..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

In real life NOBODY in 15 years has ever questioned why I don’t work. It wouldn’t cross anyone’s mind.

I suspect it has crossed many people's minds, but they were too polite to ask, or predicted that you'd be super-defensive about it, as you are here.

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?

But it's hardly a rarity for women to find themselves in difficult financial situations if their husband becomes ill/dies/loses his job/walks out on his family etc. Happens every day of the week. Maybe not in your gilded circles, but it certainly happens - all the time.

And even if none of the above happen, what is inevitable is that children grow up, and the mother will likely have several decades of life to live without any obvious role in life. Most employers will not be interested in a middle-aged woman who has taken years if not decades out of the workforce.

And what then?

There've been a number of posts about pensions. Pension provision is pretty crap across the board in the UK. There are lots of people who aren't working and thus not paying in or aren't earning enough for mandatory employer contributions to kick in, that's true. But modestly paid full time workers with minimum contributions are going to have an economically vulnerable old age too. It's not a problem that would be solved by more women working more.

I'm not saying it isn't a concern that women's pension provision is so poor. It's just that even if all women started working full time tomorrow it would likely still be inadequate. It goes back to some of the points made earlier in the thread about women with low earning potential. If you're only going to be on NMW or in that vicinity, you may legitimately feel that the paltry minimum contributions from you and your employer aren't worth working more now to have, for all the difference it'll make when you retire.

I guess I'm an anomaly. I'm a low-paid part-time working single mum, not dependent on anyone, no benefits. I don't feel particularly vulnerable, I know I can depend on myself to always make a living. I'm educated, I own my own house without a mortgage and I've never been unemployed. I started working when I was 14 and worked throughout my degree.

There are probably a lot of women like me who will always be happy to work and will always find employment when they need it. I am annoyed that I'm paid so little and that my skills and experience aren't valued.

IcedPurple - as I said earlier, in my DC class only about 3 or so mums work (out of 22). This is just one school but very typical of similar schools in this area. I’m by no means considered unusual. I have female friends that are CEOs etc and they too completely respect my lifestyle choices, as I do theirs. Really, this kind of thing does not bother people in real life.

As for your portrayal of me as a sad, directionless old lady - well, with the greatest respect, what are you on about? I have a postgrad degree and am starting another one next Sept. Having had this gap to bring up the DC has been a privilege. No regrets whatsoever and when I go back to work it will be on my own terms.

My DH is the way he is and we made choices according to the types of people we are. So what if we’ve had different roles? We’re not clones. We respect what the other does and both probably think we had the better deal

As for your portrayal of me as a sad, directionless old lady - well, with the greatest respect, what are you on about?

And with the greatest respect to you, this isn't about you, even though you're trying very hard to make it so.

I'm speaking more generally, as are most posters here. Most mothers who choose to give up work are confident it's going to turn out fine. In many cases it does, of course, but in many cases it certainly does not. Giving up financial independence is a highly risky strategy - ask yourself why hardly any men choose to make themselves financially dependent on a woman - so yes, it is a cause of concern that so many women are in this situation.

I just think it’s disrespectful to women who don’t work to talk to them as if they don’t understand the implications of their choices. That is my point. This constant insinuation that they “should” be doing something else. Do you think they haven’t considered this for themselves?

There are pros and cons to every choice. Nobody can tell women how they should feel after they have DC. If things don’t work out then it is what it is, but there are obvious steps you can take to protect yourself. The point is you make an informed choice as far as possible. Women are not stupid nor are they necessarily victims of patriarchal structures. In this day and this society, women may have the choice to do what feels right for them, as do men. Nothing in life is ever fixed in stone and you can reinvent yourself at any point if the need / determination is there.

Do you think they haven’t considered this for themselves?

Given the fact that quie a few women give up work without making any provision for what might happen if their husband dies/loses his job/dumps them etc. then it would appear that some women do not in fact consider this for themselves. That is why I say that no woman (or man, but funnily enough men very rarely do this) should give up her financial independence without thinking long and hard about the implications, and taking steps to protect herself and her children.

