Popular de Fernando Belaúnde Terry, formando el Fredemo. Lentamente, comienza a surgir un nuevo personaje, Alberto Fujimori, profesor universitario que hacía campaña en tractor.

Fujimori jugaba contra la marca política ideal, escritor de fama internacional, europeo, que predicaba las ideas del clima de época; neoliberalismo .

Fujimori bailaba, vestido de cholo, con los cholos alrededor, le permitía a estos identificarse como alguien diferente frente al candidato blanco, europeo, que era aspiracional para los sectores medios, pero esa aspiración se tornaba inviable por lejana para los sectores  bajos.

A Fujimori, japonés por origen familiar, le decían el chino, y su campaña no dudó en construir la marca "Chino",  y presentar "el baile del chino", que explotaba con "Chino, Chino, Chino".

El metamensaje era: yo que soy un "chino" ergo no blanco europeo como Vargas LLosa el "perfecto", puedo ser presidente, soy profesor universitario, culto, inteligente, votame, soy coo vos.

Los sectores medios lo votaron a Vargas Llosa,  los sectores bajos a Fujimori.

 Identificación indirecta,  diferenciación y segmentación

Europe’s Growing Muslim Population

Muslims are projected to increase as a share of Europe’s population – even with no future migration

Migrants who had arrived via buses chartered by Austrian authorities walk toward the border to Germany on Oct. 17, 2015, near Fuchsoedt, Austria. (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)




In recent years, Europe has experienced a record influx of asylum seekers fleeing conflicts in Syria and other predominantly Muslim countries. This wave of Muslim migrants has prompted debate about immigration and security policies in numerous countries and has raised questions about the current and future number of Muslims in Europe.

To see how the size of Europe’s Muslim population may change in the coming decades, Pew Research Center has modeled three scenarios that vary depending on future levels of migration. These are not efforts to predict what will happen in the future, but rather a set of projections about what could happen under different circumstances.

The baseline for all three scenarios is the Muslim population in Europe (defined here as the 28 countries presently in the European Union, plus Norway and Switzerland) as of mid-2016, estimated at 25.8 million (4.9% of the overall population) – up from 19.5 million (3.8%) in 2010.

Even if all migration into Europe were to immediately and permanently stop – a “zero migration” scenario – the Muslim population of Europe still would be expected to rise from the current level of 4.9% to 7.4% by the year 2050. This is because Muslims are younger (by 13 years, on average) and have higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern.

A second, “medium” migration scenario assumes that all refugee flows will stop as of mid-2016 but that recent levels of “regular” migration to Europe will continue (i.e., migration of those who come for reasons other than seeking asylum; see note on terms below). Under these conditions, Muslims could reach 11.2% of Europe’s population in 2050.

Finally, a “high” migration scenario projects the record flow of refugees into Europe between 2014 and 2016 to continue indefinitely into the future with the same religious composition (i.e., mostly made up of Muslims) in addition to the typical annual flow of regular migrants. In this scenario, Muslims could make up 14% of Europe’s population by 2050 – nearly triple the current share, but still considerably smaller than the populations of both Christians and people with no religion in Europe.

The refugee flows of the last few years, however, are extremely high compared with the historical average in recent decades, and already have begun to decline as the European Union and many of its member states have made policy changes aimed at limiting refugee flows (see sidebar).


How key terms are used in this report: Regular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees

Migrants: This broad category includes all people moving across international borders to live in another country.
Regular migrants/other migrants: People who legally move to Europe for any reason other than seeking asylum – e.g., for economic, educational or family reasons.

Asylum seekers: Migrants who apply for refugee status upon entry to Europe. Asylum seekers whose requests for asylum are rejected can appeal the decision but cannot legally stay in Europe if the appeal is denied.

Refugees: Successful asylum seekers and those who are expected to receive legal status once their paperwork is processed. Estimates are based on recent rates of approval by European destination country for each origin country (among first-time applicants) and adjusted for withdrawals of asylum requests, which occur, for example, when asylum seekers move to another European country or outside of Europe.

In limbo: Asylum seekers whose application for asylum has been or is expected to be denied. Though this population may remain temporarily or illegally in Europe, these migrants are excluded from the population estimates and projections in this report.

Predicting future migration levels is impossible, because migration rates are connected not only to political and economic conditions outside of Europe, but also to the changing economic situation and government policies within Europe. Although none of these scenarios will play out exactly as projected, each provides a set of rough parameters from which to imagine other possible outcomes. For example, if regular migration continues at recent levels, and some asylum seekers also continue to arrive and receive refugee status – but not as many as during the historically exceptional surge of refugees from 2014 to 2016 – then the share of Muslims in Europe’s population as of 2050 would be expected to be somewhere between 11.2% and 14%.

While Europe’s Muslim population is expected to grow in all three scenarios – and more than double in the medium and high migration scenarios – Europe’s non-Muslims, on the other hand, are projected to decline in total number in each scenario. Migration, however, does mitigate this decline somewhat; nearly half of all recent migrants to Europe (47%) were not Muslim, with Christians making up the next-largest group.

Taken as a whole, Europe’s population (including both Muslims and non-Muslims) would be expected to decline considerably (from about 521 million to an estimated 482 million) without any future migration. In the medium migration scenario, it would remain roughly stable, while in the high migration scenario it would be projected to grow modestly.

The impact of these scenarios is uneven across different European countries (see maps below); due in large part to government policies, some countries are much more affected by migration than others.

Countries that have received relatively large numbers of Muslim refugees in recent years are projected to experience the biggest changes in the high migration scenario – the only one that projects these heavy refugee flows to continue into the future. For instance, Germany’s population (6% Muslim in 2016) would be projected to be about 20% Muslim by 2050 in the high scenario – a reflection of the fact that Germany has accepted many Muslim refugees in recent years – compared with 11% in the medium scenario and 9% in the zero migration scenario.

Sweden, which also has accepted a relatively high number of refugees, would experience even greater effects if the migration levels from 2014 to mid-2016 were to continue indefinitely: Sweden’s population (8% Muslim in 2016) could grow to 31% Muslim in the high scenario by 2050, compared with 21% in the medium scenario and 11% with no further Muslim migration.

By contrast, the countries projected to experience the biggest changes in the medium scenario (such as the UK) tend to have been destinations for the highest numbers of regular Muslim migrants. This scenario only models regular migration.

And countries with Muslim populations that are especially young, or have a relatively large number of children, would see the most significant change in the zero migration scenario; these include France, Italy and Belgium.

Some countries would experience little change in any of the scenarios, typically because they have few Muslims to begin with or low levels of immigration (or both).

The starting point for all these scenarios is Europe’s population as of mid-2016. Coming up with an exact count of Muslims currently in Europe, however, is not a simple task. The 2016 estimates are based on Pew Research Center analysis and projections of the best available census and survey data in each country combined with data on immigration from Eurostat and other sources. While Muslim identity is often measured directly, in some cases it must be estimated indirectly based upon the national origins of migrants (see Methodology for details).

One source of uncertainty is the status of asylum seekers who are not granted refugee status. An estimated 3.7 million Muslims migrated to Europe between mid-2010 and mid-2016, including approximately 2.5 million regular migrants entering legally as workers, students, etc., as well as 1.3 million Muslims who have or are expected to be granted refugee status (including an estimated 980,000 Muslim refugees who arrived between 2014 and mid-2016).

Based on recent rates of approval of asylum applications, Pew Research Center estimates that nearly a million (970,000) additional Muslim asylum seekers who came to Europe in recent years will not have their applications for asylum accepted, based on past rates of approval on a country-by-country basis. These estimates also take into account expected rates of withdrawals of requests for refugee status (see Methodology for details).

