..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

Being active and occupied feeling that you are a valued member of society having interests learning things, having goals and ambitions a structure to your day, these are all essential things, paid work is one route to these things

Also let's not forget that for many people paid work is soul destroying drudgery, detrimental to mental health physical health and self-esteem

I agree gamer, but the op was about economic vulnerability specifically. It does raise the question of just how we economically renumerate different kinds of work. Far too much is being pushed into the voluntary sector: as I said we're becoming a split society, those who need paying to earn a living and those who can afford to work 'for love' as another recent thread talked about as if it was a luxury everyone had.

Canigetaliein,
I have heard it speculated that women are more likely to suffer from dementia than men because they are less likely to have the protective effects of working for most of their life.
Interestingly, most debate on here focuses on the financial angle and not on the, work is good for you, issue

I've worked Pt since my eldest was born 7 years ago. I'm going back to full time after Christmas. Both dc are in school now.

Financial independence is my biggest driver to do this. I feel that I'm making significant sacrifices with regards to time I will spend with dc but I'm hopeful that the benefits will be worth it.

I have to work I had no choice but I'm lucky I like my job and I'm part time. No way would I give work up. My SIL doesn't work as her husband earns a good wage but it's no secret their marriage isn't happy and they both have to stay for financial reasons mainly which is sad

We need to think about what work is actually valuable, what work contributes most to society.

As a general rule of thumb we just assume that the more highly paid a role is the more valuable it is the greater its contribution to society, however when you look a little deeper it is clear that this is really not the case.

The amount that a person is paid is usually taken to be a true signal of the worth of their work, in many instances it is a misleading signal, the people who get paid the most are often do things which are destructive to society, an obvious example....the the very clever financial wizards whose brilliant schemes brought about financial collapse causing misery and ruin

Money is power and power corrupts

I think on mumsnet we often brush over the experiences of working class or non academic women. And there's lot of them. If you work as a shop assistant or a care worker there is little point paying to go to work just to keep your career going.

The big issue here is the options for men of the same abilities are usually better paid and not open to women. Work in construction is physically difficult for many women and even if they are physically capable, they would struggle to get hired. Warehouse work is still very male dominated. Even refuse collectors are much better paid than care workers and although lip service is paid to equal opportunities, in practice a woman would find it more difficult to get hired than a similar man.
There are issues around some of these jobs that have the effect of being physical barriers to women e.g. lack of toilet facilities.
So working class women get channeled into the lowest paid positions.

Some may be sahms, gambling on their DH not dumping them for another woman. On current divorce statistics, that’s a 50:50 gamble.

Closer to 60/40 against divorce on most recent evidence in fact babdoc. But that's the ones who are married. Plenty aren't.

Agree with much of your post pebbledashed. We need so much more opportunity for people to work part time, which doesn't just mean there being jobs available for them at less than 35 hours a week. That's only part of it.

I"m in that group as the carer of a severely disabled child. If working was that important to me I could even though I have been out of it for a while, return to my former career. It would probably mean my child going into residential provision which is not what I want for him yet so I choose not to.

Waves to wordthe, sounds like we're on the same wavelength. Yep, remuneration for work has currently got nothing to do with the worth of the job and precious little to do with the skills of people trying to do it either. We're asking for more and more skills at lower wages. It's purely about perceived status: and there's close links to prior exiting social status as well. We're currently locking down, so that only the upper classes can currently realistically aspire to higher-paid, higher-status work.

GrabEm, we need higher wages too. There was a recent thread about the low amount of wages nowadays, I can dig it out in a mo.

mrsmuddlepies Obviously I have the luxury of liking my job & a tiny commute but I need to work for a number of reasons. I like the structure & routine it brings. I’m the type of person who could easily fall into a pattern of getting up at 11, ordering a deliveroo for lunch, mean to sort a pile of paper out but get distracted by a box set, etc. Plus I like the social side.

‘perhaps we should think more about the messages and signals that we give out about what is valuable worthwhile work and what isn't and what isn't’

I completely agree that caring responsibilities, whether for babies, elderly parents, children with SN, is important, valuable work and deserves to be recognised as such .

But not everyone who doesn’t work, or chooses to work very part time, has these responsibilities. And while it’s completely their choice if they can afford it or have a partner willing to bankroll it, it’s disingenuous to make out that such people are making a great contribution to society.

I’m coming up to taking semi retirement (facilitated by having worked full time for many years) and I’m going to be working 2 to 3 days a week in my specialist field, I’m also considering doing something voluntary such as being a school governor, as I feel that would be an important contribution to make. But on my days off, I’ll be reading, lunching, maybe doing some craft workshops etc. Which is all very lovely, but I’m not going to kid myself I’m making some valuable contribution to society on those days.

We need to think about what work is actually valuable, what work contributes most to society

I agree that often the most valuable work is either poorly paid or not paid at all.

But I wouldn't tell my daughters to go into that work (assuming they had a choice).

The reality is that if you are poorer, or dependent on benefits or a man who then lets you down, life is likely to be much more stressful if you are economically disempowered yourself. Carers/SAHP who are disadvantaged have high rates of depression, not surprisingly.

