Yes, almost half the workforce doesn’t work
I absolutely cannot stand the way newspapers launch facts into the public sphere without explaining them for their readers. This is sheer, unutterable laziness: reporting the bare facts and figures without elucidation.
It wouldn’t happen if the people who work in newsrooms were to change their attitude from the existing one of ‘reporting a press release’ to ‘reporting on a press release’.
Take the report on employment rates across the European Union, which I read on timesofmalta.com on Wednesday afternoon, culled from Eurostat figures. The heading and the first sentence were creative: “EU employment figures make sad reading for Malta. Employment rate figures published today by the EU make sorry reading for Malta.”
The report then failed to explain exactly why the figures make sad reading, and left readers at liberty to imagine catastrophic scenarios of unemployment rates of 45.1 per cent, inferred from Malta’s employment rate of 54.9 per cent, which is the lowest in the European Union.
The news story did not define the employment rate and the unemployment rate, or explain why both of those rates are so low in Malta (our unemployment rate is 6.5 per cent, the fourth lowest in the EU and a far cry from the imagined 45.1 per cent).
Statistics released by Eurostat are intended for professional use and not for general newspaper readership. Newspapers are there to interpret those statistics for their readers and not to report them pat and without back-up information. They have to give the numbers some context, even if it means a couple of hours of research.
When that doesn’t happen, the newspaper merely ends up spreading misinformation, which is the reverse of what it is supposed to do, unless it is owned by the Labour Party or the General Workers Union, in which case spreading misinformation becomes its raison d’etre.
When I read that timesofmalta.com report, I groaned. And sure enough, there beneath it was a flurry of shrieking comments to the effect that gONezI is a liar, that the government is a bunch of deceitful ferrets in a syphilitic sack, and that the end of the world is nigh and we’re all going to hell in a handcart.
A few people popped in and tried to calm the situation by pointing out that the statistics say nothing that we didn’t know already: that Maltese women drop out of economic life when they have their first child, and often even before that but as soon as they marry and have a nest to faff around in, and that Maltese men do their best to find ways to stop working when they reach their late 50s.
But the hysterics were having none of this.
If there is any ‘sad reading for Malta’ in these numbers, it is the fact that just over half of people of working age support the other half, either directly or indirectly. They also support the entire child population and the population of pensioners. Small wonder, then, that the backs of those 54.9 per cent are cracking.
That is not how the majority of those commenting on the internet read the situation, though. To them, the ‘sad reading for Malta’ lay in the ‘fact’ they had inferred: that our unemployment rate is 45.1 per cent and that gOnEzi is a liar for claiming otherwise.
The employment rate is the number of persons who are economically active, expressed as a percentage of the total workforce. The workforce is defined as the number of persons of working age, whether they are self-employed, employed, registered as unemployed or economically inactive by choice because they have a private income, live off social security or are maintained by others.
The mistake occurs when people think that the unemployment rate is calculated in the same way that the employment rate is: that it is the number of people who are not economically active, expressed as a percentage of the total workforce.
That is where the confusion lies. The unemployment rate is something else: it is the number of registered job-seekers expressed as a percentage of the workforce. In Malta’s case, this is 6.5 per cent, the fourth lowest in Europe and a far cry from the laughable 45.1 per cent that so many people inferred from the 54.9 per cent employment rate.
It is only registered job-seekers who are calculated, and not everyone who doesn’t have a job. You are ranked as unemployed – as distinct from not economically active – only if you are looking for work. You are not classed as unemployed if you are a housewife, a rich man’s moll, or the heir to a fortune that allows you to live off income from investments. You are classed as not economically active.
Yes, it is rather disturbing that only roughly half the Maltese workforce is economically active. That is precisely what the point of the news report should have been. People looking for work and not finding it is one thing. People not even bothering to look for work because they can and do live off others is another thing altogether.
Malta does not have an unemployment problem. What it has is something else altogether: a drop-out mentality and a general attitude of apathy.
I do not agree with those who say that the decision not to work is a personal one and that it is nobody else’s business if women decide to stay at home and live off their husband or lover. These sorts of decisions are personal only for those who drop out altogether and go off and live in some kind of commune far from the rest of humanity.
When a woman decides not to work it is not between her and her husband, but between her and the rest of society who must be taxed harder because she isn’t taxed at all. So yes, it is everyone’s business when women decide not to work, because everyone else has to pay for their privilege in terms of higher individual taxes.
If the state needs X amount of money to keep things ticking over, then it stands to reason that the fewer the number of those who work, the greater the amount of taxes each must pay on an individual basis. When more and more people become economically active, the tax burden is shared and we pay fewer taxes individually.
The fact that Mary and Doris are sitting at home is our business and not just theirs; those who work have to pay more tax because Mary and Doris are not paying any.
Our unfortunate mentality, which attaches the civil duty of tax to work rather than to responsible participatory citizenship, is one of the reasons for the huge army of women who don’t contribute economically. They don’t feel any guilt at not being taxpayers because, in their minds, they don’t owe any tax because they have no earnings. It doesn’t occur to them for one minute that others are picking up the bill on their behalf, and it’s not just their husband.
The employment rate for Maltese women is a shockingly low 37.7 per cent. Because the rest are not pulling their weight financially, the state has to turn its snapping tax-jaws to the rest.