Where these asylum seekers “in limbo” ultimately will go is unclear: Some may leave Europe voluntarily or be deported, while others will remain at least temporarily while they appeal their asylum rejection. Some also could try to stay in Europe illegally.

For the future population projections presented in this report, it is assumed that only Muslim migrants who already have – or are expected to gain – legal status in Europe will remain for the long term, providing a baseline of 25.8 million Muslims as of 2016 (4.9% of Europe’s population). However, if all of the approximately 1 million Muslims who are currently in legal limbo in Europe were to remain in Europe – which seems unlikely – the 2016 baseline could rise as high as 26.8 million, with ripple effects across all three scenarios.

These are a few of the key findings from a new Pew Research Center demographic analysis – part of a broader effort to project the population growth of religious groups around the world. This report, which focuses on Muslims in Europe due to the rapid changes brought on by the recent influx of refugees, provides the first estimates of the growing size of the Muslim population in Europe following the wave of refugees between 2014 and mid-2016. It uses the best available data combined with estimation and projection methods developed in prior Pew Research Center demographic studies. The projections take into account the current size of both the Muslim and non-Muslim populations in Europe, as well as international migration, age and sex composition, fertility and mortality rates, and patterns in conversion. (See Methodology for details.)

Europe’s Muslim population is diverse. It encompasses Muslims born in Europe and in a wide variety of non-European countries. It includes Sunnis, Shiites, and Sufis. Levels of religious commitment and belief vary among Europe’s Muslim populations. Some of the Muslims enumerated in this report would not describe Muslim identity as salient in their daily lives. For others, Muslim identity profoundly shapes their daily lives. However, quantifying religious devotion and categories of Muslim identity is outside the scope of this report.

Between mid-2010 and mid-2016, the number of Muslims in Europe grew considerably through natural increase alone – that is, estimated births outnumbered deaths among Muslims by more than 2.9 million over that period. But most of the Muslim population growth in Europe during the period (about 60%) was due to migration: The Muslim population grew by an estimated 3.5 million from net migration (i.e., the number of Muslims who arrived minus the number who left, including both regular migrants and refugees). Over the same period, there was a relatively small loss in the Muslim population due to religious switching – an estimated 160,000 more people switched their religious identity from Muslim to another religion (or to no religion) than switched into Islam from some other religion or no religion – although this had a modest impact compared with births, deaths and migration.1

By comparison, the non-Muslim population in Europe declined slightly between 2010 and 2016. A natural decrease of about 1.7 million people in the non-Muslim European population modestly outnumbered the net increase of non-Muslim migrants and a modest net change due to religious switching.

The rest of the report looks at these findings in greater detail. The first section examines the number of migrants to Europe between mid-2010 and mid-2016, including patterns by religion and refugee status. The next section details the top origin and destination countries for recent migrants to Europe, including in each case the estimated percentage of Muslims. One sidebar looks at European public opinion toward the surge in refugees from countries like Iraq and Syria; another summarizes trends in government policies toward refugees and migration in individual countries and the EU as a whole. The following section examines more deeply the three projection scenarios on a country-by-country basis. Finally, the last two sections reveal data on two other key demographic factors that affect population growth: fertility and age structure.

This report was produced by Pew Research Center as part of the Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures project, which analyzes religious change and its impact on societies around the world. Funding for the Global Religious Futures project comes from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John Templeton Foundation.

Surge in refugees – most of them Muslim – between 2014 and mid-2016

Overall, regardless of religion or immigration status, there were an estimated 7 million migrants to Europe between mid-2010 and mid-2016 (not including 1.7 million asylum seekers who are not expected to have their applications for asylum approved).

Historically, a relatively small share of migrants to Europe are refugees from violence or persecution in their home countries.2 This continued to be the case from mid-2010 to mid-2016 – roughly three-quarters of migrants to Europe in this period (5.4 million) were regular migrants (i.e., not refugees).

But the number of refugees has surged since 2014. During the three-and-a-half-year period from mid-2010 to the end of 2013, about 400,000 refugees (an average of 110,000 per year) arrived in Europe. Between the beginning of 2014 and mid-2016 – a stretch of only two and a half years – roughly three times as many refugees (1.2 million, or about 490,000 annually) came to Europe, as conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan continued or intensified. (These figures do not include an additional 970,000 Muslim asylum seekers and 680,000 non-Muslim asylum seekers who arrived between mid-2010 and mid-2016 but are not projected to receive legal status in Europe.)

Of these roughly 1.6 million people who received refugee status in Europe between mid-2010 and mid-2016 (or are expected to have their applications approved in the future), more than three-quarters (78%, or 1.3 million) were estimated to be Muslims.3 By comparison, a smaller percentage of regular migrants to Europe in this period (46%) were Muslims, although this still greatly exceeds the share of Europe’s overall population that is Muslim and thus contributes to Europe’s growing Muslim population. In fact, about two-thirds of all Muslims who arrived in Europe between mid-2010 and mid-2016 were regular migrants and not refugees.

Altogether, a slim majority of all migrants to Europe – both refugees and regular migrants – between mid-2010 and mid-2016 (an estimated 53%) were Muslim. In total number, roughly 3.7 million Muslims and 3.3 million non-Muslims arrived in Europe during this period.

Non-Muslim migrants to Europe overall between mid-2010 and mid-2016 were mostly made up of Christians (an estimated 1.9 million), people with no religious affiliation (410,000), Buddhists (390,000) and Hindus (350,000). Christians made up 30% of regular migrants overall (1.6 million regular Christian migrants; 55% of all non-Muslim regular migrants) and 16% of all refugees (250,000 Christian refugees; 71% of all non-Muslim refugees).
Syria is top origin country not only for refugees but also for all Muslim migrants to Europe

Considering the total influx of refugees and regular migrants together, more migrants to Europe between mid-2010 and mid-2016 came from Syria than any other country. Of the 710,000 Syrian migrants to Europe during this period, more than nine-in-ten (94%, or 670,000) came seeking refuge from the Syrian civil war, violence perpetrated by the Islamic State or some other strife.

An estimated nine-in-ten Syrian migrants (91%) were Muslims. In this case and many others, migrants’ religious composition is assumed to match the religious composition of their origin country. In some other cases, data are available for migrants from a particular country to a destination country; for example, there is a higher share of Christians among Egyptian migrants to Austria than there is among those living in Egypt. When available, this type of data is used to estimate the religious composition of new migrants. (For more details, see the Methodology.)

After Syria, the largest sources of recent refugees to Europe are Afghanistan (180,000) and Iraq (150,000). Again, in both cases, nearly all of the migrants from these countries were refugees from conflict, and overwhelming majorities from both places were Muslims.

Several other countries, however, were the origin of more overall migrants to Europe. India, for example, was the second-biggest source of migrants to Europe (480,000) between mid-2010 and mid-2016; very few of these migrants came as refugees, and only an estimated 15% were Muslims.

The top countries of origin of migrants in legal limbo are not necessarily the top countries of origin among legally accepted refugees. For example, relatively few Syrians are in legal limbo, while Albania, where fewer asylum seekers come from, is the origin of a large number of rejected applicants. Afghanistan, meanwhile, is both a major source of legally accepted refugees and also a major country of origin of those in legal limbo.

Since the primary criterion for asylum decisions is the safety of the origin country, particularly dangerous countries, such as Syria, have much higher acceptance rates than others. For more information on the countries of origin of those in legal limbo see Pew Research Center’s 2017 report, “Still in Limbo: About a Million Asylum Seekers Await Word on Whether They Can Call Europe Home.”

