I read this interesting article in Slate that points out that female participation in the labor force is much lower in the Netherlands than in virtually all other industrialized countries at least as far as full time work. From the piece:
Though the Netherlands is consistently ranked in the top five countries for women, less than 10 percent of women here are employed full-time. And they like it this way. Incentives to nudge women into full-time work have consistently failed. Less than 4 percent of women wish they had more working hours or increased responsibility in the workplace, and most refuse extended hours even when the opportunity for advancement arises. Some women cite the high cost of child care as a major factor in their shorter hours, but 62 percent of women working part time in the Netherlands don't have young children in the house, and mothers rarely increase their working hours even when their children leave home.
http://www.slate.com/id/2274736/
This article gives further details and advances some reasons for this interesting phenomena: http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3946
It concludes: Women are satisfied working part-time, because relatively high-skilled work can be done part-time, full-time work is not a financial necessity, and the burden of additional working hours is not shared within partnered families. Whereas financial incentives have been successful in increasing female participation rates, they have hardly influenced female working hours.
I find this fascinating and wonder whether this model would be preferable to the situation that exists in the US where the majority of mothers with young children work.
Comments?
Child daycare subsidies are quite limited compared to e.g. Sweden, but as the article states that doesn't explain the whole story. It's mostly just a cultural thing, I guess. There is not as much emphasis on material goods when it comes to determining social status (though it is still significant of course), which is a result of the Calvinist roots of the country, with an emphasis on soberness, and generally extravagant spending with the aim of showing off is frowned upon (though it is common in certain segments of society). Having said that, the participation of women is rising, though I don't know if it is catching up with surrounding countries.
Originally posted by no1marauderOne of the problems here is that day-care is so bloody expensive.
Though the Netherlands is consistently ranked in the top five countries for women, less than 10 percent of women here are employed full-time.
And of course there's always the point: Why have children just to go out and work and let someone else raise them?
Obviously not having to work is better than working. Ice cream and orgasms vs. sweating to make someone else rich. Yeah... no wonder the women like it. I wish I was a woman.
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom the voxeu article:
I read this interesting article in Slate that points out that female participation in the labor force is much lower in the Netherlands than in virtually all other industrialized countries at least as far as full time work. From the piece:
Though the Netherlands is consistently ranked in the top five countries for women, less than 10 percent of women h ...[text shortened]... the US where the majority of mothers with young children work.
Comments?
“Furthermore, it seems that financial need for long working hours is less severe for Dutch women than for women in other countries. In the Netherlands, less than 40% of women indicate that they do not work less because of financial constraints. In other European countries, where many more women work full-time, over 50% of women say they do not work less due to financial constraints.”
[With the caveat]: “It should be noted that due to part-time work, about 25% of working Dutch women earn less than what would be considered the minimum income for being financially independent.”
There is surely a difference between women (and men) choosing to work more hours, and feeling the need to work more hours (e.g., full-time) to just maintain living standards. It seems, at first blush, that the latter is not much of an issue in the Netherlands.
Originally posted by whodeylet's start taking donations for shaviximir, from the RHP community, to show our fondness for him.
That could be arranged ya know. 😲
should we go for the cheapo model or the deluxe?
http://www.soyouwanna.com/soyouwanna-sex-change-1344-full.html#ixzz15yVSGZQl
SoYouWanna get a sex change?
...
It can cost anywhere from $3,000 to $100,000 to get a sex change, none of which is covered under medical insurance.
...
Originally posted by zeeblebotAll he needs to do is wait till Obamacare kicks in and walk across the border and get a sex change for free.
It can cost anywhere from $3,000 to $100,000 to get a sex change, none of which is covered under medical insurance.
...[/b]
Scratch that, come to think of it he could probably do that now. 😵
Originally posted by sh76The government WANTS women to go to work. Not only is everything so expensive, that you can't really raise kids without a double income, the government actively says it's better for women to go to work than stay at home (always good to have men telling women what's better for them...).
What? Why doesn't the government just pay for all day care?
How dare they!
Now, adding one and one together... one would presume that day-care would be free. It's not. So the woman is forced to go to work and the kid can't stay at home.
It's completely bizarre.
Originally posted by shavixmirBut....but.....government is our friend.
The government WANTS women to go to work. Not only is everything so expensive, that you can't really raise kids without a double income, the government actively says it's better for women to go to work than stay at home (always good to have men telling women what's better for them...).
Now, adding one and one together... one would presume that day-care ...[text shortened]... woman is forced to go to work and the kid can't stay at home.
It's completely bizarre.
Now I'm confused. Help me Marauder, help me!! My statist inclinations are faultering!! :'(
Originally posted by whodeyI wish you've stop posting such drivel; your act isn't funny or clever. I was looking for a serious discussion and you're incapable of adding anything constructive to such a thread.
But....but.....government is our friend.
Now I'm confused. Help me Marauder, help me!! My statist inclinations are faultering!! :'(
Originally posted by shavixmirWhy should the government "want" women to work? The government should "want" people to do what's best for themselves. With an appropriate incentive based economy, people will do what's in their own interests and will benefit society in that way. If a woman wants to work, great. She wants to stay home and raise the kids? Fine. She wants to stay home and stare at the wall? I hope she has a non-governmental gravy train, 'cause I sure don't want to pay her bills.
The government WANTS women to go to work. Not only is everything so expensive, that you can't really raise kids without a double income, the government actively says it's better for women to go to work than stay at home (always good to have men telling women what's better for them...).
Now, adding one and one together... one would presume that day-care ...[text shortened]... woman is forced to go to work and the kid can't stay at home.
It's completely bizarre.
For the government to want "women" in general to do one thing or another is silly.
Originally posted by sh76One reason government would want to do that is because it's good for the economy, like the government also wants to reduce the amount of people on welfare.
Why should the government "want" women to work? The government should "want" people to do what's best for themselves. With an appropriate incentive based economy, people will do what's in their own interests and will benefit society in that way. If a woman wants to work, great. She wants to stay home and raise the kids? Fine. She wants to stay home and stare at ...[text shortened]...
For the government to want "women" in general to do one thing or another is silly.