Post: #1

In spite of being Holland one of the most liberal and leftist country in the world, 77% of Dutch women work part-time. Why is the Netherlands so different from the rest of western countries?

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/d...dutch.html

http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-fe...ness-axis/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist...rkparttime

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracy...h_feminism

Post: #2

Generous governments mean women don't have to work as much to get by.

Post: #3

I worked in the Netherlands for a few years. The women in my department worked full time. The women were laid back and not hypersensitive or neurotic like in the US. It's a good place to work - you work regular hours and get a good vacation. At my seniority level, I was getting about 40 days of vacation a year.

Post: #4

(05-16-2015 07:46 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Generous governments mean women don't have to work as much to get by.

This. It's a 'lesser of two evils' thing.
Better that they have benefits to not work than to slave away until their ovaries are useless.

Post: #5

Yeah but even with that the birthrate in The Netherlands is still barely above the german birthrate which was already super low so they are still going downhill.

Post: #6

Netherlands has a rather high wage structure, but people can cut their expenses much more than in other countries. Companies have started saving costs by offering those part-time jobs to women. Instead of hiring one full time, they instead hire 2 half-time, because it is cheaper to them.

But men still do have to make decent dough. It's not all bad, but not totally voluntary by women either.

Post: #7

If the welfare state is the cause, why isn't Norway similar? They have a generous oil-based welfare state and still have high female labor force participation. Norway may have a stronger tradition of androgyny, but I imagine the relevant underlying cultural difference between Norway and the Netherlands is pretty small.

Are the welfare benefits doled out differently? Or labor is regulated differently? Is it, as Zelcorpion suggests, easier to work part time in Amsterdam than Oslo? Would be interesting to hear from someone with experience in both.

Norway's high female labor force participation:
http://m.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory...ience.html

Post: #8

(05-17-2015 01:01 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Are the welfare benefits doled out differently? Or labor is regulated differently? Is it, as Zelcorpion suggests, easier to work part time in Amsterdam than Oslo? Would be interesting to hear from someone with experience in both.

Norway's high female labor force participation:
http://m.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory...ience.html

Countries vary strongly in Europe - some have cheap rent, are small, people use very little money on transportation etc.

Norway is generally a country where you are taxed to the bone and the living costs are much higher than in the Netherlands. Netherlands and Switzerland have both strange jobs, where 20%, 25%, 45% job offers are available. That was already the case 15 years ago as I lived and worked in Switzerland. I spent also 3 years in Netherlands (always a couple months each year). Another point is the tax incentives of the state - if 3 part-time jobs to 33% are cheaper for the company than one 100% job, then they will offer that as well.

So it's a combination of factors that explain it all quite well. Sometimes I did hear that women now are trying to get the occasional full time job, but don't manage it, because only part-times are being offered.

- taxation structure
- living costs
- disposable income
- real estate/rent
- partly cultural settings, but those matter the least

Here for example the trend in Japan - it goes on around the world as full time jobs are replaced by part-time crap by corporations all around the world - this is certainly not voluntary in Japan:

   

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-16...s-recovery

At least in the Netherlands and Switzerland it's partly endemic and was observable even 15 years ago when their economies were much better.

Post: #9

Interesting, thanks for the post. Would be interesting to map countries to their labor flexibility in this sense, and see how it maps to female labor participation.

Here in America, we spend so much money on transportation, healthcare and housing that is needlessly expensive thanks to government policy, which pushes more women into the workforce. Just to survive at middle class standards America means forgoing much of your disposable income.

Post: #10

(05-17-2015 06:42 AM)zigZag Wrote:  Yeah but even with that the birthrate in The Netherlands is still barely above the german birthrate which was already super low so they are still going downhill.

Germany is 1.39 whereas Netherlands is somewhere like 1.72.
Both are too low but it's more than a little higher

Post: #11

(05-17-2015 02:02 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Interesting, thanks for the post. Would be interesting to map countries to their labor flexibility in this sense, and see how it maps to female labor participation.

Here in America, we spend so much money on transportation, healthcare and housing that is needlessly expensive thanks to government policy, which pushes more women into the workforce. Just to survive at middle class standards America means forgoing much of your disposable income.