Syria also was by far the single biggest source of Muslim migrants to Europe overall in recent years. But Morocco, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Iran also sent considerable numbers of Muslim migrants to Europe between mid-2010 and mid-2016 – more than 1 million combined – and the vast majority of Muslims from these countries came to Europe as regular migrants and not as refugees.
Germany is top destination for Muslim refugees; UK is leading destination for regular Muslim migrants

Germany was the destination for an estimated 670,000 refugees between mid-2010 and mid-2016 – more than three times as many as the country with the next-largest number, Sweden (200,000). A similar number of regular migrants from outside Europe also arrived in Germany in recent years (680,000). But religiously, refugees and other migrants to Germany look very different; an estimated 86% of refugees accepted by Germany were Muslims, compared with just 40% of regular migrants to Germany.

Germany has the largest population and economy in Europe, is centrally located on the continent and has policies favorable toward asylum seekers (for more on EU policies toward refugees, see this sidebar). The UK, however, actually was the destination for a larger number of migrants from outside Europe overall between mid-2010 and mid-2016 (1.6 million). The UK voted in a 2016 referendum to leave the EU, which may impact immigration patterns in the future, but it is still counted as part of Europe in this report.

Relatively few recent immigrants to the UK (60,000) were refugees, but more than 1.5 million regular migrants arrived there in recent years. Overall, an estimated 43% of all migrants to the UK between mid-2010 and mid-2016 were Muslims.

Combining Muslim refugees and Muslim regular migrants, Germany was the destination for more Muslim migrants overall than the UK (850,000 vs. 690,000).

France also received more than half a million Muslim migrants – predominantly regular migrants – between mid-2010 and mid-2016, while 400,000 Muslims arrived in Italy. The two countries accepted a combined total of 210,000 refugees (130,000 by Italy and 80,000 by France), most of whom were Muslims.

Sweden received even more refugees than the UK, Italy and France, all of which have much larger populations. A large majority of these 200,000 refugees (an estimated 77%) were Muslims; Sweden also received 250,000 regular migrants, most of whom were Muslims (58%). Overall, 300,000 Muslim migrants – 160,000 of whom were refugees – arrived in Sweden in recent years. Only Germany, the UK, France and Italy received more Muslim migrants to Europe overall since mid-2010. But because Sweden is home to fewer than 10 million people, these arrivals have a bigger impact on Sweden’s overall religious composition than does Muslim migration to larger countries in Western Europe.

These estimates do not include migration from one EU country to another. Some countries, particularly Germany, received a large number of regular migrants from within the EU. In fact, with about 800,000 newcomers from other EU countries, Germany received more intra-EU migrants than regular migrants from outside the EU. Intra-EU migrants tend to have a similar religious composition to Europeans overall.

The number of Muslim asylum seekers in legal limbo – i.e., those who already have had or are expected to have their applications for asylum rejected – varies substantially from country to country, largely because of differences in policies on asylum, variation in the number of applications received and differing origins of those migrants. Germany, for example, has a high number of Muslim migrants in legal limbo despite a relatively low rejection rate – mainly because it has received such a large number of applications for asylum. Germany received about 900,000 applications for asylum from Muslims between mid-2010 and mid-2016, and is projected to ultimately accept 580,000 and reject roughly 320,000 – or slightly more than one-third (excluding applications that were withdrawn).

This rejection rate is similar to Sweden’s; Sweden ultimately is expected to reject an estimated 90,000 out of roughly 240,000 Muslim applications (again, excluding withdrawals). France, meanwhile, is projected to reject three-quarters of applications from Muslims, leaving an “in limbo” population of 140,000 (out of 190,000 Muslim applications). Italy is expected to reject about half of Muslim applicants (90,000 out of 190,000 applications), and the UK is projected to reject 60,000 out of 100,000.

Data for the 2010 to 2013 period are based on application decision rates. But due to the combination of still-unresolved applications and lack of comprehensive data on recent decisions when this analysis took place, rejection patterns for the 2014 to mid-2016 period are estimated based on 2010 to 2013 rates of rejection for each origin and destination country pair (for details, see Methodology). There is no religious preference inherent to the asylum regulations in Europe. However, if religious persecution is a reason for seeking asylum, that context (as opposed to religious affiliation in and of itself) can be considered in the decision process. Religion is estimated in this report based on available information about countries of origin and migration flow patterns by religion – application decisions are not reported by religious group.

Iraqi and Syrian refugees perceived as less of a threat in countries where more of them have sought asylum

Does public opinion toward refugees invariably turn negative as their numbers rise? Apparently not. In some European countries that have attracted large numbers of refugees from Iraq and Syria, public levels of concern about these refugees are relatively low. Meanwhile, in some countries where there are fewer refugees from Iraq and Syria, a much higher share of the public says they pose a “major threat,” according to a 2017 Pew Research Center survey.

For instance, Germany has been the primary destination country for asylum seekers from the Middle East, receiving 457,000 applications from Iraqis and Syrians between mid-2010 and mid-2016. Yet the share of people in Germany who say “large numbers of refugees from countries such as Iraq and Syria” pose a “major threat” is among the lowest of all European countries surveyed (28%).

Similarly, in Sweden, just 22% of the public says these refugees constitute a “major threat.” Iraqi and Syrian asylum seekers make up an even greater share of Sweden’s population than Germany’s; there are 139 asylum seekers from these countries for every 10,000 Swedes.

By contrast, majorities of the public in Greece (67%), Italy (65%) and Poland (60%) say large numbers of refugees from countries such as Iraq and Syria represent a “major threat,” even though there are relatively few such asylum seekers in these countries.4 Indeed, there are fewer than 10,000 people from Iraq and Syria seeking asylum in Italy and Poland combined, representing one or fewer per 10,000 residents in each country.

This pattern is not universal. Hungary received 85,000 applications for asylum from Iraqi and Syrian refugees between mid-2010 and mid-2016 – among the highest figures in Europe – and most Hungarians (66%) see this surge of refugees as a major threat. Hungary’s government decided to close its border with Croatia in October 2015, erecting a fence to keep migrants out. Tens of thousands of applications for asylum in Hungary have been withdrawn since 2015. (For more on government policies toward migration, see this sidebar.)

Concerns about refugees from Iraq and Syria, most of whom are Muslims, are tied to negative views about Muslims in general. In all 10 EU countries that were part of a Pew Research Center survey in 2016, people who have an unfavorable view of Muslims are especially likely to see a threat associated with Iraqi and Syrian refugees. In the United Kingdom, for example, 80% of those who have an unfavorable opinion of Muslims say large numbers of refugees from countries such as Iraq and Syria represent a major threat. Among British adults who view Muslims favorably, just 40% see the refugees as a major threat.



EU restrictions on migration tightening after surge

Changing government policies in European countries can have a major impact on migration flows. In recent years, several European countries – and the European Union itself, acting on behalf of its member states – have adopted policies that have generally moved to tighten Europe’s borders and to limit flows of migrants.

In 2016, the EU signed a deal with Turkey, a frequent stop for migrants coming from Syria. Under the terms of the deal, Greece, which shares a border with Turkey, can return to Turkey all new “irregular” or illegal migrants. In exchange, EU member states pledged to resettle more Syrian refugees living in Turkey and to increase financial aid for those remaining there. By 2017, the agreement had reduced by 97% the number of migrants coming from Turkey into Greece, according to the EU migration commissioner.

Another common path for large numbers of migrants to Europe is from sub-Saharan Africa to Italy, where they primarily arrive by sea from the Libyan coast. To try to stem the tide, Italy has worked with the Libyan coast guard to develop techniques to stop boats carrying the migrants, among other policies and tactics.

In addition, even Germany – the destination of more recent asylum seekers than any other European country — has deported some migrants, including to Afghanistan, and moved toward tougher border controls. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, following a September 2017 election that saw the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party gain a presence in parliament for the first time, agreed to a limit of 200,000 asylum seekers per year.

