..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

I do agree automation as a whole is overhyped in the media. Personally automation de-skilled the area I'd hoped to go into big time so I'm a bit sensitive , I think it's fair to say there are a lot of low skill low pay jobs due to it.

I also agree that generalisations about childcare are unhelpful on both sides of the debate. I'm no psychologist but wonder if it's down to the type of childcare and where the child is on the introvert/extravert spectrum.

I'm sure this has been said already, all women who don't work are not economically vulnerable, some of us are quite secure.

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.

But childcare is a joint expenditure and comparing it solely to a woman's salary suggests that it is her responsibility. Of course going out to work doesn't seem appealing if you assess it in that way. Would you compare other bills in the same way? It's a dangerous narrative.

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.

Yes - you are right. That's the whole point of this thread.

I'm sure this has been said already, all women who don't work are not economically vulnerable, some of us are quite secure

Yes but a large proportion aren't. That is a problem.

The stats shown on first page for this thread show how many people are missing out on working while in late teens early twenties now.

Does op bemoan the time wasted in education when if employed people could be paying into pensions etc!

I also agree that generalisations about childcare are unhelpful on both sides of the debate. I'm no psychologist but wonder if it's down to the type of childcare and where the child is on the introvert/extravert spectrum
The quality of childcare is key.

The single biggest impact of a child's development isn't whether a parent works, whether they go to childcare for long hours etc. It's poverty.

It’s not great. But then I don’t really fathom how anyone with school aged children can’t engage in some level of paid work. It leaves women so vulnerable, particularly if a marriage breaks down.

*on a child's

Seriously though, some of the best off young people I know went into apprenticeships from school. But it's not for everyone so I don't "worry" about the kids studying (and accruing debt) because they love a subject.

It is a different bill to be fair, it's directly caused by working. I mean you wouldn't go to work for £100 per day if commuting cost £150 per day either.

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.

Often but by no means always. Young women tend to earn about the same - if not more - than men in the same age group. Real differences don't start to kick in until after the woman has children.

I think IcedPurple has gone now?

Surely the aim of any society is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Nobody can dictate the form that this “happiness” should take and it’s up to the individual to negotiate their life and hopefully find a partner who shares a similar outlook to them.

On MN, there is always such an earnest rush for people to extol the virtues of the “50/50 childcare relationship” - as if it is the esteemed pinnacle towards which all women must surely want to strive, otherwise there must be something wrong with them.

I think this is a very narrow-minded outlook tbh and if you keep banging on about it, you’ll just alienate a lot of people. Some couples are happier with split roles and being able to focus on the role that comes most naturally to them. The idea of constantly juggling around each other does not appeal to some people. Personally, the thought of my DH pottering around me all the time and endless negotiations about who does this and that and at what time and how much do we each earn and how many hours, sounds boring and it would piss me off, I expect.

People should just try and do what feels most honest and fulfilling for them, as far as possible. Some men and women gravitate towards “traditional” roles and if these people find each other, good for them. Some people think “equality” means doing the same thing as far as possible and good for them. Some people are gay and good for them. Some people prefer to be single and good for them. Just accept differences and get over it really.

The stats shown on first page for this thread show how many people are missing out on working while in late teens early twenties now.
Does op bemoan the time wasted in education when if employed people could be paying into pensions etc!

Are you seriously asking that?

It is a different bill to be fair, it's directly caused by working. I mean you wouldn't go to work for £100 per day if commuting cost £150 per day either No but you might if you could share that cost......You wouldn't car share and expect only one of the passengers to pay the commuting costs.

It is a different bill to be fair, it's directly caused by working. I mean you wouldn't go to work for £100 per day if commuting cost £150 per day either

It might make more sense if women worked out the cost of childcare over a 10 year period of working - so looked at how much the cost of childcare would impact on their income over a longer period of time. Then they could see that over time it does work out as worth working, just for the first few years where it is really unaffordable if you see what I mean. Sometimes it's quite a short term decision made when longer-term continuing working does make sense.

Many jobs don't have much to offer in the way of progression.

It is sad to see that the paid work is considered worthy, even if it is some mindless admin, but the most important labour of having and bringing up future members of society is considered as something optional and a trifle, as in anybody can do that. Well, I beg to differ. I have got a Masters and had always ‘worked hard’ prior to having children. None of my previous jobs was nowhere near as hard, responsible and had such lasting impact. This is what my life will be judged by, not my final salary upon retirement.

If I were to be selfish, I’d be out working full time and sod anybody else. As long as I get my money, my lunch break, my paid holidays and my pension, anybody else in need of attention can go screw themselves. Am I getting paid for looking after my child? no, can’t be bothered then. Am I getting paid for making a nice home for my family? No. They know what they can do, i’d rather watch paint dry then slave for nothing.

Do you want to live in such a society where everyone is only interested in their personal gain and feels no empathy or willing to make any sacrifices?

If anything, men need to take on more unpaid work caring about family. But they won’t as long as it’s treated with such utter contempt. It’s not cool to dedicate your time to bringing children up or looking after an elderly relative. Worth nothing. Hear yourselves!

Do you want to live in such a society where everyone is only interested in their personal gain and feels no empathy or willing to make any sacrifices?

Million no one is doubting that but we do need money to survive and to house ourselves and to eat. So we need to ensure that women are financially secure no matter what their choices are.

If I were to be selfish, I’d be out working full time and sod anybody else. As long as I get my money, my lunch break, my paid holidays and my pension, anybody else in need of attention can go screw themselves

In a post where you complain about people criticising your choices you manage to offend those of us that have chosen to work full time after children. Nice double standards there.........

To revert to the logic of this thread Bla - “it’s not about you, it’s about society.” So no, you’re not allowed to be offended by vague generalisations - sorry about that.

“it’s not about you, it’s about society.”
but that post is offensive to a large section of society.

Million

Aw, I totally agree but fear we are a dying breed
I never felt like working after dc, we manage/d just about.
I think a law to stop men going on to father children whilst not providing for existing children would go along way to help women not to be economically vulnerable.
Divorce being so easy, or marriage whichever way you view it.
People used to work at marriages now they give up too soon and the poor kids suffer as well as the woman.
Obviously. dv has always been the right reason to give up and nobody should be in this type of relationship but many couples just don't even try.

So to summarise one is not allowed to do what suits you as an individual or a particular family nor are you allowed to criticise the wider group norm as it will be deemed offensive.

Smashing!

I know we said we weren't going to take things personally... but for all the women on here criticizing women who work, I am a single parent and work FT. Do you think it's preferable for me to stay home and not work and are you okay for the state to pay for that?

Because if you think I should be out working paying my way then it's a bit of a double standard to say it's okay for a woman to be a SAHM as long as a man pays for you but it's not okay if the state pays.

I wouldn't mind not working frankly. It's bloody hard working in a FT role and managing everything myself but I do it to ensure the my future financial stability and that of my children.

this could be framed as a conflict of interests between adults and children

it is in the interests of adults to spend time acquiring and improving marketable skills so that they can earn money
it is in the interests of children to spend their early years cared for by emotionally healthy parents