..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

Hubanmao

OP started a thread about how a 1/3 of women are not in paid employment and are therefore economically vulnerable. Many posters on here seem to see work, facilitated by universal free childcare as the answer to women's problems; and I am trying to say some of those women can't work due to the cost of childcare; but others are:

1. disabled themselves and can't work anyway
2. carers to disabled relatives; and given the cutbacks to social services, realistically for many of them, they either care for their relative or leave them to die of neglect. They cannot go out and work.
3. carers to elderly relatives, who likewise don't get anything like the care they need from Social Services; and the women cannot leave them to go out to work either

Work cannot give those women financial freedom, because they don't have the freedom to work; and its not good talking about how caring for women is an artificial construct, because for many of them, nobody else in the family is willing to step up to the plate, so if they don't do it; the relative is left to die probably.

AlaskanOilBaron

Have a look at the One Child Policy in China - forced abortions without general anaesthetics; IUDs mandatory after the 1st pregnancy; women having to produce used tampons in the workplace to show they are not pregnant. If somebody tears down a poster of the prime minister, they can get taken to a psychiatric hospital or a prison camp....

Look at forced sterilisations in India.

As for the tax system here - iirc, when I started work, income tax, etc for the very rich was 98% on income? The government introduces bed and breakfasting for CGT; then they withdraw it, then its back in again.....All the tax partners I know are fed up with trying to keep up with the tax changes by their 50s!

Come on Huba. If I, as a non-single mum, started a thread about how economically vulnerable single-mums must be because they only have a sole income - and what a shame they are too naive to recognise their predicament - there would (rightly) be total outrage on here and the thread would no doubt be taken down for being “goading.” Interesting social and political issue or not! And particularly, I’d be shot down in flames I admitted I only know about three single mums in real life . Just imagine! All the stats in the world wouldn’t make it any less disingenuous.

I think you’re taking it too personally. I think the fact women are disadvantaged economically is an issue worth debating. That’s it really

Hubanmao

But it has nothing to do with women working or not.
Women have always been disadvantaged, there are just as many working women who are financially disadvantaged when their dh trades them in for someone with time for them.
I've seen women have to go pt, change to worse salary, pay to raise their kids themselves, struggle for money, etc Why do people presume it's reserved for sahm's.

Sure nobody would disagree with that Hub. But let’s make it about all women then - single mums; those who would like to work but childcare costs too much; those on minimum wage - the full spectrum because that is the real social and political issue. A woman with a husband supporting her may or may not be vulnerable, just like any other woman really. Like everything else, it totally depends on why and how you go about it. Again, income and wealth are two different things.

But let’s make it about all women then But work is one the main ways that women are about to get funds and hence the reason why so much of the focus of 20th century feminism was given women greater access to and opportunities in the workplace.

SaltPans I'm not sure why you directed a post about forced sterilisation in China towards me?

windy

What's the solution then? If working can make no difference to economic stability for a woman.
Surely, it's better to advise they do what is right for them and encourage choice.

Windy - when you have children, you put them first, obviously. Often, if there is a very high earner in the family, everyone benefits if you just let them get on with it, frankly. My DC would never have gone to independent schools on my income, or various other opportunities. DH was in a position to provide that. I have access all finances and assets. The DC have assets in their names. I’m better off due to having been with him than if I’d been working all these years. More importantly, our DC have a different future because of the way we have organised ourselves as a family unit. This is why women do it. On the flip side, why pay for childcare if it’s more than you earn (yes, I know about the long-term benefits etc but it’s not always as straightforward as that - some people will just get another job / skills are more transferable etc).
In general, people (women and men) who don’t work do so because they don’t have to. In these circumstances, it’s how you have your life organised that makes you vulnerable if not. And if you can’t afford to work then you make your own decisions about how best negotiate that. It is not a case of being shortsighted.

What's the solution then? Romany - Marrying well?

Often, if there is a very high earner in the family, everyone benefits if you just let them get on with it, frankly.

But F1ame if every woman did that nothing would change! And all the risks and problems of being dependent on a man for money wouldn't be addressed!

What's the solution then? If working can make no difference to economic stability for a woman.Surely, it's better to advise they do what is right for them and encourage choice.

But shouldn't we be pushing for structural change rather than encouraging women to choose from a menu of shitty options? All this talk about choice is kind of pointless if the choices are crap.

I found my choice to work and leave 3 screaming babies at home was not a "carp" choice at all. It meant we all had a good life. As we saw childcare as a 50/50 thing their father found it actually and we both worked full time. The more often women's careers can come before their husband's the sooner our daughters will benefit from women achieving more at work and earning more.

In other words personal choices are in fact very political and people's example affects their daughters and othe rpeople around them.

The interesting issue on these threads is always why do the women with rich husbands not earn as much their husband? What was it in that man's childhood that meant he earned a lot but his wife didn/t? Presumably the women don't think their husbands are brighter or that thei rparents conditioned them to live off male earnings so there must be some other reason. Did they not work as hard as their husband in order to pass exams at school?

