For decades, labor law in Argentina was sanctified as if it were a definitive and untouchable conquest. Under the discourse of protection, a regulatory framework was built that, far from strengthening the worker, ended up weakening what he claimed to defend. The result is clear: high levels of informality, low creation of private employment and a system where conflict is more profitable than cooperation
.The idea that more regulation equals more protection is one of the most persistent errors in public debate. In practice, the exact opposite is true. Each additional rigidity makes hiring more expensive, increases uncertainty and makes employment a high-risk decision. This is not a theoretical discussion: when hiring involves the possibility of facing unpredictable lawsuits or disproportionate compensation, the logical result is retraction. Less formal employment, more disguised precariousness
.In the face of any attempt at modernization, the same arguments as always reappear. It is noted that flexibility means taking away rights, that reducing litigation is favoring companies, that without state protection the worker is defenseless. These are slogans that appeal to fear, not to evidence. Because if the current model has demonstrated anything, it is its inability to include those outside the system. Millions of people work without any protection, not because of a lack of rules, but because of their excess.
The underlying problem is not the absence of rights, but their design. When rules are built ignoring incentives, they end up generating effects contrary to those sought. A system that penalizes hiring does not protect the worker: it excludes them. And that exclusion is not neutral. It especially affects young people, those who are looking for their first job and those with lower levels of qualification. It is they who pay the cost of a scheme designed for an already inserted minority
