Dossier SAVE IT

El artículo “Un crimen a cámara lenta o cómo acabar de una vez por todas con las pensiones públicas Bancos y aseguradoras trabajan para transferir los ingentes ahorros de la población española al sector privado“, ha propiciado un interesante debate en Menéame en el que se expresan casi todas las opciones de este, de momento, irresoluble asunto.

Todas las tradicionales. No mencionan -de momento- la propuesta de Pensumo.

También El Periódico dedica varios artículos a las pensiones:

El Gobierno fomenta los planes de pensiones privados

Que empieza así: “En un momento en el que los pensionistas ven como por quinto año consecutivo sus prestaciones apenas crecen, el panorama para los futuros jubilados no es mucho mejor a la espera de reformas para garantizar la sostenibilidad del sistema. Por ello el Gobierno pretende fomentar los planes de pensiones mediante una reducción de sus comisiones que, muchas veces, se comen su rentabilidad.”

The value of the negligible

Not a long time ago, I saw again the documentary: “The age of stupidity”, by Franny Armstrong. He showed us a stark vision of a devastated Earth in 2055 by the overexploitation of natural recourses. It is based on scientific observations and already-happened events. In that future, a surviving old man wondered: “If we were aware of what was waiting for us, ¿why has anybody done nothing to prevent it?”. Social responsibility politics, as we have designed, turned out insufficient to avoid the planetary disaster.

Also, a report by Mallerlyn I. Rodríguez, FCAT’s Social Outreach Coordinator, has fallen into my hands, which highlights the motivations that lead – in this case to companies – to practice Social Responsibility policies. This research shows that there are basically three main reasons why companies decide to integrate corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices. Two of them are related to external factors: economic benefits and society pressures. A third reason is due to factors related to the people who lead the organizations: the altruism of the entrepreneur.

It is strange that, while the motivations to apply CSR criteria in the companies have been deeply studied, citizens were asked to follow these responsibility criteria just for civic motivation, applying the incentives of the economic profit and image makeover for companies. The argument of awareness, being fundamental, seems to withstand everything, but stopping the processes that deteriorate the planet demands of seamless, individual participation on a large scale: it is necessary to incorporate economic motivation for citizens as it is already done with the companies.

We excuse ourselves in that it is difficult to quantify the value of a responsible gesture: how much does recycling cost? The answer is clear: ” It cost what someone is willing to pay for”. Surely, it will be just cents, these same cents that fall to the ground and you do not bend down to pick them up, that is, their value is negligible. That is the bad new. The good one is that technology and new business models will allow us to save cents in a continuous way, dozens of times a day during the whole life, and thus changing what is now negligible into a real economic reward (e. g. savings for the pension). Applying such good practices and accumulating cents can be a real leitmotiv for the regeneration of the planet, while it is a way of supplementing the pension.

Recycling glass, paper, plastic or aluminum can be awarded with cents, and there are some countries where the culture of payment by recycling is admitted. However, we prefer to give the monopoly of the business, as well as large subsidies, to companies whose name begins by “Eco …”, instead of motivating those good practices with cents to the user. And this should be applied to many of the practices done in an altruistic way, because paying them with cents would seem offensive: volunteering, cultural consumption, practicing sports, road safety, energy saving, …

We must promote that companies – on a voluntary way – reward the daily, responsible practices of citizens with insignificant amounts; the driving force for change is not only a personal conviction, but also an individual economic interest and the implied game. The concepts of payment, charge, shared ownership and social incentive are being transformed and it will become a part of the solution of the dark future of the welfare state of the West and the entire planet.

The discussion about pensions goes far beyond public pensions and / or private pensions.

The main premise is that the state must guarantee a economic subside, which any citizen could live with dignity – Non contributory pensions -. Other premise is, that the contribution for work during the work life, it will configure the amount of the pension – call it in this case contributory -. However we must have in mind that contributions which the workers do today, these aren ́t saved in anywhere, it ́s just that with them are paid the pensions of today’s retirees: we have in Spain a caring system of distribution.

By other way, the contributions to private plans of pensions, are a saving formula for the privileged part of the population which can enjoy of constant income during their lifetime or they have enough heritage. Currently half of the families in Spain cannot save according to the CIS.

For years, in order to calculate pensions, we have configured a equation with evident variables: number of contributors (in decline), amount of the contribution (in decline), demographic pyramid (unfavorable), years contributed (less, by unemployment), personal savings, years of savings, interest, citizen’s average life (increasing) … People who work in the world of Savings point out with mathematical logic that all variables predict a collapse of the pension system in not too long time.

Which seems to indicate that the minimum pension will be able to guarantee -more and more minimal-, but if we don ́t solve it, the next retired after work a lot of years, we will have a very hard old age because the cost of the average pension will drop significantly and the savings will be impossible for 50% of families.