Having seen the shitshow that is UC and the collapse of the seemingly secure marriages of many of my contemporaries, I wouldn't be telling my children to think interesting thoughts about what is valuable in life, I'd be telling them what to do to survive well and have choices in this one.

I think most posters agree that those who have children with additional needs should have the right to care for their child at home. However, support should they wish to work, should be available. I imagine that having the opportunity to be out of the house and working with others for part of the day must be a life saver for some parents.

May be of interest www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3441553-To-be-depressed-at-low-level-of-wages?pg=1

I think the OP is right to be concerned. A fair comment about those in education, largely under 21, but noticeable how the figure drops over 55. It would be interesting if those actively seeking work were separated from those who are not (out of choice).

I agree with those who have argued that more people, men and women, should work less than full-time if they can, and also those referring to the non-financial benefits of being in work. Though the latter probably depends on the kind of job you are in.

My DM didn't work in high paid jobs. More like minimum wages one and PT.

After over 25 years my father left her for OW. He was always trying to get her to give up work and be totally dependant on him. When he left she said she was so grateful that she didn't do that because she still had money coming in when she would have been left with nothing. It's all well and good saying yes but in a divorce I will get this and that but divorces take time, months and even years and in the mean time if you have no income you are screwed. Even in very low paid jobs having an independent means of getting money is worthwhile.

Obviously there are exceptions with good reasons not to work but I agree with Hubanmao that
But not everyone who doesn’t work, or chooses to work very part time, has these responsibilities. And while it’s completely their choice if they can afford it or have a partner willing to bankroll it, it’s disingenuous to make out that such people are making a great contribution to society.
It is an issue that is fudged over a lot on MN. I do maintain that higher wages for caring professions would help and a greater expectation that women take an equal role in providing financially for their families. Hopefully, this would mean society expected more from men with regard to domestic tasks.

Agree with the points about higher wages & high wages not being indicative of how hard one works. Think they said on the news yesterday that people in London have lost the equivalent of 20k worry of wages since 2008

worth not worry

Yanbu.
My part time work is zero hours and I don't earn a living. I also don't earn a pension so I've fucked my future too.
The part time jobs round here are all minimum wage and spread across 5 days. In the school holidays we would be fucked as my wage wouldn't cover the holiday clubs. Plus I would only get half the holiday entitlement of full time employees.
I stuck it out for a few months thinking, oh well it's a start, but the attitude of me going at 1pm from the other colleagues was vile. And there was always the 'oh. You don't pick up dd until 3, could you just.....' and not getting paid for it. Or being given time off in lieu.

Something to consider with the over 55s is that if you lose your job at that age it is very difficult to get another quite often. A substantial proportion may be economically inactive not through choice

At the primary school my DC attended / attend, I would say about 80% of mums are SAH. Some still have younger DC at home, but many don’t. It’s very much the norm in some areas such as this in London.

Most of these women have at least a degree and had professional jobs before DC. I couldn’t say what proportion of the 30-odd percent of non-working women these account for from the OP’s stats. What I would say, is that if they are financially “vulnerable,” it’s very much in first world terms - ie. would they only get half of the £5 million house and have to move into a flat? What about the school fees? Etc. They are hardly “vulnerable” though in the sense they have no qualifications, confidence or options. They would not give up good jobs for spurious reasons. It’s true, nobody knows what the future holds, but we all make choices according to circumstances. If your income makes no difference to the family, you might decide you have other priorities. But my point is, these women don’t really need anyone’s “concern.”

@Pebbledashed,👋 yes I am on your page and so I believe are many others 🙂

and yes we are moving towards a situation where there is high paid high status work only for the very few, the rest of us are struggling to manage with high housing costs and Trying to fulfil our duties towards family members whilst also earning a living

If we just had affordable housing, if a single person working full-time in a minimum wage job could afford a decent one bed flat that would be a start, that would make life so much more manageable for everyone
As it is the cost of housing has been pushed up to an unrealistic level leaving most of us scrabbling around trying to manage

I agree OP and I think its a many layered issue

The societal expectation of a level of reliance in women is so ingrained it's working with real economic factors to increase women's vulnerability...it suits as a society to maintain a status quo of women being reliant sometimes on external help

For me it's not remotely a differentiation about the value difference between say sahm v working roles because I feel they are both completely valid (as is part time work) it's purely as you say the increased likelihood that a woman is vulnerable if not able to cover the whole household expenses

We know the majority of divorces the children stay with mum meaning a higher financial responsibility and a higher risk

Whilst I was always a reasonable earner I had had Exdh wage coming in and when we split it was genuinely frightening picking up everything financially and keeping DC and I with a roof over our head and food on the table on my single wage

I was incredibly fortunate that I earned enough to do so but it did mean working fulltime and basically all the hours I could

The societal impact was that I actually got flack for it , I got some vile comments about why did I bother to have children if I was going to put them in fulltime childcare.... conpletely ignoring that I was doing it to keep a roof over us

Most of these were from women which shows the impact of the societal controls so ingrained