Sweden and Austria also have accepted high numbers of refugees, especially relative to their small populations. But in November 2015, leaders announced a tightening of Sweden’s refugee policy, requiring identity checks to be imposed on all forms of transportation, and limiting family reunification with refugees. And in an October 2017 election, Austrian voters favored parties that had campaigned on taking a harder line on immigration.

Immigration – and not just by refugees – has been a major campaign issue in several countries, and it was one of the key factors in the Brexit debate over whether the UK, the destination of more regular migrants than any other European country in recent years, should remain in the European Union. In the aftermath of the 2016 referendum in which British voters opted to leave the EU, UK government officials have vowed to remove the country from the freedom-of-movement policy, which allows EU citizens to move to and work in EU member states without having to apply for visas, in March 2019.
How Europe’s Muslim population is projected to change in future decades

Pew Research Center’s three scenarios projecting the future size of the Muslim population in Europe reflect uncertainty about future migration flows due to political and social conditions outside of Europe, as well as shifting immigration policies in the region.

These projections start from an estimated baseline of 26 million Muslims in Europe as of 2016, which excludes asylum seekers who are not expected to gain legal status. Even with no future migration, Europe’s Muslim population is projected to increase by 10 million by 2050 based on fertility and age patterns (see here). If past levels of regular migration continue in the future – but with no more asylum seekers — the Muslim population in Europe would increase to nearly 58 million by midcentury (the medium scenario). And if the heavy refugee flows seen in recent years were to continue in the future on top of regular migration (the high migration scenario), there would be more than 75 million Muslims in Europe as of 2050.

In all three scenarios, the non-Muslim population in Europe is projected to shrink in total number between now and 2050.

As of 2016, France and Germany have the highest numbers of Muslims in Europe. But in the medium migration scenario, the United Kingdom would surpass them, with a projected 13 million Muslims in 2050 (compared with a projected 12.6 million in France and 8.5 million in Germany). This is because the UK was the top destination country for regular Muslim migrants (as opposed to refugees) between mid-2010 and mid-2016, and the medium scenario assumes that only regular immigration will continue.

Alternatively, in the high migration scenario, Germany would have by far the highest number of Muslims in 2050 – 17.5 million. This projection reflects Germany’s acceptance of a large number of Muslim refugees in recent years. The high scenario assumes that these refugee flows will continue in the coming decades, not only at the same volume but also with the same religious composition (i.e., that many refugees will continue to come from predominantly Muslim countries). Compared with the UK and France, Germany has received fewer regular Muslim migrants in recent years.

Other, smaller European countries also are expected to experience significant growth in their Muslim populations if regular migration or an influx of refugees continues (or both). For instance, in Sweden, the number of Muslims would climb threefold from fewer than a million (810,000) in 2016 to nearly 2.5 million in 2050 in the medium scenario, and fivefold to almost 4.5 million in the high scenario.

But some countries – even some large ones, like Poland – had very few Muslims in 2016 and are projected to continue to have very few Muslims in 2050 in all three scenarios. Poland’s Muslim population was roughly 10,000 in 2016 and would only rise to 50,000 in the medium scenario and 60,000 in the high scenario.

These growing numbers of Muslims in Europe, combined with the projected shrinkage of the non-Muslim population, are expected to result in a rising share of Muslims in Europe’s overall population in all scenarios.

Even if every EU country plus Norway and Switzerland immediately closed its borders to any further migration, the Muslim share of the population in these 30 countries would be expected to rise from 4.9% in 2016 to 7.4% in 2050 simply due to prevailing demographic trends. In the medium migration scenario, with projected future regular migration but no refugees, the Muslim share of Europe would rise to 11.2% by midcentury. And if high refugee flows were to continue in future decades, Europe would be 14% Muslim in 2050 – a considerable increase, although still a relative minority in a Christian-majority region.

Cyprus currently has the highest share of Muslims in the EU (25.4%), due largely to the historical presence of predominantly Muslim Turkish Cypriots in the northern part of the island. Migration is not projected to dramatically change the Muslim share of the population in Cyprus in future scenarios.

In both the zero and medium migration scenarios, Cyprus would maintain the largest Muslim share in Europe in 2050. But in the high migration scenario, Sweden – which was among the countries to accept a large number of refugees during the recent surge – is projected to surpass even Cyprus. In this scenario, roughly three-in-ten Swedes (30.6%) would be Muslim at midcentury.

Even in the medium scenario, without any future refugee flows, Sweden would be expected to have the second-largest Muslim share (20.5%) as of 2050. If migration were to stop altogether, a much smaller percentage of Swedes (11.1%) would be Muslim in 2050.

Migration also drives the projected increase in the Muslim shares of France, the UK and several other countries. Both France and the UK are expected to be roughly 17% Muslim by 2050 in the medium scenario, several percentage points higher than they would be if all future migration were to stop. Because both countries have accepted many more Muslim regular migrants than Muslim refugees, France and the UK do not vary as greatly between the medium scenario and the high scenario.

Germany, on the other hand, sees a dramatic difference in its projected Muslim share depending on future refugee flows. The share of Muslims in Germany (6.1% in 2016) would increase to 10.8% in 2050 under the medium scenario, in which regular migration continues at its recent pace and refugee flows stop entirely. But it would rise far more dramatically, to 19.7%, in the high scenario, if the recent volume of refugee flows continues as well. There is a similar pattern in Austria (6.9% Muslim in 2016, 10.6% in 2050 in the medium scenario and 19.9% in 2050 in the high scenario).

Another way to look at these shifts is by examining the extent of the projected change in the share of each country that is Muslim in different scenarios.

From now until midcentury, some countries in Europe could see their Muslim populations rise significantly in the medium and high scenarios. For example, the Muslim shares of both Sweden and the UK would rise by more than 10 percentage points in the medium scenario, while several other countries would experience a similar increase in the high scenario. The biggest increase for a country in any scenario would be Sweden in the high scenario – an increase of 22.4 percentage points, with the percentage of Muslims in the Swedish population rising to 30.6%.

Other countries would see only marginal increases under these scenarios. For example, Greece’s Muslim population is expected to rise by just 2.4 percentage points in the medium scenario. And hardly any change is projected in any scenario in several Central and Eastern European countries, including Poland, Latvia and Lithuania.

In Europe overall, even if all Muslim migration into Europe were to immediately and permanently stop – a zero migration scenario – the overall Muslim population of Europe would be expected to rise by 2.5 percentage points, from the current level of 4.9% to 7.4% by 2050. This is because Muslims in Europe are considerably younger and have a higher fertility rate than other Europeans. Without any future migrants, these prevailing demographic trends would lead to projected rises of at least 3 percentage points in the Muslim shares of France, Belgium, Italy and the UK.

Muslims have an average of one more child per woman than other Europeans

Migration aside, fertility rates are among the other dynamics driving Europe’s growing Muslim population. Europe’s Muslims have more children than members of other religious groups (or people with no religion) in the region. (New Muslim migrants to Europe are assumed to have fertility rates that match those of Muslims in their destination countries; for more details, see Methodology.)

Not all children born to Muslim women will ultimately identify as Muslims, but children are generally more likely to adopt their parents’ religious identity than any other.5

Taken as a whole, non-Muslim European women are projected to have a total fertility rate of 1.6 children, on average, during the 2015-2020 period, compared with 2.6 children per Muslim woman in the region. This difference of one child per woman is particularly significant given that fertility among European Muslims exceeds replacement level (i.e., the rate of births needed to sustain the size of a population) while non-Muslims are not having enough children to keep their population steady.