Experts do well their analysis, however in this moment, pensions rather than analysis, we need proposals: social proposals. Yes, we must do politics, although that is not stylized.

In matter of pensions, there is a stare at the limbo prolonged, to avoid making decisions. Our politicians summon the Pact of Toledo, and for months technical experts in Pension Plans try to inspire Your Lordships … And as they do not get the pensions equation, they balance the equality with hammering: “And as I am missing 8 billion, I solve it With this new tax “or” I issue Public Debt, and solved it. ” They are lazy, short-term, ruinous, and opposite to all the European Commission’s budgetary criteria.

If the equation is insoluble with the existing variables, the solution is to incorporate new variables that must be established with the logic of the 21st century: they must be enduring and non-ephemeral variables, necessary and not superfluous, having an economic value at the level Individual and also at the macroeconomic level. If to these evident conditions we add the possibility of the use of the personal technology for the measurement of these factors, we can perfectly well propose a scenario, in which we focus our objective, with the main objectives of humanity in the next decades: simple survival Of the planet.

To feed all the inhabitants of the planet or to establish a circular economy low in carbon with renewable energy sources, is unthinkable to obtain only by the agreement of the governments or the big companies. Not just with awareness or civic education. It is necessary to alienate the citizens of the world with regard to their behavior in any daily economic decision (their consumption) and other daily decisions (at work, travel, leisure, sports, health …), and that so far was reduced to regulatory policies towards business and education for citizens. This is insufficient, the objectives will be achieved by: economic incentive policies for citizens, through the economic awards offered by companies (CSR) and administrations, in the form of pension contribution.

In this sense the proposal was put together, which the AEFI (Spanish Association of Fintech and Insurtech) we wanted to present in attendance to the Toledo Pact, but which Your Lordships have not time to contemplate since December 2016. They have to innovate on pensions , precisely the parliamentarians who have to guarantee the pensions, is a further aberration. Certainly no parliamentary group moved a finger, so that the proposal wasn ́t listened .

Well, Your Lordships , they have been totally wrong : the European Commission in one of the most demanding innovation programs on the planet (H2020), They have seen the suitability of the proposal and they will finance it as a European project, within the Social Challenge 6: “innovative, inclusive and reflexive societies”.

I will tell you, when a Spanish politician, from any party who would come down from the pulpit of demagoguery to take a real interest in the proposal for innovation in pensions, awarded in Europe and has just signed an agreement with China.

José Luis Orós Pineda (AEFI Delegate in Pensions, CEO of Pensumo)

La media de reciclaje de vidrio en España por ciudadano y año se sitúa en 55 envases. Esta media -que no vamos a valorar-, sabemos es muy engañosa, todos conocemos individuos y familias que reciclan lo suyo y lo del vecino, gente que le tiene alergia a los contenedores de reciclaje y por último a una buena parte de personas que recicla en función de variables imprecisas: voluntad, tiempo, espacio, humor….

La educación ambiental -que es evidente que al menos ya existe en una parte de nuestra sociedad- ha logrado frenar un tanto la trayectoria hacia el abismo a la que nos abocaba el consumismo salvaje de final del siglo XX, pero no es suficiente, y ello es porque es muy difícil que la buena voluntad por si sola, logre convencer a cada uno de los individuos que reciclar (o ahorrar recursos) es beneficioso en general para la comunidad.
La tecnología nos permite hoy medir cualquier acción, y medir es el primer paso para adoptar decisiones consecuentes: posiblemente quien recicla más del doble que la media, deberá ser reconocido de alguna manera (aunque tan sólo sea aparecer en un ranking honorífico), y quien aún no ha tomado la decisión de hacerlo de manera cotidiana, deberá ser educado, informado, advertido o penalizado para conseguir que su inactividad en este campo, no lastre al resto de los individuos.
La sociedad digital, nos permite diferenciarnos como individuos: Dos vecinos con condiciones económicas y familiares similares, ¿Deben pagar los mismos impuestos si uno gasta el doble de agua que el otro, no separa nunca los residuos que origina, tiene un vehículo que quema aceite porque no lo revisa y ni siquiera recoge las cacas de su perro? En este momento que podemos medir las calorías que gastamos hasta cuando cantamos en la ducha, no resulta nada complicado y sistemas como Pensumo tienen ya una APP que lo posibilita.

Así pues, para mi la respuesta es evidente, debemos medir. Pero enseguida entramos en otro debate… si controlamos todos nuestros actos en tiempo real para ser premiados o castigados…. ¿Entraremos en una sociedad controlada por un Gran Hermano? ¿Sentiremos amenazadas nuestras libertades individuales? ¿Qué es más importante el bien común o la libertad individual? ¿Porque este tipo de reflexiones que son sobre todo políticas, resultan inescrutables para nuestros magníficos líderes?

Los puntos son del siglo pasado.

José Luis Orós  (Pensumo)