*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? *

I was saying that imo, any country can get taken over either by a dictator or authoritarian government and then they can do whatever the like - and I consider that as our government seems to be moving us more and more towards a 24/7 surveillance society with less and less freedom of speech; we could find ourselves under an authoritarian government "for our own good" at any time; who could then do anything!

Besides which, if a government can impose 98% taxation on income for the very rich; or sanctions leaving claimants without food or heat for weeks, I am sure they can do whatever they like with inheritance tax!

Xenia - you're right, 'crap' wasn't the right work, more 'not always ideal.'

I feel so depressed. 600 comments in and it turns on the solution is to have a well earning husband to pay for everyone. White knight riding a big white wallet. Sigh.

The interesting issue on these threads is always why do the women with rich husbands not earn as much their husband?

I often wonder about this. My DH was privately educated. His school friends (all men - single sex boarding school) tend to have well-paying jobs. Their wives - typically from a similar educational background - mostly don’t work. Why? They’re all equally well-educated and capable. It puzzles me.

(Both DH and I work FT, and always have done. I’m the higher earner, although his friends universally assume that he earns more than I do).

I know people don't like to talk about it but hypergamy is a thing. On the flip side there will also be men in low paid work struggling to settle down because of lack of assets.

The ideal solution would obviously be to have childcare and housing that women (or men) in any job can afford.

Mychoice to be a sahm was not a crap choice, and has worked well for me and my family.
We don't have much money and don't value it more than paying essential bills. I've never been materialistic and believe in living life to the full. If I wanted more money than we have then I'd work, but as I don't and the family are happy there's no point.
It's not always about having a husband with a high income, ours in very low.
I don't expect others to share our philosophy, but it gives us fulfilling lives that I wouldn't have if every day meant working to make fat cats richer.

Windy - You ask if “marrying well” is the solution. Well obviously it helps, whether two parents are working or not.

Like Oud, I do sometimes wonder why so many of the highest earners are men. My DH was not public school educated (his family were refugees) but so many are and the wives invariably don’t work. I think maybe it’s because men don’t factor pregnancy and taking time out for babies in. Career gaps aren’t an option, so if they have to work for decades, it matters more what they do. Also, I think men define themselves by their careers more than women do and are more competitive (huge generalisation, but there it is). When men socialise they often talk work and big themselves up, whereas women don’t really take this attitude and couldn’t really care less about their friends’ jobs. It doesn’t define them.

I often wonder about this. My DH was privately educated. His school friends (all men - single sex boarding school) tend to have well-paying jobs. Their wives - typically from a similar educational background - mostly don’t work. Why? They’re all equally well-educated and capable. It puzzles me.

Well, yes. In my experience, women who don't have to work tend not to work. There are exceptions, obviously.

'Marrying well' - of course we all know what this really means, but it might also mean a woman marrying a man who will support her career above his own so that she might be more successful.

This is all for people to sort out themselves, though, privately. It's not really a one-size fits all solution - also, the continuation of the planet really depends upon people having smaller families, so I expect the conversation might change in the coming years.

I had to look up "hypergamy" (thanks for the new word) marrying up. Yes, that is a big thing too - lots of lawyer women like I am marry someone who earns more, the wife moves to become an in-house lawyer at a company (usually lower pay), man stays at a firm, becomes an equity partner on £800k a year.

Women usually marry someone a bit older hence man earns more when it comes to deciding whose career is not important.
I married a teacher. A lot of women marry someone of higher status and earnings than they are although that is changing - the big boss marrying his secretary or the Russian model or whatever is not as common as plenty of men want a woman of similar education and status and career as all their friends are dual career couples in some groups of people I know.

When I looked up that word I wondered if it also referred to supply and demand issues why in those groups like fundamentalist mormons, FLDS etc in the USA you get the alpha men with 3 or even more wives and the weaker men who get thrown out of the group entirely or never marry and the same for some women in the UK who would rather be the part time mistress of james Goldsmith than the full time wife of someone on £20k a year. Which leaves the incels - those involuntary celibate men who cannot catch any women as they have no money or status to offer getting rather cross as presumably they always have done. Of my grandfather's 9 siblings only he and my oldest brother ever married. The other 7 were single to the grave, no children, no spouse.

Marrying well is essential, but imo that needn't mean financially well off.
A good man wouldn't allow his partner to be vulnerable financially.
Please don't say all men are good to begin with, it's obvious they weren't good to begin with if they have affairs, or are abusive.
A man who shares your life philosophy and a soul mate is important too.

Yes I totally agree with Romany that life is not a Jane Austen novel and “marrying well” isn’t about marrying for money. It’s more about finding someone that shares your values. If you are a woman who is hell bent on her career, don’t marry a man who might resent that and prefers a SAHW. Similarly, if you know you’ll want to be with your DC when and if you have them, don’t marry a man who is all about separate bank accounts and would resent you not financially contributing.

You can’t conflate not working with part time. I work part time and can definitely afford my life on it.

I’ll have a look at the stats though as they’re interesting. A large number, I assume, are retired and some will still be studying so the age extremes may be skewing this. It’d be interesting to see the, say, 25-55 percentages.

I work part time- it's enough money for me.