And we haven’t even begin to account for the overall growth benefits to the Maltese economy of more women earning and spending, or earning and saving, instead of this dreadful situation in which almost half the workforce is parasitic on the other half.
That is precisely why the numbers make such sad reading for Malta: because the vast majority of women have yet to understand that by refusing to work they are not just a private financial burden on their husband or lover but collectively, a public financial burden on the entire country.
This article was published in The Malta Independent yesterday.
53 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Some clever dick will now pop out and say that housewives should be paid (by the state) for their work at home.
[Daphne – That goes to show how much they know: housewives should be taxed not paid.]
I surely do remember that a clever dick once promised wages to housewives in recognition for their useful work in the family. Anyway, at the time he headed the party which used to claim that a woman’s place was in the kitchen. Enough said.
Good article Daphne but you failed to mention what the present or future governments can do about this.
[Daphne – Oh, I have a very good idea what can be done about it, but I can just imagine the repercussions: a luxury tax on stay-at-home wives.]
Housewives should be paid by their husbands and by their children when they start working. After all it’s the husbands and the children who benefit from the housewife and not the state.
In the Maltese family it’s very common that children do not contribute to the expenses of the household. (imsieken ghax gharajjes, imsieken ghax xtraw karozza plenty of parents think this way).
This idea of paying the housewife is really absurd. “Imur ihallasha zewgha ta’ kemm issahhanlu s-sodda fix-xitwa mela l-istat x’affarijiet dawn”.
To be honest, I am also against children’s allowance. “Min irid it-tfal imur jahdem ghalihom hu, mhux l-istat”.
Yes, the workforce is the total number of people in gainful employment plus those who are actually seeking paying jobs. Now, it is true that the number of women in Malta who are employed plus those who are seeking a job is much lower than the European average.
[Daphne – Actually, the workforce for the purpose of calculating the employment rate is taken as the total number of people of working age (16 to 61 in Malta, but in this case, 15 to 64 apparently. If the workforce were taken to be only those engaged in economic activity and those seeking work, then the employment rate would not be just 54.9 per cent but 93.5 per cent. You are making the same mistake those made who inferred an unemployment rate of 45.1 per cent from an employment rate of 54.9 per cent. It can be pretty confusing, which is why the newspaper report should have spelled it out. I’m struggling to do so myself.]
Should the same percentage of women seeking a job rise to the same average level as that in the rest of Europe, it would follow that the percentage of registered unemployed in Malta would rise considerably since there are not enough jobs to go round, not even for those of either gender who are currently unemployed and seeking a job.
The extra job-seekers would translate, more or less, into the same number of unemployed. The conclusion is that the percentage of unemployed is lower in Malta because many women are unwilling to seek work and not because of some economic miracle.
[Daphne – Not really, Hypatia. You’re assuming that women who wish to become economically active will be registered as unemployed. But the real effect of lots of women becoming economically active where before they were not is a surge in demand for goods and services (more spending power), which in turn creates jobs for others, keeps them in their own jobs, and spurs GDP growth. Women going out to work does not mean a rise in unemployment, but the opposite. For a start, women who decide to re-enter the market do not begin by going to the labour office to register for work. They can’t, because the labour office won’t pay them a job-seeker’s allowance if they are supported by a man (just as it won’t pay a man who is supported by a woman, before you all pounce).]
The percentage of unemployed would rise even higher if the pensionable age were to suddenly rise to, say, 65 which is the case in many EU countries – so far, the raising of the pensionable age in Malta is not affecting anybody as this was staggered to hit first those who were less than 50 years old. There is therefore no case for jubilation that Malta’s unemployment figure is lower because of the reasons explained above. In other words, if Maltese women were as eager as their European counterparts to seek a job and if the pensionable age was the same as in most European countries, our level of unemployment would be as high or higher than most other EU countries.
Actually, when I was on the dole a few years back (I was married at the time) I got a jobseeker’s allowance despite the fact that my wife worked and therefore supported me.
I didn’t do anything irregular to get this measly allowance – just filled in all the forms as per ETC’s instructions.
The low employment rate for women in Malta is indeed striking and worrying. This pattern may well be attributed to tradition and social norms. (Mediterranean countries cluster around the bottom of the Eurostat figures.)
However, the situation also raises the question of available jobs if Maltese women were to join the workforce in greater numbers. I don’t know of any data about unfilled jobs in Malta; someone may have compiled them. In any event, the creation of new jobs is not an easy matter even if the government were to enter the game or foreign investment should thrive. And any new jobs for women need to be economically productive — it wouldn’t do for Mary and Doris to just take in each other’s washing.
A problem, too, is the large percentage of early school leavers in Malta, creating a labor pool of dubious benefit in a modern economy. In short, I see this problem of jobs for women to be pretty intractable.
Daphne,
I concur with your article, 100%.
What I find disturbing is the fact that once The Times was the benchmark for all the other newspapers to follow, it has now unfortunately lowered its standard, by its reporting of certain articles that are not so accurately researched; even some of its editorials leave much to be desired.
Are the journalists involved up to the task?
I wonder; or is it time for a shake-up in recruiting new blood, perhaps?
This is not The Times we know it.
How can recruiting ‘new blood’ bring back the standards held by the ‘old blood’. I suspect it’s the ‘new blood’ which has brought the standards to such low levels.