The difference between Muslim women and others varies considerably from one European country to another. In some countries, the disparity is large. The current estimated fertility rate for Muslim women in Finland, for example, is 3.1 children per woman, compared with 1.7 for non-Muslim Finns.6

Among Western European countries with the largest Muslim populations, Germany’s Muslim women have relatively low fertility, at just 1.9 children per woman (compared with 1.4 for non-Muslim Germans). Muslims in the UK and France, meanwhile, average 2.9 children – a full child more per woman than non-Muslims. This is one reason the German Muslim population – both in total number and as a share of the overall population – is not projected to keep pace with the British and French Muslim populations, except in the high scenario (which includes large future refugee flows).

In some countries, including Bulgaria and Greece, there is little difference in fertility rates between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Over time, Muslim fertility rates are projected to decline, narrowing the gap with the non-Muslim population from a full child per woman today to 0.7 children between 2045 and 2050. This is because the fertility rates of second- and third-generation immigrants generally become similar to the overall rates in their adopted countries.

The low fertility rate in Europe among non-Muslims is largely responsible for the projected decline in the region’s total population without future migration.
Young Muslim population in Europe contributes to growth

The age distribution of a religious group also is an important determinant of demographic growth.

European Muslims are concentrated in young age groups – the share of Muslims younger than 15 (27%) is nearly double the share of non-Muslims who are children (15%). And while one-in-ten non-Muslim Europeans are ages 75 and older, this is true of only 1% of Muslims in Europe.

As of 2016, there is a 13-year difference between the median age of Muslims in Europe (30.4 years of age) and non-Muslim Europeans (43.8). Because a larger share of Muslims relative to the general population are in their child-bearing years, their population would grow faster, even if Muslims and non-Muslims had the same fertility rates.

As of 2016, France and Germany have the greatest age differences in Europe between Muslims and non-Muslims. The median age of Muslims in France is just 27, compared with 43 for non-Muslims. Germany has an equally large gap (31 for Muslims, 47 for non-Muslims).

Paul Krugman: ¿Es necesaria tanta desigualdad?



¿Qué tan ricos queremos que sean los ricos?


Se puede decir que es la cuestión alrededor de la que gira la política de los Estados Unidos. Los liberales quieren aumentar los impuestos sobre los altos ingresos y usar esos recursos para fortalecer las polticas más solidarias. Los conservadores quieren hacer lo contrario. Argumentan que políticas que primen el cobro de impuestos a los más ricos perjudicarán a la sociedad en su conjunto al reducir los incentivos para crear riqueza.Las últimas experiencias no favorecen la defensa de la postura conservadora. El Presidente Obama impulsó una subida de impuestos importante para los que más ganan y su reforma del sistema de salud ha supuesto la expansión más grande del Estado de bienestar desde el mandato de Lyndon B. Johnson. Los conservadores, por su parte, no dudaron en pronosticar el desastre económico del mismo modo que ya lo habían hecho cuando Bill Clinton aumentó los impuestos al 1 por ciento más rico del país. Y lo que ha sucedido, en cambio, es que Obama ha encabezado el período con mayor crecimiento del empleo desde la década de 1990.Photo



¿Existe, entonces, un debate a largo plazo que defienda la existencia de niveles altos de desigualdad?


No les sorprendería escuchar que muchos miembros de la élite económica creen que sí. Tampoco les sorprendería saber que estoy en desacuerdo y que creo que la economía puede crecer si se da una concentración mucho menor de la riqueza en las clases altas. ¿Pero por qué lo creo?


Me parece útil pensar en los tres modelos que explican de dónde podría provenir la desigualdad extrema teniendo en cuenta que la economía real incluye elementos de los tres.


En el primero, las variaciones en los niveles de productividad de diferentes individuos podrían ser responsables de altos niveles de desigualdad: algunas personas son capaces de hacer contribuciones cientos o miles de veces mayores que la media. Esa es la postura expresada en un ensayo reciente, y muy citado, del inversionista Paul Graham, que ha resultadopopular en Silicon Valley entre personas que ganan cientos o miles de veces más que sus empleados.


En el segundo, la desigualdad podría deberse, en gran medida, a la suerte. En un clásico del cine, “El tesoro de Sierra Madre”, un viejo buscador de oro explica que este mineral vale tanto (y por eso los que lo encuentran se vuelven ricos) gracias a la labor de toda la gente que fue a buscarlo y no lo encontró. Del mismo modo, podríamos encontrarnos ante un sistema económico en el cual quienes tienen éxito no son necesariamente más inteligentes ni más trabajadores que aquellos que no lo tienen, son solo quienes están en el lugar adecuado en el momento adecuado.


Y en el tercero, el poder sería la fuerza que se encuentra tras niveles de desigualdad tan grandes: como los ejecutivos de las grandes corporaciones que se marcan sus propios salarios y los operadores financieros que se hacen ricos con el uso de información privilegiada o por cobrar honorarios inmerecidos de inversionistas ingenuos.


Como dije, la economía real contiene elementos de los tres modelos. Sería tonto negar que algunas personas son, de hecho, mucho más productivas que la media. Igual de tonto sería negar que tener éxito en los negocios (o, de hecho, en cualquier otra cosa) tiene mucho que ver con la suerte, no solo la suerte de ser el primero en toparse con una idea o estrategia muy rentable, sino también con la suerte de ser hijo de los padres correctos.


Y, sin duda, el poder también es un factor importante. Al leer a personas como Graham, uno podría imaginarse que los ricos de Estados Unidos son, sobre todo, emprendedores. De hecho, el 0,1 por ciento de los ricos son, sobre todo, altos ejecutivos y, aunque el origen de las fortunas de algunos de estos ejecutivos puede estar vinculado al entorno start-up, es muy probable que la mayoría haya llegado ahí ascendiendo por el escalafón empresarial tradicional. El aumento en los ingresos de los que están en la cima refleja en gran medida el exorbitante sueldo de los directivos, no las recompensas a la innovación.


Pero, sea cual sea el caso, la verdadera pregunta es si podemos redistribuir una parte del ingreso que actualmente se queda en manos de la élite sin paralizar el crecimiento.


No diremos que la redistribución está mal por naturaleza. Incluso si los ingresos elevados fueran un reflejo perfecto de la productividad, los resultados del mercado no sirven como justificación moral. Y dado que en realidad la riqueza es, a menudo, un reflejo de la suerte o el poder, existen argumentos sólidos para recuperar una parte de esa riqueza a través de los impuestos y usarla para contribuir a la fortaleza de la sociedad en general, siempre y cuando esto no termine con los incentivos para continuar creando riqueza.


Y no hay razón para creer que así sería.


En la historia, el período de mayor crecimiento y avance tecnológico más rápido en los Estados Unidos se dio durante los cincuenta y los sesenta, a pesar de que los impuestos eran mucho más elevados para quienes disponían de mayores ingresos y la desigualdad era mucho menor en comparación con la época actual.


En el mundo de hoy, países como Suecia, con impuestos elevados y baja desigualdad, resultan altamente innovadores y son sede de muchas empresas tecnológicas. En parte, esto puede deberse a que hay fuertes mecanismos de protección social que alientan la toma de riesgos: la gente podría estar dispuesta a buscar oro, aunque su incursión no los haga más ricos que antes, si saben que no acabarán muertos de hambre en caso de quedarse con las manos vacías.


Así que, regresando a mi pregunta original: no, los ricos no tienen que ser tan ricos como lo son ahora. La desigualdad es inevitable; tanta desigualdad como la que se registra en Estados Unidos hoy en día no lo es.




Lee el blog de Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal, y síguelo en Twitter.

#VotoJoven: #MarcasPolíticas y la disruptividad de electores más complejos



Por Rubén Weinsteiner

Con el voto a los 16 años se incorporaron 1,2 millones de nuevos votantes al padrón nacional. En el nuevo escenario el 39% de los votantes tiene menos de 34 años, lo que llamamos voto joven.

