You may have already read to me that we are in the era of “them versus us.” A confrontation that, if taken with humor, misinforms and entertains in equal measure.

It’s entertaining because rivalries, especially ones that take place far away, can attract audiences. Maybe not huge, but numerous and, most importantly, noisy.

He said Dave Chappelle what when he released his show Sticks and stonesthe trans community dragged it all over Twitter (now

I’m not saying that everything is a caricature, because there are people who manage social media very well and use it as the channel of information that it should be, but the cases that you and I are thinking about are a clear example of “them against us” ”, that is, “if you are not with us, then you are with them.”

“Them vs. Us” is a reality whose expanded universe is in digital format. Now for both worlds, confrontation is the first derivative of a function called policy and the meaning of the slope at the point of contact is the supposed heroism when it comes to condemnation the injustice they commit.

…that’s BUP math, don’t tell me it’s lost.

It doesn’t matter anyway. The point is that being a hero is a very big temptation, and the opportunity to become one is a gift to vanity, which makes confrontation real entertainment for many.

Where is the misinformation? Well, we just came across a very recent example based on a very famous example.

Labor reform approved by the government Pedro Sanchez At the beginning of 2022, it announced a significant increase in the number of companies in the labor market, but soon after we discovered that it was promoting a figure already included in the Spanish labor system: intermittent permanent contracts.

Today we know that he did not fix anything, he only masked the statistics, because we continue to be the country with the highest unemployment in the European Union, the country with the highest youth unemployment and the 18th country in terms of GDP per capita.

Moreover, last year there were 766,000 full-time contracts, 412,000 part-time contracts and 214,000 permanent intermittent contracts… and it would be good to know how many permanent intermittent workers are receiving unemployment benefits, because that they are currently not working. .

Moreover, it would be very good to know how many of them are no longer receiving benefits because they are not working and do not have a deficit (the required period of contributions to receive benefits), but in no case has the government seen fit to provide data.

The reform has been cataloged Yolanda Diaz as a great social achievement and, as she once said, “[…] When we advance socially, we must vote yes. The rest is politicking…”

So, in “them versus us,” to be against labor reform is to be against social progress and therefore with them.

But the reality is that the great social progress is employment itself, creating productive conditions and increasing investment so that (and this concept is important) more real jobs appear.

The data shows that there are no more jobs, just what there was, distributed among more people, and many of those 626,000 (intermittent full-time + part-time) are playing as a reserve waiting to take the field.

…but the data shows that there isn’t anymore, only what there was was distributed among more people, and many of those 626,000 I mention above (intermittent full-time + part-time) are playing as a reserve waiting to be released on the field.

Think of real employment in a country as a rectangle with a surface area of ​​100 m.². This value represents actual existing work. Now imagine that this area is covered with a grid consisting of 100 longitudinal and 100 transverse lines. This gives a grid of 10,000 squares or 10,000 workers.

So, the labor reform added 1 longitudinal line and another transverse one, which increased the number of boxes to 10,201, which led to two curious consequences: first, in order to accommodate 201 more boxes, some of the previous ones would have to be smaller.

Secondly, no matter how many new squares are added, the total area remains the same: 100 m2.². That is, there is no more work: the area is no more. There are more workers, more boxes, some have less distribution than they had because the part they are losing is occupied by new people.

But this question creates an additional problem: since the work is the same, but there are more workers, productivity drops because you hire more people who, logically, devote more hours to producing exactly the same thing (remember, growth is stagnant).

So what was the next social achievement? Propose to reduce the working day from 40 to 37.5 hours. There are no integrals, no tangents, no basic geometry. This is already a fraction (they called them bankrupt) in which the numerator is the volume produced, the denominator is the time worked and the result is productivity. As with any fraction, the smaller the denominator, the greater the result.

Come on, if I divide 100/5 = 20 and if I divide 100/4 = 25, that will be the government’s next big thing: increasing productivity.

Who will speak out against people working fewer hours? How can you be so reactionary as to continue to demand 40 hours a week? That they don’t know what’s going on in the “countries around us”? (By the way, look at France).

Total: confrontation before mathematics. Given the failure to create more real employment,