..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

Iced purple you’re edging towards being quite personally nasty now.

There will always be something that may or may not happen in the future. In an ideal world we prepare for this as best as possible, but bitching and being nasty and spiteful to women over the choices they make in their lives is just really awful, especially when it comes from other women.

I’m waiting for someone to provide evidence that women are by virtue of their gender are naturally better at the tasks involved in looking after children and doing housework.

This is getting a bit nasty now, but only because people are making it about themselves, rather than the original point which is general rather than specific.

Generally women earn less, work in more menial jobs, are under employed and more vulnerable financially than men. Despite doing as well (or better) than males educationally, and despite being born with no more skills at cake baking or hoovering than boys.

It’s a general issue, not aimed at any specific poster

hub good on you for trying to get it back on track.

I think when you work in female dominated workplaces you don’t even see that women are so underrepresented in the full time workplace. My dhs work is a sausagefest - it’s enjoyable, well paid, not especially stressful and there’s loads of perks. I wonder if any female dominated workplaces can say similar? My experience is of education and the nhs - absolute opposite

I agree OP.... and things get more scary when you look at the percentage of those women who have chosen to have children with the person they rely on financially without getting married.
At least the posters admit to being currently financially reliant referred to a 'DH ' - so if things do go wrong they have a legal right to at least half the marital assets .. millions do not.
This aspect of economic disparity should be taught in schools so that girls don't end up sleepwalking into financial insecurity through ignorance.

@Hubanmao
Would you say that part of the gender pay gap issue is the fact that men tend to do more dangerous jobs (firefighting or oil rig work) and are correspondingly higher paid? Genuine question, not looking to start a fight.

Would you say that part of the gender pay gap issue is the fact that men tend to do more dangerous jobs (firefighting or oil rig work) and are correspondingly higher paid?

The easy answer is no....firefighters aren't paid that much anyway.

The complicated answer is far more nuanced. It is most certainly due to structural factors which will vary from sector to sector.
Take my sector for example.....

I work as an academic at a university. A career which is still male dominated especially a senior level. Reasons for this include:

• Academic contracts for early academics tend to be short term meaning you have to be prepared to move around. As women still tend to take on caring responsibilities this can be difficult for women to do.

• You have to be an active researcher. Working part time and taking maternity leave has a huge impact on your ability to have a regular research output

• You have to be prepared to travel , often abroad. Again, difficult if women have caring responsibilities

• Timetabling - doesn't always fit around nursery/school hours

If you don't have an equal relationship where your DH takes equal responsibility of childcare, housework and the 'mental load' its almost impossible to do.

Similar structural factors like the above are replicated across many sectors.

Iatemygrandma

Would you say that part of the gender pay gap issue is the fact that men tend to do more dangerous jobs (firefighting or oil rig work) and are correspondingly higher paid? Genuine question, not looking to start a fight.

No. I would say it has much more to do with the Male if the species not yet having learned how to gestate another human in their bodies and give birth to it. Followed by the ability to sustain it through infancy with milk from their own bodies. All of which distracts from staying in paid employment.
Add to that, the basic female biology of needing to nurture the offspring - and you add a few more years out of the work place.

A high paid female neuro surgeon is still only on a % of salary after Mat benefits are finished - and is just as much a non earning sahm as the woman employed on the supermarket checkout prior to having a baby.
It's the baby that makes the economic difference. Not the employment.

Two questions which strike me are

1. Is it in the best interests of all babies and young children to do long shifts in childcare?

1. Do we really need every person possible to go out to work?

Two questions which strike me are

1. Is it in the best interests of all babies and young children to do long shifts in childcare?

1. Do we really need every person possible to go out to work?

Two questions which strike me are

1. Is it in the best interests of all babies and young children to do long shifts in childcare?

1. Do we really need every person possible to go out to work?

*Two questions which strike me are

1. Is it in the best interests of all babies and young children to do long shifts in childcare?*

No- not all babies and young children. However, it suits some and they can thrive. You do what suits your children and your family. Childcare shouldn't be viewed negatively across the board.

2. Do we really need every person possible to go out to work?

No but it is important that the majority of people work. There are a number of women who want to work but can't...it's not always a case of those that want to and those that don't want to.

Snuggy, perhaps instead of the question 'Do we really need every person possible to go out to work?' which gets rolled out a lot and which only the most masochistic of person would say 'yes' to, the question should instead be 'What can we do to ensure every woman is able to be in a situation of greater financial security.' Of course the answer isn't always work, but for many it will be.