Obteniendo una victoria del 50% en este segmento se obtendrían 18 puntos en el total nacional, lo que junto a un despliegue moderado en el resto de los segmentos construiría una ventaja indescontable en cualquier escenario.


En las elecciones de 2008, Obama derrotó a Mc Cain 52,9 % a 45,7, la diferencia que le permitió compensar derrotas en segmentos importantes y construir esos 7 puntos fue el 68% de apoyo entre los menores de 30 años.

En las elecciones de 2012 volvió a conseguir una importante ventaja en ese segmento frente a Mitt Romney, quedandosé con el 60% de los votos sub 30, y también ahí construyó la diferencia que le permitió consolidar su victoria .

Tanto es así que Obama alcanzó los diferenciales mayores en el segmento joven y de esa manera consiguió la victoria en cuatro de los estados clave por la cantidad de electores para el colegio electoral que asignan, sin los que no hubiera alcanzado la presidencia: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania y Virginia.

En la provincia de Buenos Aires, cada año son 250.000 los chicos que hacen el cambio de documento al cumplir los 16 años. En Córdoba 112.000 jóvenes estarán en condiciones de votar a partir de la nueva ley. En Santa Fe un total de 107.433, en Mendoza 64.000 jóvenes, en la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, unos 62.000 jóvenes. En Santiago del Estero 57.000, en Chaco se incorporarán 49.302, en Entre Ríos 46.500, en Tucumán 56.000, en Salta 50.000, en Misiones 30.000 jóvenes. En Formosa no hay información oficial, pero serían 27.000.


El voto jóven recrea mecanismos de tensión joven-adulto y esta tensión se focaliza desde lo emotivo en el planteo y posible enrolamiento en conflictos y luchas contra poderes importantes y con final abierto.

Desde lo funcional la acumulación en términos de preferencias en este segmento se apoya en 2 clivajes específicos:

a)prohibido-permitido

b) institucionalizado-desinstitucionalizado

El joven pone en emergencia conductas “asociales” que muchos viven y practican subterráneamente; constituyendo "lo que viene", "la próxima cultura" más que una contracultura.

Los jóvenes barometrizan el cambio, por eso lo demandan, y el cambio lo anclan en el límite de lo que la ley habilita y lo que prohíbe.

La demanda implícita es permitir lo que está prohibido pero como dice la marcha de la bronca de Pedro y Pablo “haré de cualquier modo” .

La otra demanda fundamental de este segmento es la institucionalización de soluciones. Esta institucionalización conlleva una legitimación implícita demandada, de valores, sentimientos, necesidades, etc.

El segmento demanda ocupar el imaginario de la clase política. A este segmento el discurso de los de 50 les resulta ajeno emocionalmente, lento conceptualmente y aburrido discursivamente, pero la zona donde la brecha mas se profundiza, es en la credibilidad, los jóvenes no le creen a los mayores.

Esa linealidad de las series de los setenta y ochenta donde todo está demasiado claro, lo bueno, lo malo, los buenos y los malos, lo que está bien y lo que está mal, no resulta creíble en este segmento. Esa unidimensionalidad bajada al discurso resulta inverosímil, “careta”, y sus emisores “truchos y gatos”.

Desde la emergencia, la organización del debate para el segmento se da en torno al clivaje “gato”-autentico. Los otros son la impostura, los que dicen una cosa pero son otra, contra eso, se plantea un modelo normativo de autenticidad, sencillez y transparencia.

No ser “careta”, no ser “gato”, no ser “trucho”, ser o en realidad parecer verdadero, transparente. El marco de referencia está afuera pero dentro del círculo tribal, esa figura referencial emerge por un cualidad específica, ser por ejemplo, el líder de la banda que más le gusta, pero además validar su autoridad con un discurso que se retrolegitime con los valores de la tribu, de autenticidad, y los proyecte hacia afuera.

Las experiencias de voto a los 16 en los diferentes países donde se habilitó ese derecho, marcan tasas de voto altas, los jóvenes “quieren usar la credencial”, son votantes comprometidos y convencidos, despegan y con facilidad del mandato de voto familiar. Demandan convocatorias a enfrentar y forzar, reconocimiento legitimación e institucionalización. Satisfacer deseos antes que necesidades. Es un voto emocional, complejo inteligente y definitorio en cualquier elección.


Rubén Weinsteiner

La generación perdida de Europa: jóvenes, educados y sin empleo

Por Alanna Petroff

En España y Grecia, el desempleo juvenil está por encima del 40%

Muchos siguen viviendo en casa de sus padres, mientras que otros han tenido que dejar a su familia y su país en busca de trabajo
 El desempleo juvenil en la zona euro se ha atascado entre el 19% y el 25% durante los últimos ocho años. En España y Grecia, está por encima del 40%.

A modo de comparación, el desempleo juvenil en EE.UU. está por debajo del 10%.

Los sombríos números subrayan la batalla de muchos jóvenes europeos que se enfrentan a la búsqueda de un trabajo que se ajuste a sus aspiraciones y su educación.

La frustración se apodera de legiones de jóvenes. Muchos siguen viviendo en casa de sus padres, mientras que otros han tenido que dejar a su familia y su país en busca de trabajo.

Se cree que esta tendencia es el factor en el aumento del populismo en Europa, que ahora amenaza con hacer añicos la clase política. Una gran prueba llegará a finales de este mes, cuando Francia celebre la primera ronda de una elección nacional fundamental.

CNNMoney habló con jóvenes del sur de Europa para entender su situación:

Stelios Qerimaj, 23 años

País: Grecia; Desempleo juvenil: 48%



"No hay trabajo. Dondequiera que pregunto, me han dicho que hay personas que están siendo despedidas en lugar de contratadas", dijo Qerimaj, quien lleva buscando trabajo como mecánico de automóviles desde que completó su título de técnico hace dos años.

"Me gustan los coches mucho, tal vez demasiado. Esto es lo que siempre quise hacer", dijo.

"Durante los últimos dos años he tenido trabajos ocasionales. Durante el invierno, trabajo en la construcción cuando hay trabajo. En el verano, he estado trabajando como camarero... No es lo que quiero hacer, pero cuando no hay puestos de trabajo no puedes permitirte el lujo de ser exigente".

Qerimaj dijo que no espera encontrar trabajo en su sector en Grecia y está considerando la posibilidad de abandonar el país. Alrededor de la mitad de sus amigos tienen trabajos con un sueldo muy bajo, y la otra mitad tienen trabajos ocasionales como él, "tratando de hacer todo lo posible para salir adelante", dijo.

Blanca del Valle Ortiz, 25 años

País: España; Desempleo juvenil: 42%



"Después de pasar la crisis financiera, la gente dijo que habría más oportunidades para encontrar empleo. No creo que sea el caso para nada", dijo Del Valle Ortiz, quien recientemente renunció a su trabajo a tiempo parcial como camarera en Madrid para centrarse en encontrar trabajo como ingeniera ambiental.

Del Valle Ortiz se licenció en Ciencias Ambientales y estudió una maestría en Gestión de residuos en septiembre de 2016. Ahora pasa las horas enviando solicitudes de empleo. Incluso está considerando mudarse a Irlanda o Dinamarca para encontrar trabajo.

"Las empresas demandan demasiada experiencia previa para un trabajo de nivel principiante, pero no nos dan las oportunidades iniciales y no podemos entrar en el mercado de trabajo", dijo. "Están creando un círculo vicioso".

Edda Ferrara, 24 años

País: Italia; Desempleo juvenil: 35%



"Se me hace difícil aceptar que no trabajo", dijo Ferrara, quien se graduó en Enfermería hace un año y sueña con trabajar en la sala de emergencias de un hospital.

