to wonder if

[egopostulosomnus]

now i am not even hinting that this ought to happen, but i was having one of those 6th feed of the night mad musings and was wondering

IF all mothers had to give up working, would there then be enough jobs to go around so that there would be no out of work families, and as a result of there being no dual income families, the country's finances would realign themselves to something more stable??

like i say, not saying it should happen, just wondering what would happen if....

What about those mothers that employ people (hint hint look at the website you are on) What about all those jobs that would be lost if those mothers stayed at home?

Childcare industry would collapse. Oh but that wouldn't matter, would it as it's mostly staffed by young women. Primary education would have huge problems recruiting to replace the lost workforce- guess we'd all have to home ed our children as we'd be at home anyway.

Initial musings:
What about pensions?

Nurses (I know they can be male but there seem to be more female) as an example, would be constantly re-recruited/retrained as child-bearing aged ones went off and got married and had children.

But - more likely ailing families could be looked after in their children's "homes" so the care industry might not be needed so much

Uh what else. Mind is going a bit blank, I think the economy would suffer rather than prosper to be honest!

What an odd thing to think! Even if it DID happen there would always be men who did not want to work...

umm, and single mothers?
and - why the mothers and not the fathers?

So the global financial crisis is the fault of working mothers now?

I think that it would be unlikely that there would be a large enough skills base in the male workforce for those jobs.

Secondly those jobs are on average paid 16.4% less than the male equivalent jobs which might put some men off.

I think you might need some sleep....

The empolyment of women more often than not covers the cost of the mortagage and keeping a family fed and clothed.

Needless to say that the sheer inequality of forcing women out of work in to the home is totally UNREASONABLE the impact it would have on society would take many many years to recover from, with women not only holding down part time jobs but being very effective, managers, MP's, small busniess owners, coroprate lawyers etc.

The role of women within the workforce is so diverse (although there are still many areas that need work).

It is a completely unworkable proposistion, and one that would be resented by 1oo,ooo's of women up and down the country.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Wow. You have much deeper thoughts when sleep deprived. I just hallucinated.

Couple of thoughts...

1. Would never have married my OH and would have held out for someone much better paid if I was going to rely on him to bring home the bacon.

1. This happened in Afghanistan while the Taliban were in power. The fact that it didn't rise to be a global economic power house should give you an idea of how that may pan out....that and the rampant mistreatment of women.

This is what the Tories want I think.

Get some sleep.

as i said, not suggesting it ought to happen (loved my job til sickness and a PITA boss meant i had to resign)just wondering from an economic viewpoint. ( i worked as a manager in a female dominated area btw)
no i dont think the recession was caused by women working and i am sorry that i have left this impression
and yes i definately do need sleep

Welcome to mumsnet.

This is not what the Tories want. If you want to level a social engineering charge at the Tories this one doesn't stick. If anything they want everyone to work.

It's just not possible for everyone to work, there are not enough jobs.

I personally think that the Tories would prefer a 'sustem' where couples with children split the family duties so the men work and the women look after the children.

This leaves lots of women and men in the workplace paying tax and filling jobs.

I don't mean that they want ALL women in the home, just those with partners and children. They would also prefer it if women with children were married to the fathers of those children.

sorry system.

I think the thinking is that if more people worked more people would be needed to work - for example if none of the women whose children go to my CM worked she wouldn't have a job either.

You may think the Tories would like women in the home and men at work, but there is nothing whatsoever in their policies to reinforce this, and the fact that as of 2013 two marginally under higher rate tax payers will keep child benefit whereas a household in which one (let's presume) man earns higher rate income but woman doesn't earn at all will lose it, suggests you are wrong.

Interesting reading on potential policy direction here

Jill Kirkby is an idiot, I don't work in the public sector and my childcare costs are not subsidised by the taxpayer.

She may be an idiot but she's an influential idiot.

Not really. She is just given the oxygen of media attention. Doesn't mean anyone significant in the Conservative Party gives a toss.

Would this not strongly resemble how it worked in the olden days?

How what worked? Where does this fiction arise that women working is a 20th century invention?

i think pre-war it was the norm but women got a 'taste' for the independance of work during the war, but as was said before, there arenot enough jobs for all, not that that means women ought to stay home but it would be lovely to see all children brought up in working households. i think that would mean sacrifices for some though