..to be worried that 1/3 of women aren’t in employment and economically vulnerable?

[windygallows]

ONS stats (latest from 2013) state that women of working age (16-64) only 67% are in the labour market, therefore 33% of women not in employment. That’s 1/3! Moreover of the 67% working, 42% of them work part time.

So that means it breaks down like this:
Women 16-64
Not in employment – 33%
Working part time – 28%
Working full time – 39%
Total - 100%

www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/alldatausedinthewomeninthelabourmarketreport

Now I know there are a million reasons for these stats from women’s role as primary childcare provider to challenges women face finding flexible working, the glass ceiling, lower paid roles for women. I get it. And many on MN will inevitably remind me about the beneficial role women obvs make outside the labour market, from voluntary work to caring. And that work is not the be all and end all. And nor am I advocating for a life of constant work either.

But what these stats mean on the most basic, practical level is that the MAJORITY of women probably cannot cover their cost of living (either they don’t have an income or a limited income through pt work) and are probably reliant on someone for their sustenance – a partner, a parent, the government, family savings, their savings. This means the majority of women are economically vulnerable. Wouldn’t you say so?

Of course there will always be anomalies to this rule - the highly paid IT consultant who will say she can survive on her part-time salary or the woman with a trust fund. But these people are outside the norm. These stats tell me that the majority of women need someone else to support them financially. It’s scary!

PS - As an aside In 1959 52.9% of women were in the labour market and it’s now 67% - not a hugely dramatic difference

If real change is to happen, there has to be a change in attitudes so that both partners are held equally responsible for childcare. It already happens in Scandi countries

This works in Scandinavia mainly due to the provision of high-quality, state (ie tax-payer) funded childcare. Almost all Scandinian children attend these nurseries, and almost all mothers work at least part-time from the time their children are quite young. In a redistributive system based on high taxation, every capable adult is required to do their bit.

I am interested to see what the figures from France and Spain are as my impresssion is that mums go back to work there faster due to cheap childcare and more parental help.
I work full time because I would go bonkers otherwise. I do think it is healthy for girls to see there mums working.
I do agree though for pre school age it depends on your child’s personality and not all kids can deal with it as well as mine did.

I am a SAHM who is supported by my husband and I find this sort of attitude extremely patronising: perhaps there are women who would like to work but aren’t supported to etc but that’s not everyone!

@crispysausagerolls

Of course, but the point is that in making yourself financially dependent on another person, you put yourself - and your children - at risk if your husband loses his job, becomes incapacitated, or simply walks out on you. Nobody thinks it will happen to them, but it happens to women every day of the week.

I would love to know what SAHMs are doing about their pension. I’m sure there are some out there who have included it in the household budgeting but I’d bet a lot haven’t. Are they even making NI contributions for the state pension, let alone a private one on top ?

In my experience very little. When DH and I were debating me giving up work when he was offered a job with long stints abroad for basically life changing money for us one of the things I discussed with my SAH friends was pension provision and none of them have a pension or pay NI.

I don't think the question is particularly working women versus non working women, but vulnerable women versus non-vulnerable women. I mean I don't work, but I have a good pension provision and savings whereas I have a friend who works, but is up to her eyeballs in debt (they jointly live way way beyond their means). She also has a very niche job that she'd struggle to get elsewere if hers went whereas I've got strong and current voluntary experience in a few fields. In that situation I'd argue she's the more vulnerable, particularly because I'd actively thought through my situation if anything appened with DH (he was a widow when we met so he was very conscious that we both be secure future wise).

But then I also think that applies to people in general. Some couples are absolutely fucked if anything happens to one of them. Some just through circumstance, but others because they choose the biggest mortgage for the nicest house, the nicest holidays and zero savings. People's choices make them vulnerable imo.

This thread is very interesting. Thanks everyone for your contributions.

Why can’t the Mail publish this kind of discussion for a change ?!?!

I would love to know what SAHMs are doing about their pension. I’m sure there are some out there who have included it in the household budgeting but I’d bet a lot haven’t. Are they even making NI contributions for the state pension, let alone a private one on top ?

You have your NI contributions covered whilst claiming child benefit, even if your household income is too high to actually receive any money your contributions are still made.

The statistics show that non working women are very unlikely to have anywhere near adequate pension provision though. Just because the occasional poster on MN has a wonderful private pension funded by her husband doesn’t make that the reality for most.

Yes, NI contributions for a state pension are different, but seriously would anyone in their right mind choose to survive on state pension alone?

Just because the occasional poster on MN has a wonderful private pension funded by her husband doesn’t make that the reality for most.

Yup. Just as most SAHMs aren't living in £5 million homes and whiling away their days at yoga classes and organic low-carb lunches.

