..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

No I’m not being deliberately obtuse saltpans (you charmer )
I’m just not a mind reader.
If you want to start a thread about people with medical issues who cannot work then no one’s stopping you.

I work part time because I have a disabled child, my earning power is greatly reduced as a result. I always planned to go back full time once at school but this wasn't to be. We manage on a day to day basis but we cannot afford enough pension provision so it looks like state pension only plus a little put away in private scheme. this is the most worrying part for me.
It is very difficult to find any affordable childcare for disabled kids only option we have is nanny (expensive) paid for via DLA. Just put in for renewal and not sure what to do it refused.

I am talking about the people, who can’t work - say someone with advancing MS, or severe mental health problems in and out of in-patient units for years, or early dementia, or learning disabilities.....They are not going to get a job, and the freedom to keep their earnings is irrelevant!

I support someone with one of these type of problems, that's why I am glad I was fully economically active and hitting my career stride when it happened, and would recommend my children keep a good career themselves for this reason. If you have two people who have economic potential, then when the hard times hit, you have more choices. We did and that's why we aren't (luckily) reliant on benefits because carers allowance is a pittance. I agree that universal cheap childcare is a good move, as is better benefits- these are not mutually exclusive and if you look at Nordic countries, they tend to supply both, due to higher taxation.

No, YNBU to worry about it, but it's causing you a lot of stress and anxiety about somehting you can't do anything about.

Par, so what if he blows his top? You have legal rights to get a full time job and your partner cannot stop you. He is very unlikely if he then decided to leave you because you work to obtain residence of the child in England particularly as you have done most of the childcare so far. So just try it - get a full time job, put the child in nursery and let sunnyJim the partner, stew in his own juice. He might find he likes it and loves learning to cook for himself and do his own washijng. If not he will just have to lump it. If you have a house make sure it is joint names as you aren't married.

Like hell would he let me on the tenancy. He wants me to be dependent on him.

Ah, I see. We probably can't solve your situatoin on here but if you could find a full time job that would cover childcare costs he couldn't stop you and at least if you eventually chose to leave him with the child you could probably rent a place.

Par, if you’re unmarried surely he has less rights as an unmarried father? He will not be able to take your DD. Do you not have family/friends you can stay with until you find a job?

I made the wrong choice when choosing a partner, he put on a good act, lied about everything, I was still naïve in my mid 30s, I wanted to believe I'd found someone.

Realising my mistake I quickly became a single parent before the damage he could do got too big to manage. That was a very good decision. The other good decisions I made were to buy a house young, on my own and to not to marry the gold-digging ex. I have been able to work part-time and raise my child alone due to these good decisions. I like working, but not too much.

I think it's good for children to see their mothers as independent working women.

Thx all for interesting discussion. I think the learning was women ARE economically vulnerable if they don't work but will do what they want irrespective!

I think for many of us it's accepting that work doesn't always help you out of poverty and doing the best we can in the situations we are in

Snuggy I agree and was just joking with my last post!

I think the key point is that some people value things above money and are comfortable with the ‘risk’ of not earning their own salary.

There’s also the point that the majority of women don’t care what some random busybody on MN thinks of their life choices

Definitely Tinsel.

Sometimes random " empathising" is patronising and helps noone.

I think the key point is that some people value things above money and are comfortable with the ‘risk’ of not earning their own salary really? I think the women I know who have taken that risk have mainly made sure they have attached themselves to a good earner. Sensible, if you are going to take the risk (although to me inherently risky as men can be such shits in their midlife crises). The one SAHM I know who would like to leave admits its her lifestyle and keeping the family as a unit that stops her leaving her emotionally abusive and really horrid husband- being poor and living on benefits in a small house in her 50's doesn't appeal to her and I don't blame her.

I don't think women work as they like 'money' any more than women who stay home don't- I think both are usually preoccupied with wanting a good secure lifestyle financially for their children if they can, and there is more than one way to do this.

Anyway, it’s a specious argument to say it’s no good arguing for adequate benefits because the government can change its mind; the government could introduce free childcare one year and withdraw it the next; or decide to tax the higher earner in any family at 90%, or introduce 100% inheritance tax on the death of the first spouse if it wanted!

Not specious at all. Please name one democratically elected government on earth that has imposed a 100% inheritance tax on a first-departed spouse?

Secondly, free child-care affects a parent's ability to work for a relatively small window of their working years. Vanishingly small, you might even say.

I think the key point is that some people value things above money and are comfortable with the ‘risk’ of not earning their own salary

It's easy to value things above money when you have it or access to it.

I value being able to pay my bills and eat food over watching daytime TV while my child is at school.

I think the key point is that some people value things above money and are comfortable with the ‘risk’ of not earning their own salary

Yeah, it is a bit grubby and materialistic to want to ensure your children have a roof over their head and food on the table.

I didn’t realise valuing money was mutually exclusive with valuing other things too...

I don't think it is 'valuing money' to value the things money can by for your children - a home, food, well fitting shoes, books. I value all those things and I am not prepared to risk my child's security. It would be different if I only had myself to worry about, but I don't. Anyone who loftily states they don't value must have always had access to plenty of it!

I don't value money, I value security and stability that comes with money.

There’s also the point that the majority of women don’t care what some random busybody on MN thinks of their life choices grin

Imagine if women didn't or weren't allowed to comment on anything related to their status or lives for fear that they might be deemed a 'busybody' for possibly offending individuals. Imagine all the progress we'd make - not!

Namechanger

What has watching daytime tv got to do with it?
If this is all you could think of to occupy yourself as a sahm, it's a blessing you chose work over sahp
In 30 years of being a sahm, my life was far too interesting to watch tv

Windy- You started an interesting thread on a major social and political issue . The few posters who assume the thread is busybodying about their own specific lifestyle are just not understanding it!