When I read the article in question, I was immediately struck by the unfairness of the reporting. The author was only interested in piling shovelfuls of negative muck on the steps of Castille and, lo and behold, the myriad of whiners had a field day with it.
You are right, sometimes you need to spell things out to the readers. When I read the comments following the said article on timesofmalta.com I was baffled at why most were blaming the government (national past time I guess) rather than themselves (so to speak).
These figures do put a lot into perspective though, e.g. the ‘hardworking’ Maltese people – having to work extra for their lazy counterparts; the crawling GDP increase, the low unemployment…
Regarding Mary and Doris, growing up next to a primary school allowed me a glimpse of what their ‘mara tad-dar’ work involved. This included chatting for at least an hour to Cetta and Grace right outside the school while ‘waiting’ for their kids to exit. I’d count 10-15 people there everyday, no kidding.
On the other hand, I wonder what the repercussions of another 20% of the workforce actually working would entail. No chance of bragging about low unemployment then. Although granted, such a cultural change would take place over decades rather than years, as has been happening to an extent already. So maybe all is not lost.
The mentality here is not just one of apathy, but also a sexist one. Here’s just a few examples of how this works:
1) The housewife will always retort that doing the dishes and whatnot is “work too y’know!”.
2) The “single” mother that refuses to work (and lives off her parents, unofficial spouse and the state) is a “victim of society” and her laziness made up for by you and I. And some people think that it is a moral obligation. Replace the single mother with a man and you’ll see the sexism manifest itself. “What kind of a man would refuse work to support their kids?”, the same people would say.
3) We impose “opportunities” to women who want to work, such as unneccessarily long maternity leave that make them a crushing liability to small businesses. The effect of this short-sighted sexist nonsense is that it makes employers reluctant to employ women who actually want to work.
Oh come on Mr. Darwin! I cannot agree with you less on the third point of your comment. If a woman doesn’t want to work, she won’t. She can have all the opportunities in the world.
However, you cannot say that maternity leave is unnecessarily long or that working women shouldn’t be “helped” (even through private child care and similar initiatives). If, on the other hand, a woman (mother) wants to work but hasn’t a decent support then she may very well decide to reduce her employment hours or in extreme cases even stop working.
Frankly, at 32 years old and working 60 hours a week, I don’t know how I will fit a child when madness seizes me and I decide to have one or two.
So, before you attack family-friendly measures, please ensure that you know what you’re talking about. There are women who want to work and manage to because they have help either from the immediate family or in the form of child care services and other support.
However, one simply cannot have children and continue working full-time without having a support system. And, frankly, Malta sorely lacks a decent support system.
What about the single mothers who are given their monthly allowances when they claim an “unknown father”? Is it possible that they live only with the allowance the state is giving them or the “unknown father” is giving also his share? Any kind of abuse from social benefits should stop for the sake of every hard worker.
Yes, some did try to calm the situation, Mrs. Caruana Galizia, but it was too little, way too late once the first couple of damning comments were posted, many from the ‘usual suspects’. The subject actually being reported, however superficially, was thrown straight out of the window.
One D. Catania even had the whole catastrophic UN-employment situation (as he perceived it), down as the fault of the illegal immigration situation – nice to know some things never change.
I’m pretty sure a lot of these commentators (they are NOT bloggers) simply skim through the article, before getting their teeth into the infinitely more important spur of the moment opinions from Joe Public beneath.
The result? Typically paranoid rantings about evil politicians, abounding poverty, famine, pestilence and worst of all, illegal immigration! Oh dear……
I am surprised re your main conclusion ie: “Malta does not have an unemployment problem. What it has is something else altogether: a drop-out mentality and a general attitude of apathy.”
Your article fails completely to mention the “encouraged early retirement schemes”. This clearly, as per the article, effects the 55+ bracket.
Early/forced/encouraged retirement is not really an issue today because the pensionable age is acceptable at 60 and most people can bear a few years.
The question or the point to be highlighted is : What will happen to a person if he loses his job half way through his working life at 50+ bearing in mind that the retirement age is continuously being pushed up . ie 60 – 65 – 70.
To conclude: Most of the comments were not politically biased on the contrary they raised a number of issues which are very relevant to the present and future general situation.
Add the thousands of underemployed in the civil service, the public corporations and the many loss-making government owned entities like Enemalta and Airmalta and you get an even sorrier picture.
Very clear article – pity that the women who read this are generally those who are already doing some kind of economic activity. The above message ought to be picked up and given prominence in Maltese language papers, whose readers, I guess, fit into the above. Let’s not however forget that there are also quite a number of men who are living off their wife’s inherited income or other earnings.
I am no economist, but I believe that the true picture in the unemployment scenario does not factor in the thousands whose ‘economic activity’ is undeclared, and hence their actual earnings do not filter down to any contribution to the public finances. And, let’s face it, when a decorator, mechanic or what-have-you, asks if you want to pay VAT on his bill, you know where your answer will lie (unless you can re-coup this tax). So I just interpret the unemployment figures as a measuring scale of shifting trends in the employment field, more than as correct unemployment figures.
I suspect it is mainly the southerners and socialists who see handouts as a right and indeed as only existing thanks to the MLP/Mintoff.
Happy birthday Dom!
BTW Tim, that Chicharito kid’s gonna tear them apart.
