5 ms·

The popularity of part time work for women may have been a fluke, an accidental mix of choices, culture and circumstances that has lead to the current situation

The popularity of part time work for women may have been a fluke, an accidental mix of choices, culture and circumstances that has lead to the current situation. A situation that is certain downsides. However, the big upside is still underway: it is becoming increasingly normal for men to work part time. Already it's common for men to work no more than 32 hours, that's not even considered part-time anymore. If this trend continuous, the Netherlands is shifting towards a much shorter working week than most countries, without any major upheaval or further government intervention. However much by accident rather than design, it does seem to put the country one step ahead of most when dealing with an economic reality in which full employment for everyone is never going to happen.

wobbleblob 11y ago
There is just one downside to working part time when you're young that not everyone seems to consider fully. The tax deductible amount you're able to save for retirement is a percentage of your income. Money saved when you're young accumulates more interest. Basically, the less you work now, the more you will have to work later, when you're old. Young people don't seem to realize that there already isn't much AOW (social security) left for them. Unless you're 50+ now (the most powerful voting block is usually exempt from cutbacks), you will not be able to retire at 67. The retirement age is officially raised along with life expectancy. The 20 year old of today will not be eligible for AOW until their early 70's. Because not everyone is physically capable of continuing to work until 70+, and employment opportunities for people over 60 are pretty much zero, you're going to need savings to bridge that gap.
- tunasandwich 11y ago
  Not necessarily true, a lot of places allow people to work 4 days with a full time salary. In the end its about the job you do, not how many time you spend on it.
  - laichzeit0 11y ago
    > In the end its about the job you do, not how many time you spend on it. Unfortunately most employers don't see it this way. Especially at corporations where the number of employees is large, I mean like > 1000 headcount. It becomes impossible for HR not to completely manage people's time through strict enforcement of working hours policies. They employ you for 40 hours a week and thus expect you to be there for 40 hours a week. If you work for less than 40 hours it means either you're overqualified, i.e. being payed too much, they could replace you with someone that costs less and works slower, or they need to give you more work to do to make up for that 40 hours a week they're paying you for. I hate it.
    - Bootvis 11y ago
      If this experience applies to the Netherlands you should look for a better employer! In my experience this is perfectly possible at large cooperations (well known names) without any weird looks from HR or management.
- mvanvoorden 11y ago
  It sounds awful that people have to work all of their lives, so they have built up enough social security and pension that they can spend all of this when they're too old and weak to actually enjoy it. I retired at 30, not willing to take part in this craziness anymore, to live fully now and only work every now and then when I need money, although I'm also working hard on a solution that eliminates the need for money at all (and not only for myself, but for anyone willing to participate). My motto about the future: If in my life I haven't made such an impact on at least one person that nobody is willing to take care of me when I'm not capable anymore myself, I have either done something wrong or society has become something I'm not willing to live in anymore anyway.
  - wobbleblob 11y ago
    NL is too densely populated to live off the land, and the cost of living is rather high, so I'm not sure how you're doing it. But as long as you're not on welfare, don't have kids in school or use other tax payer funded facilities, I'm totally fine with your choice. It just wouldn't be my choice. What also helps is that I don't hate my job. Maybe you just chose a career that didn't make you happy. Isn't there another kind of job that would make you want to work more?
    - mvanvoorden 11y ago
      We're not meant to 'do jobs', so none would make me happy :) The only think that makes me happy is doing what makes me happy, which currently is travelling and finding a place to start a village according to my philosophy and then doing it in such a way that it attracts more people, including professionals in all possible fields. A society built on cooperation instead of competition and where concepts as career and job do not exist and work is only done because it's necessary, not because some virtual concept (like money) makes it necessary just for the sake of keeping this virtual concept in place.
    - timwaagh 11y ago
      most jobs are not fun. if it was fun somebody would do it for free. other than that welfare is indeed generous. the state subsidizes rent for those with less money (this and the tax system makes full time employment almost a waste of time). living is not that expensive when the typical lunch is a few slices of bread. a lot of people don't even own a car.

wobbleblob 11y ago

There is just one downside to working part time when you're young that not everyone seems to consider fully. The tax deductible amount you're able to save for retirement is a percentage of your income. Money saved when you're young accumulates more interest. Basically, the less you work now, the more you will have to work later, when you're old. Young people don't seem to realize that there already isn't much AOW (social security) left for them. Unless you're 50+ now (the most powerful voting block is usually exempt from cutbacks), you will not be able to retire at 67. The retirement age is officially raised along with life expectancy. The 20 year old of today will not be eligible for AOW until their early 70's. Because not everyone is physically capable of continuing to work until 70+, and employment opportunities for people over 60 are pretty much zero, you're going to need savings to bridge that gap.

tunasandwich 11y ago
Not necessarily true, a lot of places allow people to work 4 days with a full time salary. In the end its about the job you do, not how many time you spend on it.
- laichzeit0 11y ago
  > In the end its about the job you do, not how many time you spend on it. Unfortunately most employers don't see it this way. Especially at corporations where the number of employees is large, I mean like > 1000 headcount. It becomes impossible for HR not to completely manage people's time through strict enforcement of working hours policies. They employ you for 40 hours a week and thus expect you to be there for 40 hours a week. If you work for less than 40 hours it means either you're overqualified, i.e. being payed too much, they could replace you with someone that costs less and works slower, or they need to give you more work to do to make up for that 40 hours a week they're paying you for. I hate it.
  - Bootvis 11y ago
    If this experience applies to the Netherlands you should look for a better employer! In my experience this is perfectly possible at large cooperations (well known names) without any weird looks from HR or management.
mvanvoorden 11y ago
It sounds awful that people have to work all of their lives, so they have built up enough social security and pension that they can spend all of this when they're too old and weak to actually enjoy it. I retired at 30, not willing to take part in this craziness anymore, to live fully now and only work every now and then when I need money, although I'm also working hard on a solution that eliminates the need for money at all (and not only for myself, but for anyone willing to participate). My motto about the future: If in my life I haven't made such an impact on at least one person that nobody is willing to take care of me when I'm not capable anymore myself, I have either done something wrong or society has become something I'm not willing to live in anymore anyway.
- wobbleblob 11y ago
  NL is too densely populated to live off the land, and the cost of living is rather high, so I'm not sure how you're doing it. But as long as you're not on welfare, don't have kids in school or use other tax payer funded facilities, I'm totally fine with your choice. It just wouldn't be my choice. What also helps is that I don't hate my job. Maybe you just chose a career that didn't make you happy. Isn't there another kind of job that would make you want to work more?
  - mvanvoorden 11y ago
    We're not meant to 'do jobs', so none would make me happy :) The only think that makes me happy is doing what makes me happy, which currently is travelling and finding a place to start a village according to my philosophy and then doing it in such a way that it attracts more people, including professionals in all possible fields. A society built on cooperation instead of competition and where concepts as career and job do not exist and work is only done because it's necessary, not because some virtual concept (like money) makes it necessary just for the sake of keeping this virtual concept in place.
  - timwaagh 11y ago
    most jobs are not fun. if it was fun somebody would do it for free. other than that welfare is indeed generous. the state subsidizes rent for those with less money (this and the tax system makes full time employment almost a waste of time). living is not that expensive when the typical lunch is a few slices of bread. a lot of people don't even own a car.