Nothing in life is ever fixed in stone and you can reinvent yourself at any point if the need / determination is there.

Easy to say but.... if your husband walks out, leaving you with 3 kids and no means of support, how exactly do you 'reinvent' yourself?

You just take a hold of your bootstraps and pull yourself up by them
So I've heard anyway...

Abacucab I think you might have been poorly advised.

Another option is to get life assurance to pay off your mortgage if the worst happens. The sum required goes down over time (assuming it's a repayment mortgage), which mitigates the cost of life assurance going up as you get older.

If things are really tight, it's better to insure got a small sum rather than nothing, but as ever, shop around.

Not to mention that of course you'll have your share of the £5 million home to fall back on....

I work part time but I don’t feel vulnerable. My job is well paid. I earn as much in 3 days as many do full time. I also work in a field where it would be fairly easy for me to step up my hours any time I needed to. I love working part time. I would recommend it to anyone who could afford it. My work life balance is so much better despite having 2 young kids than it was when I worked full time with no kids.

But working part-time, especially in a well-paid job (which is not the norm) is very different from taking yourself out of the workforce completely.

There are some very patronising posts on this thread.

Iced - You are being facetious now and it’s not helpful. There will undoubtedly be women, SAHM or otherwise, who don’t take steps to protect themselves in the event of divorce. There are also men who don’t think long-term financially or who don’t work and this may come back on them. There are working women who couldn’t manage on one income; or who are in minimum wage or who are made redundant and struggle to get another job. Financial vulnerability takes many forms obviously. Some women will find it easier to re-enter the workforce than others after career gaps. Some will go self-employed.

Of the percentage quoted by the OP of the “worrying” women who don’t work, or only work part-time, nobody can possibly know how vulnerable these women are or what they’re circumstances actually are unless you actually ask them. It’s too simplistic to say “not working = vulnerable” without the fuller picture. And even if they are more vulnerable, it’s a risk they have decided to take, like any other decision in life.

I think people are missing the point.
This isn't about anecdotal stories of people earning tons of money part-time or having inherited millions..
This is about the stats that show that a significant percentage of women may depend on husbands or the state to provide, which leaves them vulnerable.
Do we think that's okay? It's their choice and they know what they're doing? Fair enough when it's relying on their husbands. But when they rely on the state (e.g. no pension provision beyond the basic), doesn't it matter to us all?

There are also men who don’t think long-term financially or who don’t work and this may come back on them. There are working women who couldn’t manage on one income; or who are in minimum wage or who are made redundant and struggle to get another job.

No doubt.

But this discussion isn't about them.

Of the percentage quoted by the OP of the “worrying” women who don’t work, or only work part-time, nobody can possibly know how vulnerable these women are or what they’re circumstances actually are unless you actually ask them.

Well yes, and nobody claimed otherwise.

But taking yourself out of the labour market and making yourself dependent on a man is a highly risky thing to do. It may work out well, but to claim that you can simply 'reinvent' yourself if it all goes pear-shaped is naive in the extreme.

If not working or working part time is right for your family what is the problem? Children need to be cared for until at least 12 after school so far better a parent does it than paying for childcare. Then there's kids with additional needs - ever tried to get even a babysitter? no I have and it's hard, the minute you write seizures you are told that they cannot cater for children requiring medical care due to rations/insurance/training/name your excuse, the only people that took her were the council because they used the leisure centre who had advanced first aiders qualified to give emergency seizure medication.

There is always the potential at least to effect change at any point if your life, to a greater or lesser extent. And if you are reliant on a man financially, he’s no doubt equally reliant on you in other ways. Anyway this doesn’t matter. My point is that if women are making themselves “vulnerable,” it will be probably down to a combination of societal factors but also because it is quite simply what they want to do intheir given circumstances. Or perhaps they have a disability.

Do we know the statistics for men?

I see it as being in stages, a third of the time you are working full time (20-33?), another third not working at all (33-46) and then working part time (46-59).

It is an issue, but unless we all routinely employ a nanny/housekeeper, someone has to reduce their hours to make things work.

There is always the potential at least to effect change at any point if your life, to a greater or lesser extent.

