Why employment rates can hide women’s disadvantage
Women’s conventional employment rate was just under 70%, but their FTEER was just under 51%. Their FTEUR was also slightly higher than men’s. Hours change the story.
A conventional rate counts people as employed, even after just one hour of work.
FTE measures instead reassign underemployed hours from employment to unemployment, showing labour use more fully.
That changes the gender comparison: conventional unemployment is higher for men, but FTEUR is higher for women once desired and actual hours are included.
Rural areas matter. Women’s FTEER is lowest in predominantly rural areas, while their conventional employment rate is lowest in predominantly urban areas. Person-based rates can mask rural women’s disadvantage.
The measures have boundaries. Both exclude economically inactive people who want a job. FTEUR also does not subtract overemployment, since those hours are already being supplied.
The takeaway is not that one rate replaces another.
Rates depend on the question: count people with conventional measures, or assess labour hours used and left unused with FTE measures.
Let's look at alternatives:
- Modify the query.
- Start a new thread.
- Remove sources (if manually added).