..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

Men are not forced to choose between having a family and having a career, because of this men are free to be ambitious in a way that women aren't

For a woman unless she is very wealthy the decision to have children will limit the extent to which she can fulfil her ambitions career wise

having children, bringing up children is just about one of the most important and valuable jobs that anyone can do and yet if women want to do this important work they have to take a financial hit

I also agree that many women do lack ambition. Very few consider earning capabilities when choosing their jobs or careers. They think about jobs that they’d like to do and tend to neglect the question of whether they’d be able to be financially independent in them. I think men are more astute in this respect.

And of course these decisions tend to be made way before they have children. If women were able to get themselves into a decently paid job before they have children they at least have (a) a better part time salary and (b) more options if they ever need to be financially independent.

Even working FT, I would not be able to support my family without DP’s income. I think you’re being a bit too simplistic.

word that's not true. I'm not wealthy but I haven't had to sacrifice my career to have children. Neither has my DH. We have mutual respect for each others careers and ambitions.
It only works if you share domestic and childcare responsibilities though.....but that's a choice. I didn't have children with my ex-husband because it was clear he thought like you.

If you choose to be in a relationship where the domestic responsibilities fall to you then that will have implications - but that's a choice and is not imposed.

I agree with this. I do more of the chores as I have more free time. Sometimes though I find myself thinking well if I went part time and dropped a day I could use that day for chores and give me more down time.

I then give myself a shake and look at the financial implications for 'me' not for 'us' and then continue as normal.

My DH wound happily 'support' me if I wanted to cut down work but he totally understands why I won't because he wouldn't do the same either.

Is this a sly dig at SAHM OP? I don’t know why you are personally concerned about the financial position of women who don’t know and will never meet.

I work and earn a good salary but am financially dependent on DP. If he left I couldn’t pay our mortgage and day to day expenses by myself, neither could he. We would both have to downsize considerably and make huge cutbacks. There’s nothing wrong on relying on one another, it’s part of being in a relationship.

Frankly if you were happily married
To someone in secure and well paid work, who had made provision for you, insurance, paid into a pension for you, etc, why would you want to work if you didn’t want to? I have friends my age, 54, who have never really worked since having children. They are happy, well provided for and have no wish to work. Whose business is it that they don’t? Paid work is held up as some moral obligation on MN.

I don't think women lack ambition although there will always be a portion who don't want to work. I think women make difficult decisions in view of children; I've just turned down a well paid job as didn't think I could do the hours needed eg 60+ as a single parent.

Abra - whose business? I guess nobody's but they are relying on the community/state supports if it doesn't work out.

I personally fee with the divorce rate at 45% no woman is safe from the risk of divorce. Also one income reliance is pretty risky no?

Tinsel. It's not a sly dig at sahm but I'm sure some will read it as that. But look the facts are there -the majority of women are reliant on another person for the majority of their finances and support. Do you not think this is a problem?

Paid work is held up as some moral obligation on MN.

Money is typically needed to pay bills and fund retirements. It's not a moral obligation more of a practical one.

I agree with Frazzy. How many women could honestly say they could cover their current mortgage independently or not struggle financially in the event of a divorce? In dual income families you adjust your lifestyle accordingly and there will inevitably be a financial shock in the event of a separation. I suspect that even today, the DH is usually the higher earner in most families for the types of reasons stated above. Often there is a huge gap in earnings, especially if the wife works around DC. So the statistics may show she is not “vulnerable” because she’s “working,” but it’s all relative. How vulnerable you are depends on your level if debt v wealth as a family. It’s not necessarily all about who earns what. You could say that a high earning DH is “vulnerable” if he loses half “his” assets after a divorce because his wife is a SAHM / low earner and there are DC involved.

Do you not think this is a problem?

Not hugely no, we are all able to adjust to our circumstances. I don’t think women (or men) should be criticised for choosing to care for their children at home rather than work.

Not if you have insurance policies and the high-earner has paid into a pension for you. The couple I know are wealthy. They are insured to the teeth and have a valuable house. She has a pension he has paid into for years. It is unlikely that they would ever need state benefits.
I wouldn’t want her life (I have always worked) but can’t see what the point of her getting a job would be.

