After the recent agreement reached by the Federal Government with the business and labor sectors, in order to set a 20% increase in the minimum wage (SM) for next year, the hackneyed argument they resorted to was called into question once again. previous governments, to justify the impossibility of increasing the SM above inflation.
It is true that at the international level we still lag behind, and let alone in relation to the average of the OECD member countries, but even in comparison with some sister nations in Latin America. And it is that in Mexico, for example, despite the last four extraordinary increases to the SM that have been achieved (16% in 2019; 20% in 2020; 15% in 2021; 22% in 2022), we have hardly reached a minimum monthly salary that is around 262 dollars, while countries like Uruguay are around 493 USD, Chile at 450 USD and Ecuador at 425 USD to cite just three examples.
But in an effort to be objective in our criticisms and reflections, we cannot fail to recognize that no other president of the Republic had dared to challenge the business community to defend the most vulnerable working class, the one that today incredibly survives with just a minimum wage and that add up to almost 19 million Mexicans. For this reason, no one should skimp on themselves the increase set for the SM for next year, which will be generalized at $207 pesos and $312 pesos in the Northern Border Free Zone (ZLFN)… very far from those $88 daily pesos that were handled in the not too distant 2018.
And it is that as stated by the head of the Conasami (National Minimum Wage Commission), Luis Munguía: “in real terms, the general minimum wage has recovered a large part of its purchasing power in the last five increases of this Administration, for what this last increase benefits everyone because it pushes up the tabs [de salarios], but it does not increase in the same proportion in those who earn more, in fact, the more people earn, the increases are lower. Hence the need to continue with this type of increases in a sustained manner, although perhaps a little more moderate”.
All this comes up because of the need not to fall, I insist, into those radicalisms of those who see everything as good or everything as bad. For example, there are some of the reactions that have been poured out on this issue in the last week, where certain economic experts and some politicians opposed to the current regime have fallen into clear contradictions, since while some insist on pointing out that the increase in Marras will come to generate a distortion in the labor market, causing unemployment, cancellation of investments and reduction of other labor benefits, others, on the other hand, have dismissed it saying that what has been achieved is insufficient and that an even higher percentage should have been reached.
Hence my urge to be realistic and consistent, because although it is true that with a sky-high basic basket, this increase to the SM is not enough to balance the gap between the nominal salary (which is what we are paid) and the real salary (which is what we are able to buy for our basic needs, that is, purchasing power); This achievement really does represent an enormous benefit for the most vulnerable, those who, as I already pointed out lines above, do real juggling to overcome the needs of their families.
However, we must also be critical and press for the Federal Government to seek alternative mechanisms to support small and medium-sized companies, as they are the main engine of our economy and, therefore, the main drivers of this announcement. entities that will suffer this new increase to the SM. In the same way, and given that this salary increase will not be reflected in a general way for all the segments or labor strata, it will be necessary to adjust today more than ever the nuts of control or tax supervision, in order to combat the simulation that continues to persist with what registered with the IMSS and what millions of workers actually receive as remuneration.
#increase #understands