70% of workers in Argentina earning under 550k pesos a month

[sergio]

He and Caputo have shifted to this endogenous dollarization idea, but he doesn't say it out loud, just behind closed doors to the caste. I've argued against dollarization and said he was lying during the campaign because nobody would be stupid enough to lend us the money to dollarize and now we're here where the best people can hope for is a sort of bimonetarism which Bullrich's candidate for Economy Minister had she won was arguing for, yet all the LLA people called him dumb and a member of the caste and now look where we are.

Nothing new under the sun.

In short, he's not talking about dollarisation, the centrepievce of his campaign.

 

[Quilombo]

In short, he's not talking about dollarisation, the centrepievce of his campaign.

Exactly.

Maybe the dollarization is the friends we made along the way that had to sell their dollars to pay their Edesur/Edenor bill

 

[cortazar]

Cuál es el salario básico de un empleado de comercio en octubre 2024

La última paritaria definió nuevos valores para los salarios básicos para este mes, variando según la categoría del trabajador y los adicionales que pueda recibir

www.infobae.com

Salaries for FAECYS unionized workers in frontline jobs such as retail, call-center and administration from October:
Category A (Lowest) - ARS 825.911 + benefits & bonuses

This union has over 1.200.000 workers as members.

Can you explain this post in the context of the thread? The article claims that 70% of workers make less than 550k and 70% of households earn less than 950k. The World Bank claims the total labor force of Argentina is ~21 million. From looking online, I see estimates of total number of households in Argentina to range around 13 million. I could be more precise with a little digging.

So FAECYS members represent ~5% of the workforce and, assuming each member is the sole earner of the family, ~10% of households. But that doesn't tell me about the 70%. Some conclusions I can try to infer:

• The article didn't interpret the INDEC census correctly ( I admit I didn't look myself)
• The INDEC numbers about 70% are cooked because there is a sizable number of frontline workers who make more than that
• The INDEC numbers are correct, but they distort the fact that a sizeable number of other people are doing relatively better
• The INDEC numbers are correct, and that's why it's prudent to try to get a union job if you're a low-level worker.

 

[antipodean]

Can you explain this post in the context of the thread? The article claims that 70% of workers make less than 550k and 70% of households earn less than 950k. The world bank claims the total labor force is ~21 million From looking online, I see estimates of total number of households in Argentina ranging around 13 million total. I could be more precise with a little digging.

So FAECYS members represent ~5% of the workforce and, assuming each member is the sole earner of the family ~10% of households. But that doesn't tell me about the 70%. Some conclusions I can try to infer:

• The article didn't interpret the INDEC census correctly ( I admit I didn't look myself)
• The INDEC numbers about 70% are cooked because there is a sizable number of frontline workers who make more than that
• The INDEC numbers are correct, but they distort the fact that a sizeable number of other people are doing relatively better
• The INDEC numbers are correct, and that's why it's prudent to try to get a union job if you're a low-level worker.

These retail workers represent some of the lowest paid formal workers in Argentina (as in most places) providing a real world example of wages in Argentina today - not an abstract number.
It’s also no secret that Argentina has a huge wealth gap, as do most all countries in Latin America.

The simple explanation as to why the average doesn’t gel with this is that the majority of active Argentine workers remain working en-negro
entirely or partially so are not reflected in official statistics showing an average (how are illegal cash payments to workers going to be captured by a government statistical agency to count in the first place?) The number of informal workers is still estimated to be 52% of the workforce.

Also important to consider that there are plenty of people of working age also not working at all - officially 7.7% unemployment - and more than 3.400.000 working in the public sector many of whom are now receiving lower wages than many workers in the private sector - all taking a toll on the average outcome.

 

[cortazar]

These retail workers represent some of the lowest paid formal workers in Argentina (as in most places) providing a real world example of wages in Argentina today - not an abstract number.
It’s also no secret that Argentina has a huge wealth gap, as do most all countries in Latin America.

The simple explanation as to why the average doesn’t gel with this is that the majority of active Argentine workers remain working en-negro
entirely or partially so are not reflected in official statistics showing an average (how are illegal cash payments to workers going to be captured by a government statistical agency to count in the first place?) The number of informal workers is still estimated to be 52% of the workforce.

Also important to consider that there are plenty of people of working age also not working at all - officially 7.7% unemployment - and more than 3.400.000 working in the public sector many of whom are now receiving lower wages than many workers in the private sector - all taking a toll on the average outcome.

Thanks, that's a good point. I didn't dig into the actual census data to see how they arrive at this number. I'm guessing there even are some ways to create proxy statistics to estimate illegal cash payments, but I'm sure we agree that some amount of cash flow is missing from the official picture.

That being said, I'm not sure how much the informal market affects the overall distribution of income. If you selected a random person who worked under the table, what do think the chance is that they make less than 550k? I'd wager at least 50%. A few might make 10k USD en negro, too, but my guess is that overall informal income distributes way more to the left side.

 

[antipodean]

Thanks, that's a good point. I didn't dig into the actual census data to see how they arrive at this number. I'm guessing there even are some ways to create proxy statistics to estimate illegal cash payments, but I'm sure we agree that some amount of cash flow is missing from the official picture.

That being said, I'm not sure how much the informal market affects the overall distribution of income. If you selected a random person who worked under the table, what do think the chance is that they make less than 550k? I'd wager at least 50%. A few might make 10k USD en negro, too, but my guess is that overall informal income distributes way more to the left side.

Taking a look at the vast slums that encircle big cities in Argentina over the past decades, I’d hazard a guess that many, especially in areas where opportunities are lacking or requiring low skills, are in a situation of vulnerability and are financially abused by their employers, not paying them what they would otherwise need to pay a formal (and thus unionized and regulated) worker.

That said many “middle class” informal workers that have the luxury of proximity of nice neighborhoods and have a “desirable” image and skill set, such as those in hospitality, simply go where they are paid more and work for wages comparable to those en-blanco. Here the financial abuse is more subtle by fooling the employee into thinking that by avoiding paying social contributions they are earning more (despite this costing them dearly when they ever go to retire or claim unemployment benefits….).

On the other end of the spectrum as you point out, there are plenty of professionals earning $2000k+ who grossly under-declare their incomes (eg digital self-employed workers with overseas clients who only declare a tiny local client as the most humble of monotributista) or those who ask for $1000 en blanco and the other $1000 en negro (to avoid meeting the income tax threshold, for example). This is a very common practice for those working at SMEs and also those working at more senior levels including for large corporations.