Until women are prepared to take on an equal role in paid work to support the family, many men will not take on an equal role with regard to domestic matters.
Many posts on here are so critical of men who only work part time or not at all (cock lodgers) but some women seem to think it is their right to work part time or not at all.
I can understand with young children but secondary age? Or those with adult children?
One poster I will always remember was told by the courts that she would need to get a job after some generous spousal support ran out after three years. She explained the impossibility of this because she always had an afternoon nap.
Many women are happy to stay at home and fill their time with clubs and voluntary activities but hugely resent their partners wanting the same.
Anyone remember the distraught poster who did not want her retired husband to join her in their house because she had got used to having a lovely time while he supported them financially? She basically wanted him to work forever.

I don’t think it’s a dig at SAHMs but I do think the more this is discussed the better.

I have seen in my time on MN:

• it isn’t worth me going to work because of childcare fees
• it’s stressful
• being a sahm is harder anyway
• dhs salary means we can afford it

They are all good arguments especially when the ‘job rather than a career’ mindset is also considered. No one wants to think they might be left penniless and destitute.

Few women are in the position to choose to do no work at all, rather the choice is between paid work and unpaid work, if you prioritise paid work then you have to sacrifice some of your ambitions to be a parent to nurture and contribute to the next generation

Nurturing and contributing to the next generation is very important valuable work

What we need are ways to make sure that men take on thier full financial responsibility for the children that they father

If all women chose paid work over unpaid work society would grind to a halt

Paid work is held up as some moral obligation on MN

Not really. You'd have to be pretty hard skinned though to watch the person you are meant to love go out to work daily to ensure you had everything you need and not do anything yourself to help with those costs. That's not a partnership I'd want.

Likewise, unless you never use state education or health care then again someone else is picking up that cost for the person who doesn't want to work. If everyone did that, imagine the mess we would be in.

I work full time and I find it hard. My dc range from 12 to 4. The eldest has challenges. The youngest is so surprised when I get home before 7.30 that he will say "what are you DOING here?" The middle one will follow me round the house asking me do I have time to talk to him. Its hard.

But I keep my job because I could, just, support us all on my income if dh3 wasn't here or lost his job, and I cannot risk not being able to do that. It's a choice. I know that. Lots of my friends and colleagues encourage me to go part time and point to how tired I am, how I am always running to catch up, how time with the dc has to be carved out, etc. But I've been poor, when I had just finished my MA and DH was looking for a job we were living on nothing and I used to cry when the post came as it was usually a bill I couldn't pay or a final reminder or a letter before action; everything the dc asked for we said no to as we couldn't even cover all the essentials, I sold all my jewellery except my wedding (not actually worth it: turns out cash converters don't pay you what an item means to you and the £30 you get might turn the gas back on but will never make up for the memories and meaning you just sold)... I am terrified of going back to that.

YANBU. Yet still so many women don't realise that there's no 'common law' marriage or rights if you just live with 'partner' and give up FT work to look after children you have together.

Not really. You'd have to be pretty hard skinned though to watch the person you are meant to love go out to work daily to ensure you had everything you need and not do anything yourself to help with those costs. That's not a partnership I'd want.

There’s more to a partnership than who makes the money though. Perhaps the husband going to work really values the work his wife does daily in caring for their children. Perhaps they as a family appreciate that their children are not in childcare. Not everyone thinks the same way or values the same things. Who are we to comment on the success of someone’s relationship just because it is different to ours?

Well a lot of those women will be married to a highish earner. Others will able to easily move into full time work if they need to. The figure of women not in full time work doesn’t reflect the figure of women that are financially vulnerable.

Society would have to adapt. There would be a larger work force therefore more money available to have efficient support.
Those posters who use caring for the elderly as an excuse generally mean their own parents. What about care for the childless or those without daughters?
The same argument was used originally as a reason to not allow women to work at all.
Believe me, society would have to adjust and give both men and women equal responsibility for caring roles.

Some people I know who don’t work have husbands who pay the highest rate of tax. They don’t use state schools or much NHS. They pay in masses more than they take out. If their wives choose not to work and are adequately provided for in all scenarios , good luck to them. Better that financially needier people can take those jobs.

I personally would be bored stiff.

word plenty of women are in a position to make that choice.....and do. It's important to understand that raising children is not solely a female responsibility.

I only know two SAHPs...one male one female. Everyone else I know with children works - many full time.