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.
🧵 1/6
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.
🧵 2/6
That changes the gender comparison: conventional unemployment is higher for men, but FTEUR is higher for women once desired and actual hours are included.
🧵 3/6
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.
🧵 4/6
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.
🧵 5/6
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.
🧵 6/6
Save this answer
Create your account to keep this answer and continue from it later.