Inshallah
@ Ripard
Actually, Tim, it is a right… in the legal sense. An unfair one, but you can hardly blame people for being lazy when the state provides incentive to be so.
Because that is what handouts in effect are. Rewards for laziness. There is no excuse to issue handouts in a society already paved with opportunity.
Yeah pardner, we southerners are just a bunch o’ lazy hick, country bumpkins, sheep shaggin our way through life, scroungin a livingfrom what we can bag from the governmint,
now wheres’ Dolly, i need a little lovin?
What work? in the government department I work in , only a handful put in a decent day’s work (and I am not one of them) the rest of us pass the time by with petty gossip (not the papal kind) and playful banter.
An extract from blogger “Neil Dent”:
“One D. Catania even had the whole catastrophic UN-employment situation (as he perceived it), down as the fault of the illegal immigration situation – nice to know some things never change.”
As a matter of fact illegal employment (ie :unregistered employees who do not pay tax or NI) does effect the employment figures.
It is known as the black economy.
It makes the life of a genuine potential registered employee much harder.
Perhaps Neil Dent has read the article but he fails to manage to interpret the economics behind it.
The “Simshar widow” is a typical case of housewife-by-right attitude amongst some women. And she is in her early thirties…
She is back in the news, sort of:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100806/local/simshar-tragedy-victims-brother-in-plea-for-financial-help :
A few of those commenting about the timesofmalta.com article even justified her approach to life:
“With all due respect, my heart goes out to this man and his family but why should our government help him? Only last Sunday, the wife of Noel Carabott (another victim of the Simshar tragedy) was walking round the streets of Fgura asking passers-by for some financial assistance because she may end up homeless. Charity should begin at home. I gladly gave her the little bit I could.
L Spiteri(11 hours, 22 minutes ago)
The same person came at Zabbar, Qormi, Zurrieq, Attard, Qrendi and Bormla. Hope she gathered the amount of money she needs.
…
Acachia(11 hours, 3 minutes ago)
I think that the wife of Noel Carbott should find a job. She has been to my house, my workplace and all over the south of Malta expeciting people to know her… and also asking for money.
While i feel for this lady, i think that its high time that she earned a living just like we all do. After all, no one knows what she is doing with the money she is givien. This way, she does not have to burden other people with her own burden. I think the Maltese have given this lady more than enough.
V Borg(10 hours, 32 minutes ago)
Please, don’t turn this lady into a public debate.
Thank you.
“
Daphne, I don’t want to come over all self-defensive about this, but I have two children aged three and one and I am a “housewife” (although I baulk at calling myself this) because I feel they are too young to be farmed out to daycare all day every day.
When they are old enough to go to school, then we will sort something out for after-school care and I will go back to work. (Their nanniet are unavailable as babysitters). Is there nothing to be said for the face that I am giving them every attention while they are very young so they will grow up properly and eventually they will be able to give something back to the state. Do you hate me too?
[Daphne – Where does hate come into it? Obviously, when they are one and three you have to stay at home to look after them. But as you yourself remarked, they are not going to be one and three forever.]
How about the mentality of some men which believe that the cause of increasing marriage failures lies in the fact that more women continue to work after getting married?
They claim that wives will be ‘tempted’ by some male(s) at workplace, thus laying the ground for an eventual separation, cohabitation or divorce.
I personally think there’s value in both partners working but they have to find some balance. It’s not difficult to find couples who were foolish enough to overburden themselves with debt to have a nice house and cars. They end up spending their first years together at work, perhaps with overtime or traveling. With the addition of children things get worst. After work there’s food to be prepared, homework, some cleaning, check the paperwork etc… and then go to bed exhausted.
Most of the time the burden falls on one partner (studies in Europe show it’s the woman, unsurprisingly enough) so there’s less time together.
Din li dejjem irridu niggustifikaw bis “southerners” versus “northerners” ma nistax ghaliha!
F`bicca toqba ta’ gzira. Qisu is south biss hemm il housewives li ma jahdmux.
Ha nghid xi haga, forsi anki ghal Daphne, ghax ghalkemm m`ijiex xi zghira hafna, imma ma lehqitx is-sittinijiet u is-sebghinijiet. Dak iz-zmien il-mentalita` kienet kompletament differenti. U mhux Malta biss.
Forsi Malta iktar ghax dejjem konna xi naqra iktar lura. Ahna konna nahdmu xebbiet, il-maggioranza, anzi, tat-tfajliet kienu jahdmu. L-iktar fil-fabbriki, lukandi, u naturalment fil-banek u skrivana.
Imma malli nizzewgu, u jigu it-tfal, il-mara postha kien id-dar. Tisjir, xiri, trobbijja tat-tfal etc., u ir-ragel jgib il-flus. Hekk kien in-normal. South u North!
U inzid li kien hemm xi vantaggi ukoll, specjalment fejn jidhlu it-tfal. Dak iz-zmien hadd ma kien jara kbir imma, hadd ma kien jaghmel passi ikbar milli jiflah, hadd ma kien jippikka ha jkolli dejjem l-aqwa u l-isbah iktar minn ta’ haddiehor. Kulhadd kien japprezza il-valur tal-flus u tax-xoghol.
Umbaghad iz-zmienijiet inqalbu, inbidlu, forsi ghall-ahjar ghall-mara ghax hadet hafna iktar drittijiet, u il-mara harget tahdem bhal irgiel.
