Debate: A government good for some, bad for others?

The government: a success for a few or a disaster for most?

The current economic debate is polarized between those who defend the government's management for its direct benefits and those who warn of an unsustainable model based on public spending and debt.

The discussion centers on whether apparent macroeconomic improvements, such as GDP growth or wage increases for certain groups, hide a reality of impoverishment for most citizens. An analysis of the positions reveals a deep gap between the direct beneficiaries of public policies and private-sector workers.

The civil servant's view: rising wages and a better quality of life

A significant part of the debate argues that the government is managing the economy effectively, especially to protect the standard of living of citizens who depend on the public sector. It is argued that, despite inflation of supranational origin, groups such as civil servants have seen substantial wage increases. A concrete example notes that a National Police officer could earn between 35% and 40% more in 2024 than in 2018. Other civil servants report promotions and raises that have doubled their net salary in seven years, going from about 1.500 euros net per month to nearly 2.800.

Pensioners are also cited as beneficiaries, with annual increases of 6% to 9%, contrasting with minimal previous increases. The rollout of the Ingreso Mínimo Vital (IMV, Spain's minimum income scheme) is mentioned as a measure to support the most vulnerable. Even the private sector, through the rise in the SMI (Spain's national minimum wage) from 700 to 1.100 euros, is considered to have experienced an improvement, moving closer to wages in neighboring countries.

This perspective suggests that the government's electoral success is due precisely to this tangible improvement in the lives of a considerable part of the population, allowing a decent standard of living, fewer working hours and expanded leave, and even discretionary spending such as buying clothes on a whim after receiving substantial extra pay.

The criticism: runaway debt and drowning workers

In contrast, a critical voice rises that brands the government a "junkie" for borrowing and spending without control in areas that add no value to the country. Inflation is considered a direct consequence of this runaway public spending, not an external circumstance. It is noted that, while civil servants and pensioners see their incomes protected or increased, self-employed people who work long hours and risk their capital find themselves bankrupt, facing Christmas "in tears".

The sustainability of the model is questioned, arguing that the majority of voters depend on a minority of workers whose effort is not rewarded. If young workers are not incentivized, they will get bored and emigrate, collapsing the system. Public debt, described as "unpayable" and "negligible", is diluted by inflation, but its origin in public spending is the focus of criticism.

It is argued that economic growth is based on "cheating at solitaire", increasing the administration and handouts to "clientelist groups", while ordinary people cannot make it to the end of the month and the shopping basket doubles. Housing becomes unattainable, and it is criticized that, after years of government, the problems persist.

The debate over debt and the future of the EU

Public debt is perceived as a structural problem, often minimized by those who defend the current management, but criticized for its long-term impact. The possible instability of the European Union, with the emergence of Eurosceptic parties in key countries such as Germany, is raised as an external factor that could precipitate the end of Spain as it is known, with the loss of territories.

The discussion about the dollarization of economies, inspired by figures such as Javier Milei, also emerges. While some see dollarization as a solution to limit the State's ability to "steal" through money printing, others warn of dependence on the U.S. and of how exporting raw materials does not guarantee development, but rather exploitation by foreign companies.

In short, the debate reflects a deep division over the effectiveness and sustainability of current economic policies, with accusations of clientelism and of prioritizing one sector of the population at the cost of widespread impoverishment. The question of whether the government "is doing well" depends, to a large extent, on which group you ask.