I would answer no to both of those questions, but I know it’s an unpopular view.

‘No. I would say it has much more to do with the Male if the species not yet having learned how to gestate another human in their bodies and give birth to it. Followed by the ability to sustain it through infancy with milk from their own bodies. All of which distracts from staying in paid employment.’

But it doesn’t have to . If those of us giving birth in the 80s could return to work when our babies were 12 weeks old, and in many cases continue bf long term, then there seems even less reason to suppose that having babies in 2018 when the mother can have up to a year off work, needs to be a barrier.

In fact thinking about it, when I had dc1, the most avid breast feeders among my mum friends were those who returned to work quite quickly like me. Probably because bf rates are linked more to socio economic status than any other factor, and we were professional women. Lots of women who don’t work or can’t afford childcare because they don’t earn much, choose not to bf.

Disclaimer- I’m not judging anyone here, just pointing out facts. If a woman chooses to stay at home that’s fine, but let’s not trap women into thinking that giving birth and bf are incompatible with working because they simply aren’t. There is also legislation to protect bf mums if they continue after returning to work

This whole debate is part of the reason I've decided against having DC (it's by no means the only reason). I think it's almost impossible to maintain an equal relationship as parents in the society we live in. I know a lot of women my age who feel similar. I agree with PP who said we need more state funded childcare like in Scandinavia. I don't see it happening anytime soon though.

IAte Some children positively thrive in childcare.

I think what I also meant with question 2 is whether there are enough worthwhile jobs and roles out there for every healthy adult to have one especially with automation.

I get the impression that some kids do well in childcare but others really struggle especially with long days.

Blaa - like the OP, you are presuming the majority of woman (and men) have a rewarding career, rather than a job they do purely for the money.

If you don't have the sort of job you enjoy more than being at work, the idea of doing it for effectively no money compared to not working, or even being worse off by working, it's hard to justify, unless you are in the sort of job you'll expect to progress upwards on a career ladder.

I get the impression that some kids do well in childcare but others really struggle especially with long days Which is why it is dangerous to make sweeping generalisations.

I think what I also meant with question 2 is whether there are enough worthwhile jobs and roles out there for every healthy adult to have one especially with automation.
There absolutely are...automation isn't as big a threat as the media would like us to believe. Certainly not yet anyway! The labour market is changing but not declining. It's important to prepare young people for the the future. It's difficult to predict which jobs will be around so career management skills are more important - we need to teach resilience and change management skills because so young people can cope with the labour market of the future.

Is it in the best interests of all babies and young children to do long shifts in childcare?
There a strong attitude in this country that I haven't experienced living in other countries that mothers are inevitable the best person to give exclusive time to their child and that childcare couldn't never compete and therefore could only be second best when mothers have no choice to work or for those poor children who have selfish mothers who prefer to work than give their kids the atte tion they deserve.

I consider myself quite a good mum but far from perfect. Some aspects I think I am a nautrail with and others I'm not at all. I have never consider my children my possessions. They are and were from the moment they were born individual beings. They deserved to be exposed to different people, different experience and that my role as a mother was to make sure they were exposed to the best I could give them and that included letting them experience what others could give them better than me.

My kids went to a nursery as babies and it wasn't second best. It was just different. They got from nursery a level of care and stimulation I couldn't have given them. They got from me the love and affection they couldn't get from the nursery staff. What I made absolutely sure was that the nursery they went to was top class, and mainly staffed by workers who wanted to be there because they loved to work with children.

My kids had a great experienced of nursery and never regretted going. Saying that, not all children are the same. My DD would have been miserable at home as her needs for stimulation, both physical and mental was huge. She didn't need much affection. My DS on the other hand needed more of my time so for two years before he started school I reduced my hours to give him more one to one attention.

I think ma y parents confuse What is best with their kids with what suits their own needs to be at home with their kids.

like the OP, you are presuming the majority of woman (and men) have a rewarding career, rather than a job they do purely for the money

No i'm not but i am acknowledging that there are people who do have jobs they love and go to work because they enjoy it.

On MN the financial element of work is often the only aspect discussed when there is actually so much more to a job/carer.

The reason it's the mother's wage that's often compared to the cost of childcare, is because the woman of a couple are often the lower earner in a couple.

There's lots of reasons why, even after years of girls outperforming boys at exams, equal pay legislation, it's still the case that at the point in late 20s, early 30s when couples start planning a family, they find the woman earns less - and those are the real problems, not the choices women make when dealing with that situation in the best way possible for their families.