Iker Jiménez: Hard Work Still Pays Off in Spain

Iker Jiménez defends meritocracy and stirs up controversy

The host of Cuarto Milenio, Iker Jiménez, has pushed back against what he sees as a defeatist message being sold to young people: that in Spain, no matter how hard one works or earns merits, there is no pogre or reward for labor. According to his reflection, included in the opening message of this analysis, success would be reserved for the children of wealthy entrepreneurs, politicians, or those with connections (enchufados). Jiménez argues that this narrative is false and cites himself as proof: he reached where he is because he worked, strived, and wanted to succeed. He even claims to have put in hours during his honeymoon. The presenter accuses political scientists of deceiving youth with this refrain and quips sarcastically that "Rolexes don't pay for themselves."

The statement landed like a bomb in a forum where meritocracy is debated more passionately than it is supported by data. Some agree partially: Spain is a country where social mobility functions poorly, but claiming it doesn't exist at all is an exaggeration. Others directly accuse him of hypocrisy: his father owned an art gallery, which they argue proves he didn't start from nothing. A third group, more cynical, points out that the presenter has spent two decades selling mysteries, vaccines, and pandemic theories on television, viewing this as success based on hype rather than merit.

Is Spain a country where effort isn't rewarded?

One part of the analysis suggests that the probability of capitalizing on merit in Spain is "highly unlikely compared to almost any Western country." This argument relies on a comparison with the United States, where, it is said, "glimpses of meritocracy" remain and entrepreneurship is intrinsic to society. Spain, conversely, offers emigration to Latin America as an escape route. It is a pessimistic view, but not isolated: another message argues that meritocracy hardly exists anywhere, neither here nor abroad, and that what truly matters are contacts, prior wealth, and social class of origin.

Against this current, some defend that the problem isn't that merit doesn't count, but that self-perception of worth is inflated. "The real problem is your mistaken perception of your value; you think you're amazing and entitled to everything, when really you're half-witted and incompetent," summarizes one message. The discussion then shifts to the role of public aid: if a person receives the same amount in benefits as they would working eight hours, it is argued, many wonder if striving is pointless.

Social mobility: from garage to nepotism

Iker Jiménez's career becomes the battleground. One message recalls that his father owned an art gallery, a detail that, for the writer, dismantles the epic of personal effort. "Just like my carpenter father," they joke ironically. Comparisons with other success stories extend to politicians and entrepreneurs who, according to various messages, started "in a garage" but had godfathers, placed relatives, or privileged financing. The lingering question is whether talent suffices when family capital and cronyism play against you.

The presenter himself is accused of giving his vvife a job as co-host, which some say invalidates his meritocratic discourse. "Is that meritocracy?" asks one message. Criticism extends beyond him to politicians placing siblings and spouses, and judges chosen by parties. The repeated conclusion is that in Spain, the winner is "a scoundrel" and the worker is "a fool," an expression summarizing the cynicism of part of the debate.

From the 60s to today: why businesses were easier to start

A retrospective analysis argues that in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, anyone with common sense and a high school diploma or vocational training could start a small business and prosper. The economy was expanding, competition was local, taxes were "nominal," and one didn't need to submit thousands-euro projects just to install a bathroom in a workshop. Today, however, every procedure requires "the bible in verse," the tax burden is brutal, and licenses and certificates drown freelancers (autónomos). This structural change explains why many young people choose to study for civil service exams (oposiciones) instead of starting businesses.

The diagnosis is reinforced by the experience of those who overexert themselves without seeing proportional rewards. "They get ahead, but the question is whether that extra effort is worth just living a little better," laments one message. The implicit question is whether the current system rewards talent or simply endurance. The suggested answer is that, in many cases, employees stagnate while those with connections rise.

Success as a scam: the shadow of TV and hype

Jiménez's figure drags another accusation: succeeding by selling mysteries, esotericism, and theories about vaccines and pandemics. "He's been selling crap about esotericism and mysteries for 20 years," says a message summarizing a trend of opinion. For this group, the presenter exemplifies success based on trickery, not merit, and his defense of meritocracy sounds like self-serving justification. Comparison with Jiménez del Oso, a psychiatrist and presenter from another era, serves to discredit the current one: "he represented another level of open-minded research," whereas Cuarto Milenio seeks only sensationalism.

The discussion moves toward the role of media and social networks in transmitting values. "You open any social network, turn on the TV, and that's what they transmit raw," complains a message that considers the country sarracena rotten and success measured by being connected, a cheat, or a fraudster. In that narrative, meritocracy would be the exception, not the rule.

---

The unsettling fact isn't whether Iker Jiménez worked hard or not. It's that, after 159 responses, no one provided a figure proving that social mobility works better today than forty years ago. Or worse. The discussion remains where it started: in personal anecdotes and suspicion.