..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

calamity don't worry I didn't think your post was rude. Working FT is exhausting and over time it's easy to become a robot human, just going through the motions but not v engaged in one's children or doing anything for yourself (reading, hobbies etc). I am definitely that robot and while I am v career minded I also don't have much of a choice to keep on trucking! I def couldn't do your hours!

F1AME I work full-time - I'm still a full-time parent. I'm not missing out on anything.
They kind of narrative is what is used to make working mothers feel guilty.

*that

I don’t think mums who work should feel guilty about anything. It’s equally as unfair as the narrative that SAHMs are letting women down by “living off a man,” “wasting their talents,” “living in the 1950s,” “naive”, etc etc, isn’t it?

There are many structural reasons why women find they are the lower earning in a couple at the point they have DCs, and many others as to why we assume childcare should be done by woman (either the mother, grandmother or the paid help of childminders/pre&after school workers/nannies, all prodominately female IME).

Individual woman make choices within those frameworks, but that doesn't mean they are wrong or foolishly making themselves more vunerable - I could get a fulltime job that would cover all the bills, I just don't want to right now, I'd rather pick my kids up at 3:15 each day (they go to childminder before school) and be around for the school holidays. If I had to, I know I could.

I also have made this choice in the knowledge that DH's life is heavily insured (so I'd have the mortgage cleared and a fair few years before I'd need to worry about working fulltime), we have insurance if he was unable to work due to illness/accident, and he does the sort of job were he couldn't hide his income if he left (and even the minimum childsupport would top up my wages enough to keep us afloat). Of course we are vunerable if DH lost his job, but then if I was a single working parent like you, a job loss is the main vunerablity.

I don't want to insult your choices, but I do value my afterschool time with the DCs, you don't think you are missing out, but having that time with them, I know it's quality time I value. I don't see the point of sacrificing it for a 'maybe' I know I'd have the time to deal with if it happens.

F1ame but a large proportion of women who exit the labour market to raise children are putting themselves in a vulnerable financial position. We can't ignore that.

Ordinary I work full time but still get to enjoy a large proportion of after school time - as does DH. A major reason for that is that we've worked our way up the career ladder into senior positions which offer significant flexibility....we've been able to do that because we both continued to work after starting a family. It's not an either/or situation

Blaa - well yes, but a large proportion of people (women and men) who work long hours are missing out in spending time with their children. To use your words, we can’t ignore that.

I’m not saying either scenario is the end of the world necessarily because people adapt to circumstances, but all I’m saying is that there is a flip side to all choices. It is what it is.

Unless you have salary linked data then you cannot assume financial dependance. - Mummysheepy, do you really need this data to not think there might be an issue with financial dependence? We already know that women make less than men.

Or do you think everyone part-time are on on high salary posts?

Maybe if more and more women were childfree by choice it would make enough of a dent after two or three decades once the birth rate has plummeted for the UK to panic and copy the Scandi countries.

Pray tell, what would working class, right wing women recommend then? Ignoring the issue altogether?

No. They generally think women should look at their own individual circumstances and what their needs and aspirations are and then do what suits them, rather than making blanket assertions like ‘women should work full time’.

I think women are usually capable of assessing what the financial impact will be on them and of making decent benefit/risk assessments to make their decisions.

I know women who work full time who are brilliant parents, even though they might spend less time with their kids, the time they spend with them is so high quality and focused on the children. They often make sacrifices and forgo things which might be pleasurable for them like socialising to maximise time with their kids and they have to be incredibly organised.

I also know SAHMs who prefer to be a bit more relaxed and throw loads a bit of peppa watching into the mix but find they’re happier parenting and looking after the house for longer periods and maybe don’t cope well with stress so that’s better for them.

I think I’ve been both of those women at some point.

I just find any person who says women should do x deeply, deeply anti-feminist. It denies that women have the intelligence and agency to make good decisions for themselves and need to be told what to do. That’s not feminism.

But it's also not as black and white as often presented on MN. Working full-time doesn't have to mean missing out on raising your children just as some women who remove themselves are not financially vulnerable. However, having spent a lot of time researching women's career decision making behaviour I know which camp I'd rather be in. Hence my decision to work full time.

