Generalized layoffs have emerged as a focal point of criticism regarding Javier Milei’s economic program. Since the libertarian economist assumed office with the commitment to eradicate inflation and “chainsaw” what he deemed an excessive state, over 300,000 formal jobs have been eliminated. In two separate speeches this week, the president asserted that his government “created nearly 400,000 jobs,” indicating that the net result for the administration stands at 113,000 new jobs. Milei criticized Kirchnerists for their “cherry picking” approach, noting that although formal employment has decreased, there has been an increase of 346,000 in what he termed “independent” jobs, alongside a rise of 33,000 in unregistered positions. He stated that the non-formal entities would be “absorbed” by the formal sector as a result of the recently enacted labor reform. Nonetheless, a segment of economists contests Milei’s assessment. “That is an outright lie,” Marco Kofman stated. Kofman asserts that the government’s economic program “attacked the industry through the decline in domestic demand, the unrestricted opening of the market to imports, and an exchange rate that favored foreign goods.” He stated that, as per the Department of Labor, Employment, and Social Security, the manufacturing sector experienced a loss of 72,500 jobs.
Kofman stated that the Milei administration has effectively “demolished” the construction industry by bringing public works to a near standstill. Private construction has come to a standstill as a result of diminished income, challenges in obtaining credit, and a significant increase in construction expenses. “As a result, 70,000 jobs were lost in the sector,” he stated. Milei has persistently targeted specific sectors of the economy, labeling them as “inefficient.” In a Thursday conference, echoing the sentiments of former Economy Minister Luis Caputo, the president cited Lumilagro, a thermos manufacturer that laid off 170 employees and began importing its products, as an example of a company that successfully adjusted to the changing circumstances. Despite a deceleration in the manufacturing sector, growth was observed in the mining, oil, agriculture, and financial sectors, as reported.
“The issue at hand is that the expansion of business in these sectors occurred without the generation of new employment opportunities.” Conversely, Kofman noted that they collectively experienced a loss of over 20,000 jobs in the past year. The economist noted that, in light of this situation and the decrease in household income, numerous workers have sought opportunities on digital platforms, aligning themselves with ride-hailing and delivery applications. Informal employment experienced significant growth during the third quarter of 2025. Kofman also challenged Milei’s assertion that informal jobs would transition to formal employment as a result of the recently enacted labor reform. He stated that over one-third of the newly informal workers — numbering between 90,000 and 120,000 — are associated with applications that feature a “partner” scheme exclusively involving informal workers. Kofman noted that, since late 2025, the pace of informal job creation has decelerated.
“The app sector appears saturated: it can barely sustain the replacement of workers who leave the apps with new entrants. This is to be expected for an industry that, in a short time, destroys the capital — the vehicle — with which the worker operates daily,” he said. Kofman noted that the labor reform “reduces oversight” and “limits employees’ ability to report their employer for irregularities” concerning informal workers outside the app ecosystem. “If an employer can continue to hire workers off the books, what incentive do they have to hire them legally? It makes no sense,” he stated. “Hiring irregularly will remain the more cost-effective option.” He concluded “There’s no basis for the claim that, since it would be easier to fire employees, companies would hire them legally.”