Ferrara dijo que la burocracia y el nepotismo hacen difícil para ella y sus amigos encontrar trabajo en Italia.

"Mi familia y yo hicimos tantos sacrificios para que pudiera titularme. Desafortunadamente, esto me empuja a querer salir de Italia".

Actualmente, Ferrera vive con sus padres y cuida de niños de forma ocasional.

"Solo una minoría de mis amigos trabajan en su campo de estudio", dijo. "Muchos de ellos trabajan en bares y restaurantes, claramente haciendo cosas totalmente diferentes a lo que estudiaron y originalmente se propusieron hacer".

Joao Lourenço, 24 años

País: Portugal; Desempleo juvenil: 25%



"Los empleadores no ven a los jóvenes como el futuro. Ellos no apuestan por los jóvenes", dijo Lourenço, quien a regañadientes comenzó su maestría en Ingeniería mecánica después de no poder encontrar un trabajo durante meses.

"Estoy buscando trabajo, pero no es fácil", dijo. "Quiero un reto. No quiero un trabajo sólo para obtener un sueldo... Quiero sentirme útil".

Lourenço, que vive con sus padres, dijo que los programas gubernamentales diseñados para ayudar a los jóvenes a conseguir un trabajo han provocado una caída de los salarios.

"Es imposible tener un buen sueldo en tu primer trabajo. Pagan cantidades ridículas, incluso para personas con grados en ingeniería", dijo.

Bamody Camara, 22 años

País: Francia; Desempleo juvenil: 24%



"Vengo de un barrio pobre (en las afueras de París). No hay nada para mí, excepto (trabajos) en limpieza o cosas por el estilo", dijo Camara, quien lleva buscando empleo a tiempo completo más de un año.

Camara dijo que está constantemente enviando solicitudes de empleo, pero nunca recibe respuesta. Sospecha que algunos reclutadores la evitan porque pueden ver que viene de una zona desfavorecida y asumir "que va a tener líos".

"Me gustaría tener las mismas oportunidades que todos", dijo. "Fui a la escuela, no puedo entender por qué no puedo tener éxito en la vida, mientras que otros pueden".

Jorge Macri sobre Peña: "Hubiera puesto una persona con un poquito más de experiencia"

El intendente de Vicente López y primo del exmandatario nacional, Jorge Macri, opinó sobre el rol de Marcos Peña como Jefe de Gabinete y no se mostró muy conforme: "Hubiera puesto una persona con un poquito más de experiencia política", dijo y aclaró que prefiere tenerlo siempre de su lado...


Marcos Peña, con la peor imagen.



Al opinar sobre la gestión de Marcos Peña durante los cuatro años del macrismo en el poder, el intendente de Vicente López y primo del exmandatario nacional, Jorge Macri, afirmó: "De Jefe de Gabinete hubiera puesto una persona con un poquito más de experiencia política".

En cuanto a la experiencia de Peña, Macri dijo que no la tiene del "perfil que a mí me hubiera gustado. Ahora, lo quiero en mi equipo siempre".

Pocos se animaron a criticiar al jefe de Gabinete a viva voz. Nada puedo podía resultar de ello. Sin embargo, con el resultado de las PASO consumado, 2 exministros se animaron a criticarlo con nombre y apellido.

Primero fue Juan José Aranguren, quien lo definió así ante 'La Nación': "Pienso que es un clientelista de la política, alguien que piensa que la sociedad se puede manejar desde un laboratorio. Es inteligente, pero él no estaba en las cosas diarias (...) Pero Macri lo escuchaba mucho", indicó. "Marcos era más de los globos, las flores, de que la gente nos votó porque le vamos a dar un futuro mejor".

También Alfonso Prat Gay, responsable de la salida abrupta del cepo cambiario, habló de él en diálogo con 'Perfil': "Alberto es alguien que si se convence de un camino no va a esperar una segunda o tercera opinión para cambiar de rumbo. No le va a pasar lo de Macri, que al final venía Marcos Peña y le cambiaba el sentido de sus decisiones".

La figura de Peña se apagó definitivamente tras las PASO. La economía entró en un virtual colapso, y Horacio Rodríguez Larreta y María Eugenia Vidal le pidieron a Macri que lo eche. Pero el Presidente no lo hizo.

Sin duda, Peña terminó por ganarse una extensa lista de enemigos. Que ahora, con Macri fuera de Rosada, no temen en remarcarlo. Así como lo hizo Jorge Macri.



Por otro lado, el primo del presidente aseguró que piensa en la gestión de María Eugenia Vidal y "le sale una sonrisa". "Dejó más caritas sonrientes, aún en gente que no la votó", expresó Macri.

Además, evaluó la gestión del ex presidente y se diferenció de Durán Barba, afirmando que Mauricio Macri "no fue": "Sería berreta si nosotros como espacio político no aprovechamos la experiencia de los que por ahí no les tocó ganar pero tienen mucho para aportar".

El primo del ex presidente tampoco descartó su candidatura para Gobernador de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, para 2023: "Esta es la última vuelta de calesita que tengo como intendente", planteó.

Por otra parte, apuntó con ironía contra Roberto Baradel y su esposa, que pertenece al equipo del gobernador: "Es raro que dos tipos que comparten lista política se junten a discutir algo tan sensible como es el salario de los trabajadores de un gremio, en este caso docente".

Por último, el primo del ex presidente aseguró que votaría a favor de la legalización del aborto pero con muchas modificaciones: "Estoy en contra de la penalización y me parece que todavía tenemos que hacer muchas cosa para avanzar en una legalización generalizada. Me parece que hay que disparar un montón de mecanismos al mismo tiempo. Por ejemplo, la prevención del embarazo adolescente, sobre todo en los sectores más vulnerables, que son los que menos eligen muchas veces".

Church and State: When Richard Nixon Used Billy Graham




For ‘America's Pastor,’ access to the highest rungs of American power came at a price—one he would later regret.



As countless obituaries remind us today, Billy Graham knew every president from Harry Truman to Barack Obama; he was a White House visitor for decades. The Southern Baptist preacher known as “America’s pastor” was by turns counselor, confessor and confidant to chief executives from both parties.

The first visit, to Truman in 1950, did not go well. When Graham and fellow evangelists revealed the details of their conversation, and staged a prayer session on the White House lawn, Truman labeled him a “counterfeit,” seeing him as more a publicity-seeking opportunist than a pastor. But Graham persisted, seeing the national stage as possibly his biggest chance to influence America’s spiritual life—and even the course of the nation’s history.


Across the decades, he gained unique access to the power centers of American life. Publishing magnates William Randolph Hearst and Henry Luce helped propel him to fame; financial and business leaders saw his message as a powerful antidote to the appeals of “socialistic” politics, while more liberal political figures saw the benefits of bonding with America’s favorite religious figure. More and more, Graham came to embody the tension between the spiritual necessity of speaking Biblical truth to power, and the compromises required by access to power itself.

In this regard, of all Graham’s White House visits, none was more intriguing—and revealing—than the one he made on September 8, 1968.

This was a visit with a message to President Lyndon B. Johnson from one of the two men battling to succeed him. And it reveals just how much Graham, the most prominent religious figure of his time, was pulled in by the temptations of temporal power. At the time, Richard Nixon was the Republican presidential nominee, with a good chance of taking the White House away from a Democratic Party deeply divided over the war in Vietnam. His relationship with Graham stretched back decades; Nixon’s militant Cold War anticommunism had been a perfect match with Graham’s “Christianity vs. Communism” message of the 1950s and ’60s.

And the message Graham brought was tailormade for a president plagued by doubts over the war, and about his place in history.