Tajjeb minn banda, hazin minn ohra fl-opinjoni tieghi, imma m’ iniex qed nikteb biex xi hadd jaqbel mieghi f`dan ir rigward. Nghid biss li nisa fuq il-hamsin sena, allura, ghandhom jhossuhom bit-tort ghax ma hadmux, jew ghax ma jahdmux, jekk ahna ghexna fi zmien iehor u ma nafux ahjar?
[Daphne – I think women of that generation are far from being to blame for anything, because they are pure victims of a society which conspired to sell them short or sell them down the river in every respect. It must have been terrible to be a woman in those days, to have dreams and aspirations and talents and to be slammed down and told that you can expect nothing beyond marriage and children, and then to see the generations of women who came after doing what they want to do while STILL marrying and having children. My generation was on the cusp of that, so I have a lot of sympathy because even we had a great deal of experience of the same thing.]]
OK, issa nafu ahjar (forsi) imma issa tard wisq! Hadd ma jiehu pjacir ihaddem nies li ilhom snin twal ma jkunu fid-dinja tax-xoghol.
Kulhadd iharislek bl-ikrah ghax XJAHT! Ma niehux pjacir xi hadd jghidli li jien piz fuq is-socjeta, fuq ir-ragel pacenzja hux. Apparti il fatt li l-irgiel ta’ dak iz-zmien ma kienux ihossuha piz, ghax ma tantx kienu jiehdu gost li il-mara tohrog tahdem. Hafna minnhom anqas kienu biss joholmuha. Nixtieq lil xi hadd jikkumenta fuq hekk. Grazzi.
I do agree with Daphne, but maybe I’m dumb.
What would happen to Joey and Charlie if Mary and Doris and their friends Cetta and Grace decided to start working? Would there be enough jobs to go round or would our unemployment numbers go up?
[Daphne – They would go up for a time, and then settle back down once the demand created by their increased income creates jobs for others.]
Has anybody taken a good count of the bingo halls in Malta?
Eros mentions a valid point I was going to make. More specifically regarding women, how many thousands of women or ‘housewives’ work as cleaners, and totally undeclared. For most women that work there is another woman employed as a cleaner or house help, or babysitter. How many of these pay taxes?? How many of these are on social aid?? If this matter we regulated once and for all our employment figures will be very different and tax revenues too. The government and the population in general must get it’s act together. Little do we realise that by employing undeclared help we might save a few bucks but end up paying more taxes to fund these women’s benefits. Same with mechanics, maintenance men, and most labourers who carry out work in our homes.
I agree totally with Daphne regarding The Times. As much as I read it, the lack of investigative journalism shocks me. I have long noticed that all they do is repeat a speech or a text parrot-like without looking deeper into the story.
Does one need to be a genius to estimate the amount of undeclared workers? Are these people (the journalists) mere amateurs, or more worryingly scared of their own shadow?
I wonder if this is symtomatic of our education system where all the way into university students are encouraged to learn in a parrot like fashion rather than think for themselves. It seems very much like the educational system has for a long time not created discerning and independent minded individuals but just cloning workers with the basic requirements to enter the workforce.
Well, I agree, but it is very difficult to do so, and we’ll be waiting till the cows come home for this.
However at a minimum they should definitely be paying national insurance.
A problem would arise is that most of these ‘stay at homes’ would probably not be qualified for a job where they would pay income tax anyway, even though indirectly this would still help the economy.
Plus, equally unfair, many of these one-income family are in fact have several incomes as part time plumbers etc, all without a VAT book naturally. But they would be the first to complain if taxes are increased.
As to people living off investments etc, to the best of my knowledge, all interest is taxed at 15% – there are no exempt brackets are there?
The very frustrating truth is that if we all paid our taxes, they would actually go down! But as usual in Malta
L-ewwel jien, it-tieni jien u it-tielet jien!
On another note, but tied in with your comment on The Times’ standards (they really seem to be going down the drain in my opinion) in a story about ‘The simshar tragedy’ the famous professional widow was mentioned with quotes about how charity should begin at home, and we should all help her.
I posted a comment about how a relatively young single woman without children should find it easy to find a job to pay her bills (how many bills does a single woman without kids have?).
Apparently that was deemed highly offensive and not published.
Sorry to drift into something different altogether.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100807/local/sunday-should-be-a-day-of-rest-church-commission
Daphne, thank you for your explanation. I admit I am treading on hazardous ground as this is not my subject – though I consider any subject fit for discussion, even if cautiously.
I quite agree that if more women were in employment, there would be more money in the economy and demand would rise but I cannot compute the magnitude of the effect this would have on the economy in general and on unemployment rates – for me, it remains a matter of speculation. The fact remains, it seems, that there must be jobs available before more persons (including women, of course) could find jobs. There is no doubt, however, that some of the women who decide to become productive could create their own jobs rather than wait for vacancies as employees.
Newcomers to the labour market, even if they are not entitled to any benefit, may still register for employment under Part 1 of the register.
The NSO defines the unemployment rate as follows:
The unemployment rate: is worked out by taking into account the number of registered unemployed
persons both under Part 1 and Part 2 as a percentage of the sum of the full-time gainfully occupied
population and the total registered unemployed.
The labour supply is defined as:
The Labour Supply: includes both the registered unemployed and the gainfully occupied population.
