To find the term "economically inactive" offensive?

[cheapskatemum]

It was the only option that fitted my current status as regards employment on a form. I'm not in paid employment as we can manage on OH's income, have 4 DSs & one of them has severe SN. I don't even mind being called a housewife, but "economically inactive"?!!! If I wasn't a SAHM, there's no way OH could do what he does. (logs off to prevent steam emitting from ears misting up windows)

Who called you that?! How rude!

That is a seriously wanky way of saying that you're not in paid employment

It's a ridiculous term, and also untrue. Anyone who shops in the UK is not 'economically inactive'. wtf.

WTF? Tell them you're raising the next generation of tax payers.

yanbu. And I bet you spend money too, right?
it is a way of ascribing no importance whatsoever to the stuff you do at home. Even the term 'housewife' used to have a certain status. But this defines you negatively, in terms of what you (supposedly) don't do.

We need to be able to differeniate between people who do not have a job but want one and those who do not have a job and don't want one.

Economically inactive describes people in that latter category, what else would you call this group of people?

YABU

YANBU

I think it is less offensive than calling someone a housewife or non-worker.

YABU

It's an official term, like Santa says, to differentiate between the different types of people who are not in paid employment.

YANBU to object to the wording, but it's in use for a very specific reason, so YABU (I think) to dislike it to the point of calling it offensive.

it's a stupid term though Santa - you're no more or less economically active if you're looking for a job than if you don't want one, if you take the term at face value.

To measure those who are actively seeking work and see how the trend is progressing then you need to take account of those who don't want a job.

What term would you find better Seth?

I declined to answer, but it was on a monitoring form that a dear person who works for a Family Carers charity had to fill in about me.

Santaobsession, thanks for your explanation. Might I ask what term is used for the former group, then? I could be in that group if I thought I would find a job that fitted in with all my family commitments. GOML - I would find non-worker equally offensive, but housewife & mother is kind of my job description at present.

And yes - I do LOTS of spending !

you could say 'not in or seeking paid employment'.
I just looked up the definition of 'economic activity' and according to some definitions it includes buying stuff, as well as earning money.
So the use of the term 'economically inactive' doesn't make sense if the people you claim are inactive are actually spending money.
At very best it is ambiguous if some people are using the term 'economic activity' to include spending money, even if some aren't.

Can't they just split it into two choices on the form - 'not in paid employment' and 'seeking work'?

I honestly do think people who get really assy about official terms like this have some kind of problem with their situation. I too am technically economically inactive (I think - I have property I rent out so I generate income but I am not in paid employment?) but I couldn't give a fig.

Or maybe I'm just brain-dead (highly probable actually)

This is from the ONS website

A snippet from it is:

"The UK labour market comprises of three main groups: the employed, the unemployed and the economically inactive. This latter group consists of those people who are out of work but who do not satisfy all of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) criteria for unemployment. This is because they are either not seeking work or are unavailable to start work."

ONS's Labour Force Survey does measure those out of work or seeking work as economically inactive too, but it splits these up into different categories under economically inactive.

I think that it is ok really. It is factually accurate and far preferable to 'housewife' which is just cunty as terms go.

I linked to that up thread Santa, but everyone ignored me.

Lol.

"Economically unquantifiable" would be a lot more accurate than "economically inactive" which is just untrue for a lot of people who are not in paid employment, but rather provide services in kind to their families that would otherwise need paying for.

I always say retired, I do get funny looks as I am only 26, but i have little intetion of properly working again so that seems to fit me,

Bugger, fat fingers spelling however they like again i see

I came across this the other day on a form for a course at the dcs school and did feel a wee bit cross about it. I can't work due to chronic illness but do some voluntary stuff as and when so it's hard to find a category to fit, but I think it's the negativity of the term that I find difficult - the 'inactive' bit tends to imply somebody of no use to society.

I'm with you OP. Yanbu.

Funny, in our work where we use these terms, "economically inactive" means not in paid work and not claiming benefits. People who are not in work and on benefits tick the income support box or the jsa box or whatever it might be.

Our work has a lot of SAHM and for the ones who have a partner in work that is the box they tick. It does not have connotations of "doesn't want a job" for us as people who come to us are looking for a job!

i think this is how the benefits agencies and govts use this term as well.

Economically Inactive covers everyone who is not in an official paid employment category.

Its just a catch all and in fact I think should be broken down into sub categories such as SAHP, Carer, Disabled/Ill, Pensioner, Unemployed, Volunteer.

It is a very imporant piece of information that Govt should take more care to record and report. It is especially important in a recession as Govt needs to know who might return to the workforce. There are some well respected economists who think the work that many of the, so called, economically inactive people actually do unpaid should be recognised in GDP.

I also think it is very important to record people as part time worker by choice or part time worker by force of circumstance.

For example in the USA the U6 data is reported alongside U3 unemployment data. The U6 data shows everyone who is unemployed, under employed, or would otherwise like to work. At present that is 17% of the popuation and almost double the official unemployment figure.

Economically inactive people often do unpaid work and would like the opportunity to work and should not be ignored or written off.

I am officially economically inactive and sometimes say retired, as BabyDubs does, but actually pay tax, contribute to the economy and society as well as bring up children.

I had dinner with a friend the other night who has two Filipina nannies. We had a conversation about how and when she was going to replace her two Filipina nannies for two other domestic workers, one of whom needed to have English as her mother-tongue and the other French, in order to ensure her three children get the necessary support at their bilingual French-English school (mother is German and at work FT).

We turned the conversation around many ways but always came back to the same issue: if the mother wanted to employ two people of the calibre she felt she required, it was going to cost her a bomb, and she wasn't even going to get 24/7 cover.

Gives me a little food for thought for what it would cost to replace me even part time!