The expenses of commuting are more to do with the geography and sprawl of American metro areas. We have the same issue in Canada.

There are also strong cultural forces. Employers in America don't care whether they hire a man, woman, black, or white, they'll hire whoever as long as they fit into the company structure.

In many parts of the world, culture still trumps profits. That'll change however.

Post: #12

"The expenses of commuting are more to do with the geography and sprawl of American metro areas. We have the same issue in Canada. "

...which was induced by government policy. Zoning, federal highways, mortgage tax deductions, underpriced utilities in the suburbs and a thousand other things that made sprawl cheaper to the sprawlers than it cost the public at large.

Post: #13

This thread need more "Spike."

Post: #14

(05-17-2015 05:50 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 06:42 AM)zigZag Wrote:  Yeah but even with that the birthrate in The Netherlands is still barely above the german birthrate which was already super low so they are still going downhill.

Germany is 1.39 whereas Netherlands is somewhere like 1.72.
Both are too low but it's more than a little higher

This occurred to me... I would not be surprised that Germany's fertility is dragged down by East Germany.
There seem to be some residual effects of the regime in the people, moreover it was the only part of the USSR (or one of the few) that had a below replacement birth rate.

Post: #15

(05-17-2015 06:42 AM)zigZag Wrote:  Yeah but even with that the birthrate in The Netherlands is still barely above the german birthrate which was already super low so they are still going downhill.

Yep.

Hilarious as the thread title tries to spin this 77% of Dutch women with part-time jobs as a success, the reality is Dutch women are some of the most educated women on the planet.

So, in other words, they waste all of their prime fertility years on a useless degree. But because the economy is slow and getting shittier by the day, Dutch women then work internships, and part-time jobs until they are awarded with a real "full-time" job.

Meanwhile, their youth and life passes them by. Hence the low birthrates.

Post: #16

(05-18-2015 12:19 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 06:42 AM)zigZag Wrote:  Yeah but even with that the birthrate in The Netherlands is still barely above the german birthrate which was already super low so they are still going downhill.

Yep.

Hilarious as the thread title tries to spin this 77% of Dutch women with part-time jobs as a success, the reality is Dutch women are some of the most educated women on the planet.

So, in other words, they waste all of their prime fertility years on a useless degree. But because the economy is slow and getting shittier by the day, Dutch women then work internships, and part-time jobs until they are awarded with a real "full-time" job.

Meanwhile, their youth and life passes them by. Hence the low birthrates.

I disagree, it's a step in the right direction short of outright convincing women to not waste their fertility.
It is entirely possible the Dutch birth rate could be lower without this provision.

Post: #17

(05-18-2015 12:22 AM)Eskhander Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 12:19 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 06:42 AM)zigZag Wrote:  Yeah but even with that the birthrate in The Netherlands is still barely above the german birthrate which was already super low so they are still going downhill.

Yep.

Hilarious as the thread title tries to spin this 77% of Dutch women with part-time jobs as a success, the reality is Dutch women are some of the most educated women on the planet.

So, in other words, they waste all of their prime fertility years on a useless degree. But because the economy is slow and getting shittier by the day, Dutch women then work internships, and part-time jobs until they are awarded with a real "full-time" job.

Meanwhile, their youth and life passes them by. Hence the low birthrates.

I disagree, it's a step in the right direction short of outright convincing women to not waste their fertility.
It is entirely possible the Dutch birth rate could be lower without this provision.

So if women weren't wasting their years debauching themselves at college, they'd then be less likely to become mothers?

Post: #18

(05-18-2015 12:28 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 12:22 AM)Eskhander Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 12:19 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 06:42 AM)zigZag Wrote:  Yeah but even with that the birthrate in The Netherlands is still barely above the german birthrate which was already super low so they are still going downhill.

Yep.

Hilarious as the thread title tries to spin this 77% of Dutch women with part-time jobs as a success, the reality is Dutch women are some of the most educated women on the planet.

So, in other words, they waste all of their prime fertility years on a useless degree. But because the economy is slow and getting shittier by the day, Dutch women then work internships, and part-time jobs until they are awarded with a real "full-time" job.

Meanwhile, their youth and life passes them by. Hence the low birthrates.