Unless my reasoning is flawed, it seems that the unemployment rate is the percentage of the labour supply that is registering for work. This is a mere statistic since there may be unemployed persons who do not bother to register.
Here’s the link:
http://www.nso.gov.mt/statdoc/document_file.aspx?id=2592
Needless to say, I fully share your opinion that there is no reason why Maltese women should not enter the labour market. In Europe and other countries, it is taken for granted that women should work in the same way as men do – there is no distinction at all. It is considered a reckless luxury to stay at home.
It seems that Maltese society has remained conservative even on this issue. The Church has repeated many times that it is preferable for women to stay at home to look after the needs of the family. While there may be some truth in this when there are still babies and young children, it is totally unjustifiable when kids are at school or have grown up enough to fend for themselves.
The idea that working women is a modern phenomenon is pure misconception. In rural societies, which predominated in the past, the working unit was the family rather than the individual and mothers (those who survived childbirth) returned to the farm soon after giving birth. It was urbanization and industrialization which encouraged the idea that women stay at home though many still worked in domestic service and in what were considered female occupations.
[Daphne – I live in a rural area, and I can vouchsafe for the fact that every single woman here works in the fields, selling vegetables, tending to animals, the rest. And you should see their daughters, in their 20s: amazing. Straight As and Bs, excelling at university – so impressive. One of them went straight from a chicken farm and a largely illiterate family to one of the major communications and advertising companies in London.]
The two world wars brought out many women to work in the war economy but this did not happen in Malta where there were no war industries. nonetheless, even in advanced countries like the UK and the US, it was presumed that, once the menfolk came back from war, the women would give them back their places. But by the 60’s and 70’s, there was no stopping women from taking their rightful place as productive individuals.
Spot on! I’m absolutely sick and tired of reading timesofmalta.com articles, like the one you are mentioning, with numbers and percentiles without subsequently providing a valid and informed interpretation or criticism explaining why certain numbers are so. This of coarse is leaving stupid dicks like lgalea (who the hell is he anyway?) to do their own misinformed interpretations. maaaa how irritating!
On to the subject of the mentioned article. It is true that our employment rate is low because many women decide to stay at home to support the household and the family. But I simple refuse the idea that these people, both women and men, who decide to dedicate their work to the family are redundant to the economy.
[Daphne – There’s a happy medium in everything. The expression ‘dedicating yourself to the family’ is a complete misnomer. Nowadays, with labour-saving devices and so many women not even doing their own cleaning, and with children in school until the afternoon, what it really means is dedicating yourself to an empty house and either falling into depression or spending all your time out. Men used to think that women who work have affairs. It’s women who don’t work who actually do, because they have the time, the inclination and are bored out of their minds.]
I obviously refuse the idea that these people should be paid by the state, like some would suggest, but I would almost say that these people should be registered as ‘society volunteers’ and counted with the employed, if it is possible.
[Daphne – As if. You’re talking to somebody who raised a family, you know. I know exactly what is involved. I also know – because I can observe – that the children of mothers who don’t work often do less well in life than the children of mothers who do. The reason, I believe, is that the mother is the main influence and if they see her sitting around all day – well, then. Mothers who work also tend to be better educated and more involved in society, which makes them better at advising their children.]
These people are doing a lot of work that deserves praise without expecting much in return.
[Daphne – On the contrary, they expect a lot in return: they expect to be kept by others for the rest of their lives and never have to deal with normal adult responsibilities. It’s the life of a large child.]
Giving the example of my mother, she raised my siblings and I without sending us to childcare centres, she manages our household and my grandmother’s household, she helps my father in his work whom she works for part time, and she tends to my grandmother instead of sending her to a home (which would cost taxpayer’s money). She chose to do this work and nobody forced her to do this. Is she not occupied?
[Daphne – Your mother works part-time. She doesn’t ‘not work’. Now the question I have here is: why doesn’t she get you, your father and your siblings off your asses and doing most of that work she does between you, with your grandmother and all? I don’t think women who behave like this are giving a good example to their children: the sons grow up to drive their wives round the bend and end up separated (unless they marry somebody with a similar dogsbody mentality) and the daughters either end up doormats like their mother or rebel and go right the other way and refuse to be treated like that, going nuts at the mere suggestion that they sweep the floor.]
Couples should always be given a choice. If they decide that one of them should stay at home to tend to the household and kids then so be it. It’s their decision not society’s, like you’re suggesting. Society benefits either way.
[Daphne – Wrong, wrong and wrong again. The Maltese system is designed not for choice, but – like most Maltese systems – ghall-kumdita tar-ragel. In the contemporary world, looking after the home is NOT the woman’s job. It is shared. And when it is shared, both halves of a couple can work. This strict role division that devolves all responsibility for the home onto the woman is archaic. For a start, when both husband and wife work, they can pay somebody else to clean the home (unless they are the ones cleaning for a living). It doesn’t take much to wash a floor especially if you live in a flat or maisonette.]
The confusion lies here: no one has mentioned the participation rate.
You start with the total population (some 400,000).
Then you split up – those who are 16-65 (or whatever the legal working age and pension age are at the time) and those who are under or over such ages.