Nixon wants to you to know, Graham told LBJ, that he greatly admires all of your hard work; you are, he said, “the hardest working president in 140 years.” He told Johnson that if Nixon won and ended the Vietnam War, he would give Johnson "a major share of credit" for a settlement and would "do everything to make you ... a place in history.”

For his part, Johnson promised Nixon his full cooperation should he win the White House.

It was a message unlike anything out of our political past: the nominee of the opposition party sending a trusted envoy with words of admiration, and the promise of a kinder judgment from history.

It was a message destined to fall on receptive ears. LBJ’s unhappiness with Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey—his own vice president—was an open secret in Washington. He was convinced that Nixon was closer to him on Vietnam than Humphrey; so much so that Defense Secretary Clark Clifford came to believe that LBJ actually wanted Nixon to win.

Why would Billy Graham, of all people, have been selected to deliver this most sensitive of political messages? In fact, there were good reasons.

There were strong ties between Johnson and Graham; a scheduled five-minute meeting shortly after JFK’s assassination stretched for five hours, and Johnson had often turned to Graham for spiritual strength. And Graham’s ties to Richard Nixon were stronger. In 1960, when he wrote John F. Kennedy to assure him—misleadingly—that he was not going to use JFK’s Roman Catholicism against him, he also wrote that he would likely vote for Nixon because of longstanding personal bonds. In using Graham as his emissary, Nixon knew that Johnson would receive him as a messenger he could trust. He’d know with absolute certainty that Graham was faithfully delivering Nixon’s assurances.

Only someone with a claim to stand outside of politics, someone with a cloak of spiritual respectability, could be trusted with so unusual a test. It is hard to imagine such a message being delivered by, say, an emissary of the Republican Party or Nixon's campaign.

But of course the message wasn’t outside of politics at all: It was deeply political, even opportunistic, and, as we know now, factually dubious. It was later revealed that Nixon’s campaign was actually working to undermine a peace initiative.

It is one example of just how much “America’s pastor” was a staunch political ally of one particular American, Richard Nixon. At the 1969 inaugural, Graham delivered a prayer that read, in part: “We recognize, O Lord, that in Thy sovereignty Thou has permitted Richard Nixon to lead us at this momentous hour of our history”—a sentiment that sounded to some as if he was asserting that Nixon was God’s choice. His support for the war in Vietnam was so enthusiastic that on April 15,1969, after meeting with missionaries from Vietnam, Graham sent a memo to the White House urging that, if the peace talks in Paris failed, Nixon should bomb the dikes that held back floodwaters in the North. This, said Graham, “could overnight destroy the economy of North Vietnam.” It would also have destroyed countless villages, sending as many as a million civilians to their deaths.

He became even more instrumental to Nixon, moving well beyond spiritual counselor. In 1972, he peppered the White House with memos on everything from campaign strategy to stagecraft.

His most infamous “bonding” with Nixon happened in 1972, when a White House conversation turned to the subject of Jewish domination of the media. Nixon was a notorious anti-Semite—a fact that became clearer after the Watergate tapes—and Graham played to the president’s prejudices with enthusiasm. He called that alleged media control “a stranglehold,” mused about “doing something about it” in a second Nixon term, and added, “A lot of Jews are great friends of mine,’’ Graham said. ''They swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I am friendly to Israel and so forth. But they don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to handle them.''

''You must not let them know,” Nixon replied.

These repellent remarks may well indicate a core of anti-Semitism; but they can also be read as Graham’s effort to curry favor with Nixon by feeding his darker impulses, much as Henry Kissinger did throughout Nixon’s White House tenure. That reading, in turn, tells us much about the willingness, even eagerness, of a spiritual guide to preserve his access to temporal power. Had Graham chastised Nixon for such views, or even declined to endorse them, it might have made him more of a spiritual shepherd, but lessened Graham’s access to the inner circles of power.

Late in life, Graham came to view his choices differently. In a 2011 interview with Christianity Today, he said, “I … would have steered clear of politics. I’m grateful for the opportunities God gave me to minister to people in high places; people in power have spiritual and personal needs like everyone else, and often they have no one to talk to. But looking back, I know I sometimes crossed the line, and I wouldn’t do that now.”

He also spoke in very different terms about international matters, strongly endorsing efforts toward disarmament, was open about the idea that Christianity might not be the only road to salvation, and distanced himself from the Moral Majority and other manifestations of the Religious Right.

But the road Billy Graham took during his prime raises a fascinating question: What if Graham, with his undeniable magnetism, had chosen a different path? What if his insistence on integrated religious gatherings—a provocative posture in the South of the 1950s— had been accompanied by a forthright campaign for integration in schools, and in a campaign for the vote? What if he had found the boardrooms and offices of the political elite less appealing than the injunction to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable?” We might have been remembering him as we do another Southern minister, who led a life 60 years shorter, but who moved mountains.

Elecciones en Estados Unidos: Bernie Sanders logra un ajustado primer triunfo en New Hampshire

Sanders quedó primero con un cuarto de los votos El senador socialista Bernie Sanders lograba sacar un hilo de ventaja respecto del resto de los candidatos y se imponía en la primaria presidencial de New Hampshire con el 25,9% de los votos con más del 90% de los votos escrutados, seguido muy de cerca por Peter Buttigieg y la senadora Amy Klobuchar, la gran sorpresa de la jornada.

Pero el principal dato que dejó la segunda cita electoral de la interna fue la confirmación de la dispersión del voto demócrata: ningún candidato consiguió un respaldo lo suficientemente sólido como para desmarcarse con claridad del resto, y si bien Sanders se consolidó como el líder del flanco "progresista", sumó menos votos que los candidatos "moderados".

Joe Biden y Elizabeth Warren no llegaron a superar el piso del 15% de los votos necesario para sumar delegados, y quedaban como los dos grandes perdedores de la noche. Biden ni siquiera recibió los resultados en New Hampshire: se marchó temprano a Carolina del Sur, donde intentará salvar su campaña, escasa de entusiasmo, con un triunfo respaldado en el voto afroamericano.

Amy Klobuchar, la sorpresa de la noche

La elección primaria de New Hampshire volvió a mostrar a un electorado demócrata indeciso, sin un claro favorito, obsesionado por encontrar al candidato con más posibilidades de derrotar al presidente, Donald Trump, en la elección presidencial de noviembre. Las dudas de los votantes reflejan el persistente trauma que aún arrastran los demócratas desde la elección de 2016, cuando daban por hecho un triunfo de Hillary Clinton.

Aunque Sanders ha logrado sacar una tenue ventaja, nadie ha conseguido terminar de convencer del todo a los votantes, y la contienda sigue abierta y muy fluida.


Por primera vez desde 2004, ningún candidato abandonó la interna después de Iowa, tradicional "filtro" al inicio de las primarias presidenciales. El caucus de Iowa quedó opacado este año por el caótico recuento de votos, un pifie que elevó la importancia de New Hampshire. Históricamente, el candidato presidencial logró ganar o al menos quedar segundo en el "estado del granito".

Dos candidatos decidieron suspender sus campañas: Andrew Yang y el senador por Colorado, Michael Bennet.

Las campañas han comenzado ahora a ajustar sus estrategias de cara a las elecciones en Carolina del Sur y Nevada, este mes, y el "Súper Martes" el próximo 3 de marzo.

La interna ya ha tenido tres líderes. Joe Biden lideró las encuestas hasta que la gente empezó a votar. Elizabeth Warren pareció despegar en el último otoño boreal, cuando superó a Biden, pero el salto en su popularidad se transformó rápidamente en un derrape que todavía no encuentra final. La principal novedad que han dejado Iowa y New Hampsire es que Bernie Sanders se ha consolidado en el flanco "progresista" de la interna, en detrimento de Warren, y ha pasado a liderar con claridad en las encuestas nacionales.