I disagree, it's a step in the right direction short of outright convincing women to not waste their fertility.
It is entirely possible the Dutch birth rate could be lower without this provision.

So if women weren't wasting their years debauching themselves at college, they'd then be less likely to become mothers?

Not sure what you think I am saying.
Of course it's not ideal, but it could simply be a lesser of two evils.
I did say convincing women not to pursue careers would be the best solution.

Post: #19

(05-16-2015 07:43 PM)toroespañol Wrote:  In spite of being Holland one of the most liberal and leftist country in the world, 77% of Dutch women work part-time. Why is the Netherlands so different from the rest of western countries?

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/d...dutch.html

http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-fe...ness-axis/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist...rkparttime

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracy...h_feminism

That's because they don't have to. They get support from their parents or their husband/bf pays for everything. There aren't a lot of full-time jobs available though and since women here get the most worthless degrees like art they stay in school forever and get money from the govt that subsidizes their schooling. They can rent a cheap apartment with 3 friends and they can get the rent subsidized as well so they can live on like 600e a month. then they proceed to work 2x a week and the remainder of the time is spent partying, doing drugs, getting piss drunk and fucking random guys.

Don't let these articles fool you. Dutch women are terrible for LTR; they are cold and have a serious personality. And above all, they can't cook for shit. They are not 'family-minded' and if they are, its only when they reach the age of 30.

But they are excellent and 'open-minded' in bed, I can give them that.

This is a generalization but it has been the experience of many others and my own.

Post: #20

(05-18-2015 12:49 AM)Every10GivesMeA10 Wrote:  Don't let these articles fool you. Dutch women are terrible for LTR; they are cold and have a serious personality. And above all, they can't cook for shit. They are not 'family-minded' and if they are, its only when they reach the age of 30.

But they are excellent and 'open-minded' in bed, I can give them that.

This is a generalization but it has been the experience of many others and my own.

Exactly - had the very same experiences myself. I personally like the Dutch as the men and the older generations are something else and I loved spending time there. But women are a bit tricky.

Post: #21

It seemed like every Dutch girl I met over there had already had an American boyfriend (or two, or three...). As for their shitty cooking abilities, the Dutch aren't exactly known for creative culinary offerings so that could be part of the problem. But they are nice and tall with long legs, which counts for a lot.

Post: #22

That was my point with the quip about the birthrate... They're still not having babies, they arent getting important degrees that are worth anything so at this point they're just there selfishly leeching off of taxpayer money which doesn't seem like a good thing to me. I'd also bet that the birthrate among "DUTCH" women is even lower, cause it would be the muslim women and other immigrant women who are there who are more inclined to have the babies and be family oriented.

Post: #23

It's not just the women, there's no other country in the world where ~29% of the men work less than 36 hours either. It's cultural. People choose part-time because politicians and businesses owners make it possible and condone it. That's the whole catch.

I personally work 40 hours, but I can't really blame anyone for not wanting to stay in offices any longer than necessary, especially when you're not really ambitious in the first place. Let these people be happy outside, just making a little less money. I'm no leftie by any stretch, but what's the goal of life: live to work or work to live? If you really let women choose freely, like old school feminists said they wanted to, you'll see that some want to work full-time, some want to stay at home and a lot tend to want to work part-time. Plenty of feminists get angry at Dutch women for choosing what they like, versus becoming careerists like men.

Also, enough with the fertility rate nonsense. All developed countries, minus Israel, have low birthrates. No part in the world with lower birth rates than developed East Asia. Low fertility, low death rates: the new norm for modern developed market economies. NW Europe, minus Italy and Germany, is actually bouncing back up a little bit to more sustainable birth rates -- France, UK, Scandinavia, Netherlands are all pretty similar or merging. White women in the US have a similar birth rate as white NW European women, the only difference is that the US is more pronounced -- more childless women and more highly fertile women, which is logical because the US is very large diverse nation with many cultural spheres and the existence of a sizable, devout Christian population. The US also gets a slight bump in the overall TFR, all women combined, because of massive migration -- but migrant women's daughters tend to merge to the mean after one generation.