Then you divide those 16-65 year olds into those who are part of the labour force and those who are not. The labour force consists of BOTH employed and unemployed. the “those-who are-not” category are the the “Dorises” (housewives), students at university etc
So when you exclude the Dorises and students, and consider 16-65 yr olds, you’re left with the labour force. This is split up into employed (those gainfully occupied) and those unemployed (those who are not economically active but are actively seeking a job)
It is this value which is 4-5 % or whatever. It is very healthy compared to other countries.
It is the participation rate (labour force all-over all 16-65 yr olds) that is rather low in Malta, precisely because of so many Dorises.
Yes, this low participation rate is a problem in Malta because they do not contribute to GDP and thus (arguably) our standard of living.
….and another thing, as much as I’m pro-EU and pro-you, I think that it’s absolutely disgusting that in order for society to be ‘perfect’..ish or somehow just, all working age people must be gainfully occupied and contributing directly to the economy.
Oh ye, and then if these stay-at-homes do actually enter the workforce, then both employment AND unemployment will increase (unless sufficient new job opportunities come to light, or these people start up their own business or something). Opportunities for such people who are out of the work force (but are physically able to work and are of the right age) must be created, otherwise they will simply become part of the UNemployed part of the labour force.
I believe there is some mistake in these statistics. Most Maltese women are very economically active but in their own way. Just check on the local village square between 8.30 and 9.00a.m.and you can spot hordes of women waiting for transport to take them to their economic activity: coffee mornings, bingo halls, casinos, etc etc. If you have time check also on the cafeterias round the island and check how these women are economically active.
And at the end of the day, when the husband comes home, the poor wives are o so miserable because they are so exhausted and desperate “ghax ma nistax inlahhaq mal-hajja.”
Well writ. Again a collision of freedoms. Exactly like divorce.
One person opts out of working and the working rest have to pay for her benefits including the ever burgeoning costs of the free health service.
Someone else opts for divorce once or twice and lumps the rest of us with two or three families when he can barely support one.
Sooner rather than later we will end up with the state of affairs that Cameron is struggling to come to grips with in the UK.
Taxes and other contributions to the state coffers have to go up so much to cover the benefits bill that it becomes more attractive to live on state handouts than to go out to work.
That is progress for you !
Malta does indeed have an employment problem, Since the amount of people working is so small it automatically creates less jobs for everyone.
The government collects less tax revenue, which in turn curtails public spending which in turn cuts the GDP/increases taxes/cuts down on public services. Which of course means less employment.
Also there is less spending by the public in general which again leads to less retail purchases and less VAT collected. Again this less to contraction in the economy.
The main reason for this low level of working people is cultural. Simply put many out there stll think that a woman’s place is in the home. What can the state do? Encourage more women to work obviously. Provide real incentives including child care, worksharing and flexitime. So this is a political problem. Now we know how conservative the PN-LP are so any attempt to seriously change this culture has been half baked at best. After all the archbishop himself reminds us all that women should be at home.
Another problem is the shocking amount of school dropouts. Malta has the lowest number of students over 16 in the EU. On a good note the number has climbed from about 50 percent in 2000 to about 60 percent today. An improvement but a long way to go. In modern economy you need well educated people we aren’t producing many of them. Again its a political problem. The two main parties very rarely criticise the education system in a profound, serious manner.
But the proof is in the pudding. Women are not supposed to work and young people leave school early. How can we expect a large workforce? The most successful countries make it easier for women to find paid employment and school keeps young people involved at least till 18.
So dear readers another shock to the system. No divorce, censorship, oppressed women, xenophobia, rampant land speculation, bird shooting and poor education. Notice the link!
At last someone came up with the bingo halls!
“The fact that Mary and Doris are sitting at home is our business and not just theirs; those who work have to pay more tax because Mary and Doris are not paying any… It doesn’t occur to them for one minute that others are picking up the bill on their behalf, and it’s not just their husband.”
Worse still, their Joey gets to pay less tax than those men whose wife has a job, because their Joeys have them as “dependents”. This is the first thing that should be done to discourage Mary and Doris from staying at home: remove preferential income tax rates for “married” taxpayers, where “married” is taken to mean having a stay-at-home wife, because this simply translates into up to c.EUR1,000 a year tax saving for every Mary or Doris that stays home! As it is, the moment Mary or Doris get a taxable job (as opposed to cleaning other people’s house), their Joey’s tax rate shoots up – another good reason for Joey to be against his wife taking up employment!
Let’s play a game! It’s called Spot the spelling mistake in the very first sentence:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100808/letters/porn-tv-channels-in-hotels
Further reading:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2010/08/domestic_duties.aspx
“The fact that Mary and Doris are sitting at home is our business and not just theirs; those who work have to pay more tax because Mary and Doris are not paying any.”
Quite a totalitarian statement…quite “socialist” indeed…it’s none of your business if Doris wants to stay at home and live on her own means….your statement reminded me of communist/fascist antics against the so-called lazy classes….am I more liberal than you are even if I’m a hamallu marmalja lejburist baxx?
[Daphne – I’m guessing you can’t process information or analyse what you read (well, you wouldn’t vote Labour if you could…). That was the gist of my article: WHY it’s our business that Mary and Doris sit at home. Because they sit at home, the rest of us have to pay more tax to make up the shortfall. I’m guessing you don’t understand how money works, either. Government needs X amount of money. It collects this money from the taxes of XYZ. If Mary and Doris start working, XYZ will have to pay less. Do you get it now? Here you have the answer as to why we pay relatively high taxes and get relatively little in return. There are not enough people paying those relatively high taxes. All the women are sitting at home, living off the taxes paid by others.]
