*Casto Martin Montero Kuscevic
According to the Minister of Economy, Marcelo Montenegro, they are very sensible because they are going to wait until October for the data from the INE to announce whether the second bonus is paid (which they must already have decided). You should know, Mr. Minister, that insisting on the decree that requires the payment of the second Christmas bonus is senseless and immoral.
One of the arguments against the second bonus is the one used by Gonzalo Chávez in his last opinion column (El Deber 3/4/2022) in which he states that the GDP growth rate of 4.5% (which is the measure used to determine the payment of the double Christmas bonus) is an average; and that, therefore, there will be sectors that grew at rates below or above the 4.5% threshold. So far so good, the problem is that one of Gonzalo Chávez’s suggestions is that the decree be modified and the double Christmas bonus be required only for those sectors with 4.5% growth. And this remains a problem for two reasons.
First, because even if a sector grew at high rates, this does not imply that all the companies in that sector had grown at those rates. Both in Chávez’s approach (by sectors) and in that of the Government, individual luck (that is, of each company) depends on an average value. Therefore, it does not matter that a company had done very badly and is in the red, you still have to pay the second Christmas bonus if, on average, your sector did well. For example, that the construction sector had grown at 18% does not mean that each construction company had grown at 18%. So, Gonzalo Chávez’s argument serves to refute Gonzalo Chávez (and the Government obviously).
The second problem (and actually the main and most important) is moral. Leaving aside -the equally important- argument that the double Christmas bonus uses the force of the State to violate the voluntary nature of the employment contract, the truth is that it affects those who have the least more. The wealthy businessman will continue to be such after the payment of the double bonus. It is true that he can cost him part of his assets, but in the worst case he can take his money out of the country, and he himself can look for better horizons outside of Bolivia. I’m not saying this is easy, but at least you have a range of options. On the other hand, the small businessman is being condemned to remain small and postpone his investment plans in order to pay the double Christmas bonus. The reader will be able to follow the thread of reasoning and will realize that postponing the investment means fewer potential sources of work, also affecting the unemployed.
Minister, do you want to show evidence of sanity? Propose the repeal of the double Christmas bonus payment decree… so by the way it also shows a little morality.
* Professor of Economics, Jiaotong-Liverpool University
*Casto Martin Montero Kuscevic
According to the Minister of Economy, Marcelo Montenegro, they are very sensible because they are going to wait until October for the data from the INE to announce whether the second bonus is paid (which they must already have decided). You should know, Mr. Minister, that insisting on the decree that requires the payment of the second Christmas bonus is senseless and immoral.
One of the arguments against the second bonus is the one used by Gonzalo Chávez in his last opinion column (El Deber 3/4/2022) in which he states that the GDP growth rate of 4.5% (which is the measure used to determine the payment of the double Christmas bonus) is an average; and that, therefore, there will be sectors that grew at rates below or above the 4.5% threshold. So far so good, the problem is that one of Gonzalo Chávez’s suggestions is that the decree be modified and the double Christmas bonus be required only for those sectors with 4.5% growth. And this remains a problem for two reasons.
First, because even if a sector grew at high rates, this does not imply that all the companies in that sector had grown at those rates. Both in Chávez’s approach (by sectors) and in that of the Government, individual luck (that is, of each company) depends on an average value. Therefore, it does not matter that a company had done very badly and is in the red, you still have to pay the second Christmas bonus if, on average, your sector did well. For example, that the construction sector had grown at 18% does not mean that each construction company had grown at 18%. So, Gonzalo Chávez’s argument serves to refute Gonzalo Chávez (and the Government obviously).
The second problem (and actually the main and most important) is moral. Leaving aside -the equally important- argument that the double Christmas bonus uses the force of the State to violate the voluntary nature of the employment contract, the truth is that it affects those who have the least more. The wealthy businessman will continue to be such after the payment of the double bonus. It is true that he can cost him part of his assets, but in the worst case he can take his money out of the country, and he himself can look for better horizons outside of Bolivia. I’m not saying this is easy, but at least you have a range of options. On the other hand, the small businessman is being condemned to remain small and postpone his investment plans in order to pay the double Christmas bonus. The reader will be able to follow the thread of reasoning and will realize that postponing the investment means fewer potential sources of work, also affecting the unemployed.
Minister, do you want to show evidence of sanity? Propose the repeal of the double Christmas bonus payment decree… so by the way it also shows a little morality.
* Professor of Economics, Jiaotong-Liverpool University
;