Post: #24

(05-18-2015 04:55 PM)Maciano Wrote:  It's not just the women, there's no other country in the world where ~29% of the men work less than 36 hours either. It's cultural. People choose part-time because politicians and businesses owners make it possible and condone it. That's the whole catch.

I personally work 40 hours, but I can't really blame anyone for not wanting to stay in offices any longer than necessary, especially when you're not really ambitious in the first place. Let these people be happy outside, just making a little less money. I'm no leftie by any stretch, but what's the goal of life: live to work or work to live? If you really let women choose freely, like old school feminists said they wanted to, you'll see that some want to work full-time, some want to stay at home and a lot tend to want to work part-time. Plenty of feminists get angry at Dutch women for choosing what they like, versus becoming careerists like men.

Also, enough with the fertility rate nonsense. All developed countries, minus Israel, have low birthrates. No part in the world with lower birth rates than developed East Asia. Low fertility, low death rates: the new norm for modern developed market economies. NW Europe, minus Italy and Germany, is actually bouncing back up a little bit to more sustainable birth rates -- France, UK, Scandinavia, Netherlands are all pretty similar or merging. White women in the US have a similar birth rate as white NW European women, the only difference is that the US is more pronounced -- more childless women and more highly fertile women, which is logical because the US is very large diverse nation with many cultural spheres and the existence of a sizable, devout Christian population. The US also gets a slight bump in the overall TFR, all women combined, because of massive migration -- but migrant women's daughters tend to merge to the mean after one generation.

When your entire system is built upon the younger generation paying for the older one then yeah you're in big trouble. eventually the people in Netherlands will get old and want to retire. With a crappy birthrate they won't have anyone to pay into their social programs. Thats why people make a fuss about the birth rate. These women have nothing to offer to society and are just there being parasites since they'll suck up tax money now and eventually retire and suck up tax money. Since they aren't creating enough replacements to work and pay taxes back into the system eventually it collapses or eventually you have to take on more immigrants who will outbreed them and they'll be minorities in their country.

Biology does not care about how happy you are, how fulfilling your life is. All that matters is how many children you have and only that determines the survival of the fittest. So yeah this trend is not good for Netherlands.

Post: #25

(05-18-2015 08:57 PM)zigZag Wrote:  When your entire system is built upon the younger generation paying for the older one then yeah you're in big trouble. eventually the people in Netherlands will get old and want to retire. With a crappy birthrate they won't have anyone to pay into their social programs. Thats why people make a fuss about the birth rate. These women have nothing to offer to society and are just there being parasites since they'll suck up tax money now and eventually retire and suck up tax money. Since they aren't creating enough replacements to work and pay taxes back into the system eventually it collapses or eventually you have to take on more immigrants who will outbreed them and they'll be minorities in their country.

Biology does not care about how happy you are, how fulfilling your life is. All that matters is how many children you have and only that determines the survival of the fittest. So yeah this trend is not good for Netherlands.

That system of young paying for the old is as good as dead when you have 10-18% unemployment like in the Netherlands. The social security systems were designed at a time when people had 3-4 children each, unemployment was zero and people lived to 65.

Of all those the unemployment number is the most important - back then almost all jobs were full-time. If you discounted the part-time jobs counted as full-time then the real unemployment would be over 20% if calculated as in 1980. How does it help the Netherlands to pump out more children, when they could not be absorbed by the job market? The children are paid for by the taxpayer, but there is no payback.

By the way - it's actually an erroneous statement that claims that "the young have to pay for the old" in every country. The actual productive wealth of a country is derived from the companies (their exports and their tax-base), the raw resources of the country and their exploitation AND the local population. Currently the private households pay 90% of all tax revenue vs. 50-60% in the 1950s. The companies have effectively shifted their tax burden onto the population paying on average 10% in most countries. And let us forget common wealth participation - the US has mineral resources within it's country that could give every US citizen a minimum income, but that part is being taken by the companies as well. The only country that does it to a degree is Norway - their nest egg is so big, that all Norwegians could stop working and there would be still enough money. Of course they won't do it, but prefer to tax the people tremendously.

TL;DR - having more children just like having more immigrants with massive unemployment is a loss loss for the local population - it does not help ignite the economy and it does not help pay for social security - the reverse is actually true. The economy has to precede the population growth and not vice versa.