2 ms·

From the article: "less than 10 percent of women [in the Netherlands] are employed full-time." According to the Dutch governmental institution CBS (Statistics

From the article: "less than 10 percent of women [in the Netherlands] are employed full-time." According to the Dutch governmental institution CBS (Statistics Netherlands), 59.7% of all Dutch women work. There are 8.4 million women in the Netherlands. 5 million of those are of working age. 967,000 women work full-time. If you only count women of working age, 20% of those work full-time. But even if you were to include infants, students and pensioners in the total, the percentage of women working full-time would be 12% -- higher than the "less than 10%" stated in the article. This is data that I found in 10 minutes, using CBS StatLine. It worries me that the author got such basic data wrong, data that is readily available. It makes me distrust the rest of the presented information as well. http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/dome/?LA=EN http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/dome/?LA=EN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_Netherlands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_Netherlands

roel_v 16y ago
I agree, when you look into it in that detail, but it's safe to say that full-time labor participation by women is low and certainly below 20%. Percentage of mothers who work 35 hours or more is 19 over the last 3 years. Then again, overall full time employment is low. 40 % of all jobs are for 35 hours per week or more. Distribution of them between men and women is probably lopsided but it does take some of the punch out of the 'womens' angle of the article. It's not so much just the women who work part time, it's everybody. This was illustrated by another mistake in the article - it's not just women who have a legal right to a reduction (or increase!) in the amount of hours, but the men, too.
sjs 16y ago
I don't think hard numbers were the focus of this post, and 10% vs 12% doesn't really change her point as far as I can see. edit: Even 20% doesn't change her point or personal experiences.
- JoachimSchipper 16y ago
  Including people who can't work is... suggestive.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    While "labor force participation less youth less elderly" us a more useful number for this purpose, it's also usually a number that's hard to dig up. I find laziness a very plausible explanation for going with the less useful numbers.

roel_v 16y ago

I agree, when you look into it in that detail, but it's safe to say that full-time labor participation by women is low and certainly below 20%. Percentage of mothers who work 35 hours or more is 19 over the last 3 years. Then again, overall full time employment is low. 40 % of all jobs are for 35 hours per week or more. Distribution of them between men and women is probably lopsided but it does take some of the punch out of the 'womens' angle of the article. It's not so much just the women who work part time, it's everybody. This was illustrated by another mistake in the article - it's not just women who have a legal right to a reduction (or increase!) in the amount of hours, but the men, too.

sjs 16y ago

I don't think hard numbers were the focus of this post, and 10% vs 12% doesn't really change her point as far as I can see. edit: Even 20% doesn't change her point or personal experiences.

JoachimSchipper 16y ago
Including people who can't work is... suggestive.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  While "labor force participation less youth less elderly" us a more useful number for this purpose, it's also usually a number that's hard to dig up. I find laziness a very plausible explanation for going with the less useful numbers.