Interesting article on women in the workforce

[CailinDana]

Here

Just posting quickly while working, will comment more later.

My initial reaction is along the lines - fucking IMF completely ignoring the value of women's labour as always. The emphasis on GDP over quality of life is infuriating. I expect there is more in the article that I could agree with, but I have difficulty thinking anything but bad thoughts about the IMF and their approach to the world economy.

Yes, there is certainly more in the article you could agree with EG, it was a mistake to stop part way through.

I didn't stop part way through Dad - where did I say that?

What is it you agree with?

What on earth is it you dont agree with?

...the "glass ceiling" is only a small part of the issue. (true that, it was only quite recently that in Saudi Arabia women were 'allowed' to work in lingerie shops)

(do) women have the same opportunities as men to participate in labour markets in the first place? Are women empowered to contribute fully to global economic growth and prosperity? (the article then makes the case they are not and why they should be.)

Around the world, the number of women in the workforce remains far below that of men. (true)

Women account for most unpaid work, and when they are paid, they are over-represented in the informal sector and among the poor (true)

distortions and discrimination in the labour market restrict women’s chances of equal pay and rising to senior positions. (true)

The potential gains from a larger female workforce are striking. (true) (lists potential growth of nations)

higher incomes for women lead to higher household spending on educating girls. (true, and education of girls enlightens them)

Employment of women on an equal basis with men provides companies with a larger talent pool, potentially increasing creativity, innovation, and productivity. (take that you male idiots)

...a larger female labour force can help to counteract the effect of a shrinking workforce and mitigate the costs of an ageing population. (take that you male obsessed nations)

Legal, regulatory and social discrimination against women in many countries still prevents them from seeking paid work in the formal sector.

women dominate the informal economy, where jobs are often transient and earnings are low. (which the article casts as a bad thing)

...tax systems and social-welfare programmes in many countries are designed in ways that discourage women from working.... taxing individual rather than family income would encourage women to seek employment. (in the US tax is by family I believe)

...government tax and spending policies, as well as labour-market regulation, should be reformed to help boost female employment.

Linking social-welfare benefits to participation in the workforce, training, or active labour-market programmes also can help, as can affordable, high-quality childcare and greater opportunities for paternity and maternity leave.

Women benefit when flexible work arrangements are introduced and the barriers between part-time and full-time work contracts are lowered...

accessible water and better transportation systems in rural areas can help women manage their time better.

Establishing and upholding equal property and inheritance rights can increase women’s access to credit and other productive resources,

(skip skip skip because I an tired of copy/paste))

We urge policymakers to take action and implement policies aimed at removing the obstacles that block women’s participation in the workforce. (because, you know, it would be economically good you male idiots)

Honestly EmmelineGoulden, what's your beef with it specifically? I did not even pull all the good stuff out of it. You say there is no 'quality of life' in it but, reading the article, but I cant understand how anyone could even form that position.

There is good there Dad I know that. But it's the way it is such a one sided view of economic worth. It doesn't acknowledge the work women already do. It's the mentality that sees it as better for a family to eat at a fast food restaurant because that increases GDP than to grow and eat their own food at home. Even though growing and eating their food at home would probably be a more satisfying and healthier way for people to live (i.e. quality of life).

I don't have a problem with the idea women should have an equal chance at employment at all. But I take issue with the fact it doesn't talk at all about who will do the work that women are now doing. Most women are currently employed in useful tasks - they just aren't paid for them. That is bad - it puts them in a financially vulnerable situation and that means they end up in emotionally and physically vulnerable situations too. But our world will not be better if all that happens is women get employed by businesses.

People for the most part dont want to grow their own fruit and veg, they want their fast food and diet supplements.... with a side order of coffee and cigarettes thank you very much. Quality of life is a funny thing, as soon as you tell anyone they should not have what they want they will tell you right smart to piss off and stop interfering with the quality of their life.

As to 'who would do the work of women' the problem is the work they do is unrecognised therefore it is undervalued. But leave something undone, it gets recognised quick smart. Tell a kid to wash their own clothes they will like as not say 'no'. But when their friends only walk upwind of them and even strangers tell them they smell, they wash their clothes. Nothing like an undone job in the home to energise people into recognition and appreciation.

Other people don't pick up women's work, kids don't do their washing, husbands don't cook such good food, fathers don't go into school and read with the kids or join the PTA or volunteer at the library (on average, many individual cases notwithstanding). What happens is women get pushed in to the work place, but keep responsibility for, in particular, child care. And lots of community work just stops. So women end up in poorer paying jobs.

The IMF don't look at this aspect at all - and that's my beef with it. Policies that pretend we just have to make women more like men are flawed. We need to make men more like women too for things to be equal - and we have to appreciate that our lovely lives are down to the work women do as well as our GDP.

men won't take steps to change work hours - the salaries are tangible and more or less reliable. but community or family work which is largely unpaid doesnt have a price on it, and the value can vary from day to day.

I don't know if that's true. A lot of my Dutch colleagues work 4-day weeks, which came in years ago rather than anyone being made redundant. And I don't think any would change back now. Plus a Swedish colleague had a year out being the stay-at-home parent. (They're all men, BTW.) Things can be changed if people really want it.

I don't think it is common here - some policies would need to change, like rights to parental leave. I think if things become more common, then they also become more acceptable, but things neef to start somewhere. But if it can happen in oyher countries, it could happen here, if people want it to enough.