Again, how, in practical terms, can a woman 'effect change' if her husband walks out on her, leaving her with 3 kids, no means of support, no savings and a big gap in her CV?

And if you are reliant on a man financially, he’s no doubt equally reliant on you in other ways.

Not equally reliant, no.

I sah because I took redundancy on mat leave.

It’s incredibly difficult to get a well paid pt job with prospects. You can get a full time job like that or a pt job that’s shit. Obviously mn is full of women who have amazing pt jobs that pay ££££s so I’d really like those women to support other women in how one finds and gets those jobs instead of just crowing about their good fortune and excellent choices.

On a class level, the majority of working age women either working pt or not at all is a massive issue. If women are not physically in the workplace how can we influence it? If we’re all at home ‘happy’ with our lot, where’s the incentive for society to change to enable flexible working and better quality affordable childcare?

As ever, it’s great if your personal choices happen to fit in exactly with societal norms so you’re alright. What about the rest of us that want something different? It’s not really a free choice until we all get to choose.

Again, how, in practical terms, can a woman 'effect change' if her husband walks out on her, leaving her with 3 kids, no means of support, no savings and a big gap in her CV?

I think this kind of comment is too simplistic tbh. A woman would have huge problems dealing with this scenario if she had a FT career and may not be able to cope with all of that singlehandedly and have to move to PT or change jobs.

The fact is people make the choices that seem right for them and their children at any given time. It's not necessary to always have a worst case scenario in mind, as things can and do change and we find ways to cope. A woman might think she has a solid career then get made redundant. She might prefer to prioritise dcs while she can. There is no linear path in life often.

Well you would have to effect change, wouldn’t you? What would be the alternative? If you have to go on benefits in the meantime, so be it. I’m not saying it’s easy at all. But you wouldn’t just sit there forever doing nothing. It’s not an option.

And yes, men who work away / a lot and who have many children do recognise that they are quite dependent on their wives and are very grateful for the security it gives the DC and the flexibility. Otherwise, the relationship wouldn’t work would it?

I totally agree with you OP. I'm a working parent and I have a high flying DH much like F1ame describes. I work FT and I'm a CFO of a small fintech subsidiary of a broker dealer in NYC. Yes I don't make what DH makes but I earn enough to support our family should DH stop working or leave.

As for the notion of high earners with a £5m home having a mortgage that means they need to continue working, I hate to break it to you, they are doing it all wrong. We could afford to spend way more than we do but we don't. We are both under 45 and have enough cash to pay off our homes in full and both of us have significant pensions. Assets are held in both of our names, not obscure trusts which many high earning men use to protect 'their' ownership. Anyway, good luck to women who have high earning DHs and have not protected themselves. I've seen what happens when they are left and it's absolutely awful.

As a Pp said, here on MN what isn't talked about is the fact that working class women are really hard done by. Semi skilled labour used to be roles such as nursing but that now requires a degree. Why would you work FT in a NMW job when not doing so doesn't have a huge impact on your lifestyle or financial situation? It's a huge problem and it's what UC is trying to address.

The other point is that working FT is seen as highly negative in the UK. It's not that women aren't ambitious, I think many are, but they are made to feel guilty for working. I'm in my late 30s and have 3DC, the elder two have asd. I'm the Uk I wish I got a £1 for every single time someone asked if I work and when I say yes they say 'oh that's a shame'. It's not a shame. I'm extremely proud that I worked my tail end off to get to a position where I can support my family with my income alone. I was 31 when I had my first and made about 1/3 of what I make now. I'm also very proud that DH has support this, albeit I've had to give him a kick up the backside a few times.

Good post GoldenWonderwall particularly about women needing to be in the workplace to influence change.

It took my 2 years of working p/t in 2 different roles to find my good p/t role. The money isn’t as good as my previous career but this role has progression & an excellent pension plus the ability to tweak my hours eg pt, tto & ft, which is priceless. However I would not have been able to do this if DH didn’t have a good wage to cover childcare & gps that live close & help with childcare, illness, etc. I recognise that I was privileged to have choices.