This was always one of my big concerns growing up in an abusive household. Part of the reason my Mom stayed was money. I made it a goal to never be financially dependent. So yes, I worry about every woman who didn’t get that lesson drilled into her head.

I actually do work part-time, but I am one of those anomalies that could support myself and my daughter on my part-time salary, partly because I worked so hard before having her to make sure I was in a strong financial position.

Part of the reason my Mom stayed was money. I made it a goal to never be financially dependent.

I find it sad that people stay put simply or mostly due to finances. I actually know someone who would love to divorce but is financially dependant and cannot see how they can leave.

I too would never actively put myself in that position. I say actively because sometimes due to illness there is no option although I have insurance so a lump sum would pay out even in that situation.

Of the posters who say it's fine and it works for them then that is fair enough. I really hope they don't regret that decision in the future because a lot of posts on MN clearly show people do.

Shared parental leave is a good example. Why is the take up so shockingly low

I'd imagine because the woman has to agree to it and unless they have the drive and ambition to return to their career then they don't want to share the leave as they don't want to return to work.

TheBigBangRocks whilst I know a few men that have done shared parental leave I also know quite a few when asked passionately said 'no way'. The simply see no 'benefit' career or home wise.

I find it sad that people stay put simply or mostly due to finances

Yet many still encourage their daughters to choose a man that can finance them given the recent thread on MN.

If you put yourself in that situation then you can either find the drive to leave and make something of the rest of your life or live with the actions of poor choices.

Another factor contributing to those stats will be culture. In some communities, it’s not acceptable for women to work outside the home.

Can people please try and understand that it’s peculiar and actually very patronising being told that people “worry” about you- when you know exactly what you’re doing in your life (well as much as the next person anyway). How can anyone ever presume to know about anyone else’s financial set up? How DH and I decide to share our lives and bring up our DC is nobody’s business. In real life NOBODY in 15 years has ever questioned why I don’t work. It wouldn’t cross anyone’s mind. Why would anyone give a hoot?

Also what is the point of all these anecdotal tales of woe - “I know a woman who was left high and dry / suffered mental health problems, etc” I’m sure we can all think of an individual case of pretty much any eventuality, but so what really?

Thanks for an interesting and thought provoking thread windy.

OK everyone who's a SAHM or economically dependent on someone else here, listen up please! Yes you need to think about your pension long term, savings etc, that's important, but here's something low cost that can makes a big immediate difference to your economic security.

Make sure you have life assurance on the life (or terminal illness) of the person whose earnings you are dependent on. It is extremely cheap when you are young and doesn't cost too much later on. Insure for a decent multiple of their earnings. At least five, but more would be better.

You hope you will never have to claim on it but the peace of mind and security it gives is incalculable. If you other half doesn't think you are worth it then you need to do some serious thinking.

I agree that many men do not want shared parental leave. Sadly have worked with too many men who purposely hang about the office until they know kids will be in bed, before going home.

Hope Life insurance I got when young, because of high inflation, is pretty worthless now. And it would cost a LOT now. Terminal illness insurance is better value than it used to be. When it first started up when I was young, there were so many exclusions that the general advice was it was a waste of money.

I do worry, mainly because I was a Cab advisor & over several years talked to lots of people who didn't understand how uncertain life can be. A meander through posts on the relationship board here is more than enough to prove this point.

No-one does enough planning tho, even if we know, as no-one can predict the future.

Surely in a modern society it is their choice whether they work. In the past, there was not so much choice. In some countries there are benefits for those who are unable or choose not to work.

Another factor contributing to those stats will be culture. In some communities, it’s not acceptable for women to work outside the home.

True. However, one must not make the mistake of blaming "culture" and telling women to just ignore it.

Sexual harassment is more likely to be a problem the fewer women are working at a company, and if the choice is to have some theoretical independence from your husband who you are sure is perfectly lovely, or get sexually harrassed by creepy dudes in the workplace, well ...

As a woman who is insufficiently self-employed, I say OP is perfectly right to be worried.

I'm worried about my future, too.

I never wanted to be one of those economically vulnerable women. I was a feminist when I was ten. It just somehow ended up being that way.

Which it probably does for a lot of women.

It doesn't contribute anything to the debate to complain that you chose this kind of life that you thought things through and like it that way.

End of my post doesn't refer to the piece I quoted, I hope that's clear.

Sadly have worked with too many men who purposely hang about the office until they know kids will be in bed, before going home.

Yep, and then pester for sex, expect to do FA lifework and carry on living like a single person with a convenient domestic appliance at home.

Even sadder is how many women sleep walk into procreating with such, and don't get married (though they want to) before having a child and then giving up work for 'DP', and then go on to have more kids with the specimen.

Now the legal and aid and cushy tax credits are gone, this is an extremely dangerous position to put oneself in.