One thing that needs to be done is a serious re think of the (high) NI contributions that have to be paid by both employer and employees for (mostly) women who wish to work part time, just a limited number of hours a week, like temping or as domestic cleaners.
This just drives people into the black economy or people decide not to work at all because its just not worth it. Another issue is that public transport is so poor as it presently functions that many have to take two buses to work, and two buses back home. Not worth the time wasted or the expense to use a private car.
Then we have the construction industry, which is flooded with immigrant workers. The reason is that work practices are so poor, dangerous, with little mechanisation, heavy Maltese stone, that the building trade is no longer viewed as a trade, but modern day slavery – and hence many Maltese refuse this work and rather just claim benefits, children’s allowance etc.
Indeed, the people who know how to “work the system” of claiming on the state are indeed in the south. This is no prejudice but a fact. More people are on benefits from Cottonera, than Sliema, St Julian’s, Pembroke and Mosta put together. FACT .
With regard to excess labour in state corporations, let’s give some credit where it’s due. These corporations have shed THOUSANDS of persons since 1987. Either because they have been privatised, or even as state corporations.
Perhaps an exercise should be done to add up these reductions in excess labour in Malta Shipyards, ex -Maltacom, Kalaxlokk, Water Services, Maltapost, ex Mid Med, BOV, Malta Grain Terminal, Tug Malta, Cargo Handling Co, AirSupplies Co besides many state companies that have been wound down, Interprint, Hal Ferh ,SeaMalta, and lastly the infamous 5500 people employed by KMB and placed in the corp called Auxiliary Workers in the six months, leading up to the 1987 elections. Probably they exceed 20,000 people in total.
Possibly the two state corporations least reformed of excess labour are Air Malta (because of sensitivity to a possible strike) and Enemalta which has quite a history of bad leadership, and in dire need of privatising more parts of this highly inefficient monster.
Indeed, people in the private sector have increased by more than 50,000 persons in the past 23 years, notwithstanding the loss of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing sector, which have moved to low-cost China.
Daphne, you’re spot on with this article. I couldn’t agree with you more!
Besides having to make up with the problem of half of the population living on the back on the other half, then there is the other problem of half of the working force working for the other half (jikluhielu) because the same colonial mentality is still inbred in many of us.
Thus we are less productive, not to mention the subsidies dished out to the psuedo sick, the psuedo poor, the psuedo below the poverty line, the drug addicts, the single mothers, free medicines seekers (kartuna bajda roza,and what not) whether they need them or not (imbasta hadthomlu! sic!) and many other suckers that at present do not come to my mind.
As regards to numbers and statistics, Daphne, you are right. Here is an example. If in the previous year one tourist arrived from Timbuktu and this year two tourists arrived the increase on last year would be 100% but if 10,000 more tourists arrived this year whereas last year’s arrivals were 100,000 the increase in tourism would still be 10% even though 10,000 more tourists would have arrived.
Mathematical figures have to be interpreted, as you have said, otherwise they do not make sense. Unfortunately, Maltese newspapers are only concerned with sensational news items in order to boost sales, that is all. The respect culture mentality for customers simply does not exist!
Daphne, have you every read ‘Metamorphisis’ by Kafka? Whenever I think of the house-wife situation, or anything else that involves ‘sacrifice’, I think of that book.
I’m returning to Malta after 21 years of living in London and Scotland. I obtained a teaching degree while I was a single parent in London, met my husband and had two more children. My husband and I work very hard and yet we hardly make ends meet. When my two boys were at nursery, we were paying £1000 pounds per month on childcare. We are now paying £750 per month since our eldest boy started school.
I have worked hard all my life and at the grand old age of 43, I ask myself at what cost, and to what benefit? Sure, I’ve had a very satisfying career but I am very disillusioned when I think about what I have to show for it. Why pay other people to look after my children, my house and my family when I yearn to do this, to have some time to “stand and stare”? The idea that I should be made to feel that I am a burden on the economy if I choose not to pay someone else to do this work angers me. I think women’s lot is worse today than it was in the past; now, not only do they still complete most of the housework but they are made to feel a failure if they are not “economically” active.
The issue is that there are many unpaid jobs that a “housewife” does in the home. After all it was a full time job for most of our mums and grandmothers. I think the idea that they sat around having coffee mornings all day is so disrespectful. That is not how I remember my mum, grandmothers and friends’ mums. I remember reading a UK newspaper article recently that calculated the money a “housewife” should get if they were being paid. I’ll leave it to “proper” journalists to do the research but, if I remember correctly it was in the region of £35,000 a year.
I question whether my children are having as good a childhood as I did. In some respects, I think going to nursery from six months has been good for them. They are bright, sociable children who are thriving. But, on the other hand, they do not watch their parents or grandparents making an art of housekeeping. The overriding concern of mine, however, is how tired I feel. Is this what I want to pass on to my children? That we are rats on treadmills working for the good of the economy? A good work/life balance is very hard to achieve, especially for women with children.
So, I’d just like to say that my family and I are moving to Malta because of many reasons but primarily because my husband and I think that Malta is better for family life and for that elusive work/life balance.
Johanna