But what would you like to see windy? All women working 9-5 minimum, at all costs. Would women be happier if the stats were different and we were working the same as men? Are you sure men would suddenly step up and take an equal role in parenting commensurate to women’s increased and less flexible work schedules? Really? Who would bear the brunt of these changes? Women might be less “financially vulnerable” on on a societal level, but at the expense of what?

F1ame I think it's a dangerous and slightly odd idea to rely solely on someone else's income so while I don't think everyone can work, I'd like to see more women in at least part-time work or with their own business/venture so they at least have some kind of income of their own. The might help shift work culture accordingly....eventually....

How would you feel if someone said your life and marriage was “odd?”

Fgs it's just my opinion flame. I'm sure a lot of people think I'm a failure at marriage and a bad parent for working. I'm not too bothered.

But it's not just my opinion here. It's very risky to not have an income or money even if it someone's preferred choice. That's why I started this post.

You are only looking at the surface stats. It’s not only about income - it could be about accrued wealth in a marriage - eg share portfolios, investments, properties - all these things. Many people live off investments alone.

You can be a millionaire and still be financially vulnerable if all your money is tied up in unwise schemes or you business goes under.

Anyone can be financially vulnerable - having an income is one thing, it depends how you use it.

I’m sure if someone started a thread about “ x% if women in Britain are single mums - they must be so financially vulnerable”, people on here would have plenty to say about that. The fact is, some single mums are vulnerable, many aren’t. And it’s the same with women who don’t work or work part-time. You need the full picture.

or with their own business/venture so they at least have some kind of income of their own.

30% of businesses fail in the first year. 50% in the first six, 66% in the first ten. Usually at a great cost from investment. Women staying home may well be better off in the long term.

I agree with Orchiddingme - this is an economic question.

Whenever I see a woman posting to say that childcare will cost more than she earns so she’s giving up work for a while, it shocks me. It should shock all of us. We should be bloody rioting over it.

People make choices and those who freely choose not to work and to focus on childcare, well they’re free to do that and good luck to them. Those who are effectively pushed out of the workforce because they would in effect be paying for the privilege of continuing to work - well, that’s shocking to me.

If women designed society from scratch I do not think we would distribute our shared resources in the way we do. Affordable childcare - as other posters have highlighted, other societies manage it - and affordable care later in life would free up so many women to CHOOSE - because this is about CHOICES, for those arguing that they are happy with the choices available to them at the moment - to stay in work or to spend more time working.

What’s really interesting is the amount of posters arguing the status quo is as it should be, there’s nothing to see here, move along and stop telling other women what to do. If you’re arguing that, whether you realise it or not, you trap other women in the status quo because there are no other choices. Wanna go back to work but your wages don’t cover childcare? Married to an arsehole who won’t do any pick ups or drop offs? No family support for school hols or occasional late nights or business trips? Well it doesn’t matter because the status quo covers that and says because you are a woman it’s natural to work pt, sah or carry on in something undemanding. If you’re unhappy with that, it’s you the individual woman that is the problem, not the shitty systems that are set up as they are.

Obviously there’s tax implications to good quality heavily subsidised childcare and paternity leave in addition to maternity leave, alongside proper flexible working practices, but it would give more women more choices and if you’re already happy with the status quo, I don’t see how it would affect you as an individual because no one is going to make you take on a plum role with flexible working if you don’t want to.

The real issue is low pay and high living costs. A bit of part time work or a flimsy business venture probably won't provide enough to someone left high and dry.

What shocks me when women talk about their wages not covering childcare is that it's still seen as women's responsibility. Childcare costs, like any other household bill, should be paid for proportionally by both parents.

In many cases it still might not make financial sense but for some, a small reduction in the overall household income ,for a short amount of time, could mean long term financial security for both parents.

It depends on what jobs they have. Someone in retail or admin is unlikely to find themselves de-skilled in 2 years but someone in IT probably would.

I agree Blaa. All too often women’s income is regarded as optional or additional income.

I don't know why you care OP.

It's actually not your business.

I have been " financially vulnerable" as a SAHM for many years.

My choice, I was happy, OH was happy, kids were happy.

Not any of your beeswax.