elpais.com
Mexico's Informal Employment Rises to 54.8% in Q2 2025
In Q2 2025, Mexico's informal employment rose to 54.8%, impacting tax revenue and worker security; regional disparities, especially in Oaxaca (78.5%), Chiapas (78%), and Guerrero (76%), highlight the need for increased investment.
- How do regional disparities in investment explain the high levels of informal employment in certain Mexican states?
- High informality, particularly in states like Oaxaca (78.5%), Chiapas (78%), and Guerrero (76%), hinders Mexico's economic growth. Lower investment in these regions, as explained by Banamex, directly correlates with lower formal job creation, despite a 10% increase in FDI.
- What are the immediate economic consequences of the rise in informal employment in Mexico, and how does it impact government revenue?
- Mexico's informal employment slightly increased to 54.8% in Q2 2025, up from 54.3% in Q2 2024, impacting tax revenue and worker protections. This affects 32.6 million people, including 7.7 million in companies and government with no benefits.
- What are the long-term social and economic implications of the gender gap in informal employment and the persistence of poverty and precarious work in Mexico?
- Persistent informal employment reflects Mexico's uneven development. While FDI rose 10%, indicators like the low 0.9% growth in fixed capital formation show weak future growth prospects. This, coupled with a stable unemployment rate masking a gender gap, suggests continued job insecurity.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the economic consequences of informality, focusing on its impact on tax revenue and investment. While this is a valid perspective, the narrative could be more balanced by equally highlighting the human cost and societal implications for those working informally.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral and objective, relying on statistics and expert quotes. However, terms like "rezagadas" (backward) when describing states with high informality could be considered slightly loaded. More neutral alternatives could be used to convey the same information without negative connotations.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on economic indicators and expert opinions, neglecting potential perspectives from workers in the informal sector. While it mentions the challenges faced by informal workers, it lacks direct quotes or in-depth accounts of their experiences. The omission of diverse voices from the informal sector limits a full understanding of the issue's human impact.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't present a false dichotomy in its core argument, but it could benefit from acknowledging the nuances within the informal sector itself. While it highlights regional disparities, it doesn't explore the variations in working conditions, income levels, or types of informal work within those regions.
Gender Bias
The article correctly points out the gender disparity within informal employment, noting that women constitute a larger proportion of informal workers and often undertake caregiving responsibilities. However, it could strengthen its analysis by exploring the underlying causes of this disparity more comprehensively, considering factors such as societal expectations, discriminatory practices, and lack of access to childcare or other support services.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights that 54.8% of Mexicans work in the informal sector, lacking benefits and protections. This significantly hinders decent work and economic growth. High informality limits tax revenue, impacting government investment in crucial sectors. Regional disparities in investment further exacerbate this issue, with some states showing informality rates above 70%. This informal workforce is vulnerable to job losses and lack of social security in case of illness. The persistent high rates of informal employment, especially in certain regions, directly impede the country's economic progress and sustainable development.