Hacker News Reader

Comment by rubyrescue | Hacker News Reader

i just hired someone (developer) from INDEC. It turns out that they pay their people "en negro" - that means the official inflation group for the country doesn't pay their taxes - they hand cash to their employees and don't report it - or report a small amount and pay a lot more 'under the table'. Yet there are advertisements (paid by the government) all over the buses in Buenos Aires that say "Trabajo mejor cuando mi trabajo es en blanco" - I work better when my work is "in white" - in other words, when my employer pays the proper official taxes.

The level of hypocrisy in this country is staggering.

View on HN

This is a well spread practice in the federal government around here, since you've been in Argentina for many years by now I'm surprised you've just found out.

The government is the biggest "en negro" employer of the country. It's also the biggest hirer of workers under precarious conditions such as fixed time contracts. Ironically, one of the biggest "en negro"-hiring branches of the federal government is the Labour Ministry. I suppose you're also not surprised by this, since you must already know the government to be the biggest everything in Argentina :P

Hiring "en negro" or under precarious conditions is not only terrible because of tax evading, in this case they would only be cheating themselves. It mainly sucks to be employed that way because you loose (or its harder for you to enforce on your employer) most of the labor benefits you usually get when you are employed by someone here. In Argentina that means no social security, health plan, granted days of leave to study for exams, extra money on holidays, bonus 13th month salary, increasing days for vacations when employed for more than 5/10 years, etc... the list is in fact pretty extensive.

It is not only the government that promotes these practices, but also, small businesses and workers.

The idea behind this is the fact that neither party sees benefits in working completely "white".

Just out of curiosity, are you afraid that what's happening in Greece right now also will happen in Argentina? With pay raise to avoid internal conflicts and benefits beyond this planet, I see an impending doom.

Is it also possible that Argentina has been on it about Falkland Islands lately, because the government also see the impending economic doom and need something to blame it on / shift focus?

Very much speculation from my part, as my knowledge of Argentina is about as much as a famous footballer, but it would be interesting to get your thoughts on it!

There is a window of opportunity opening up for Argentina regarding the Falkland Islands on the diplomatic front and militarily too. With the Cold War safely out of the way the interests of the United States lie more with good relations with their South American neighbours than with their older (perhaps former) allies in Europe. Argentina's push on the diplomatic front, presenting themselves as the agreived party is likely to gain a lot more traction than it did in the 1980s. On the military side the UK is unlikely to have a credible aircraft carrier capability for at least another 10 years, if ever. If the airbase on the islands could be neutralized then the chances of creating another Task Force to liberate the islands once more are very slim indeed.

Are you mad?

The UK could easily press the Ark Royal back into service and still has HMS Illustrious. Even if the Argentine Mirages could get past the UK's type 45 destroyers, which is unlikely because the type 45 is considered the best air defence class destroyer in the world, they would still have to contend with an upgraded version of the harriers that spanked them in the last war.

Any Argentine Naval operations would have to somehow get passed the UK submarine fleet.

And this is all under the assumption that the Typhoons stationed at Mount Pleasant somehow fell from the sky instead of flying circles round any Mirage attacks or sinking any Argentine naval ingression.

And as for ground operations? It's not even funny how badly the Argentine troops would fare against the now Afghan and Iraq battle-hardened UK paratroop and royal marine regiments.

The result of the last conflict was not as clear cut as you suggest. The UK military were severely stretched last time around and given the changes in defence spending a repeat operation might not be possible.

The main point is that I think the wind of change is blowing against the UK on this one. It will take a concerted effort to counter the diplomatic push by Argentina and it is not clear that the politicians, despite the obvious emotive issues surrounding the territory both in the UK and in the Falklands, have a clear long term plan.

Update: Look to the recent conflict in Libya as a guide. The UK had considerable difficulty mounting an operation at Europe's back door. At a distance of 8,000+ miles the problems are multiplied many times over.

The diplomatic push may work, but the military arguments are erroneous. I anything the balance of power is far more slanted against Argentina whose military is pretty much in tatters right now (I heard an estimate on NPR that they can barely get six aircraft off the ground).

"In 2001, the Argentine economy effectively imploded due to the collapse of the Argentine peso. The Argentine military proved incapable of surviving the negative aftershocks of a then broken policy of defending the peso at all costs. Since then, the military’s annual budget sank becoming a fraction of what it was in the past. Salaries were cut throughout the ranks. The size of the armed forces not only had to be reduced, but in many cases equipment had to be sold on the black market in order for military units to meet their daily expenses. According to Military Technology, the current strength of the Argentine military is about 68,000 troops."

http://www.coha.org/honor-shame-and-duty-the-reality-of-arge...

There's still a lot of Argentineans that were trained during the times of obligatory military service.

They'll probably still be very badly trained in comparison to the UK soldiers, but saying Argentina can only field 68,000 troops is incorrect.

That said, I'm pretty certain Argentina would lose an eventual war with the UK over the Falklands/Malvinas.

I'm annoyed at Cristina Kirchner's "bread and circuses" strategy with regards to this, diverting attention from the economic disaster that is brewing (and which will strongly affect us here in Uruguay).

There's a lot of hate in your lite. Looks like you know nothing about economy or history. Stop talking about war and read a book, because all the stuff you said is nonsense and all your theories are wrong mate. There's democracy in Argentina since 1983. And when there's democracy problems get solved by diplomats, not soldiers.

I don't know what you are smoking or drinking but I want some.

I had been living in Argentina for a year(I'm Spanish with family there), and something more in UK. Argentina could not compete in a war against UK, period.

The industrial base is so overwhelming in favor of UK that Argentina has not an option.(industry is what supports war, not soja). If they need it, they could create whatever planes they need, including US drones.

The people in Europe is disciplined, Argentina is a chaos, everything is disorganized, the UK army is fighting wars with US as a partner right now, they are so much better trained in real combat.

UK has nuclear weapons, Argentina do not. UK needs Falkland as a base for the Antarctic continent, and fishing.

UK situation is stable(with all the crisis, crisis in Europe is "normal' in Argentina).

UK is not a fried of the USA, it is the father of the USA. They could have problems from time to time but when when push comes to shove they are relatives.

USA is not going to tolerate an invasion of Falkland(whatever the Argentinians feel about Maldivas as their own). They don't want conflicts.

Hear hear. Besides which, the UK actually has the moral high ground here. There's no native population yearning to break free of the British yoke here. What there is is a self-governing democracy with large country next door intent on enforcing territorial claims that were murky when they last occupied the place 200 years ago.

> USA is not going to tolerate an invasion of Falkland(whatever the Argentinians feel about Maldivas as their own).

*Malvinas. Would hate for you to go about Argentina confusing the Falklands with the Maldives in conversation.

Ignorant.

Argentine people did not go to war with Britain, a fascist dictator that tortured and killed 30.000 Argentineans during 1976 and 1983 did. The people responsible for this are now in jail or dead and the army was completely dismantled to avoid this happening again. Although today there is democracy in Argentina, politicians are extremely corrupt and use the Falklands to divert attention.

Again, read a book or something, don't be ignorant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com