..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

Housing is a joke, I guess something has to give. I would not be suprised to see income tax rises in the next few yrs whichever government is in power.

But, Flame, you are still young. You are only talking about financial implications. What about the health benefits of working? Statistically, those working are less likely to suffer with mental health issues and , for older people, there is the protective effect of working to help ward off dementia.
It is not just a case of being financially independent but also a welfare issue for older women.

I would say that is a fairly small % F1ame as even in London there are not thousands of 5m+ homes

& I would argue those men that have that kind of cash are very good at concealing it should a divorce arise.

It's the icing on the cake work which attracts high wages and high status

most of the cake is made up of people grinding away with boring unsatisfying frustrating jobs taking a massive hit on their self esteem and mental and physical health

To be fair some of the older non working women are probably volunteering given that volunteering is largely done by older women.

Mrs - thankyou for referring to me as “still young” .

I partly agree with you about the mental health benefits of working, but I don’t think it’s as simple as that. It also takes a toil on women if they’re having to work and take the mental load with everything else. Very high earning DHs generally don’t work anything like “normal” hours, nor do they have “normal” expectations about the kind of things they want their DC to be doing / education / opportunities, etc. It all becomes a vicious circle. I know many workaholic men who lived for their jobs but then had some form of mental breakdown. They literally can’t cope without work, it totally defines them and the SAH wives are there to pick up the pieces quite often. I see this all the time.

People all have different motivations in life and I think the key to good mental health is being honest about where your motivations lie. Most people are lucky if they have any choice not to work. Some jobs are good for the mental health of some people - others not so much.

Volunteering by older women is a huge benefit to the country.

The problem is that we instinctively and naturally feel as if those who are paid the most must be doing the most valuable and important work

This is because money acts as a signal, but it's a false signal

Word- your posts reinforce for me how important it is to encourage our sons and daughters to aim for careers or work which is satisfying, as well as bringing in money. Not because I’m glorifying working, or claiming that remuneration is the most important thing in life. But quite simply, working is a fact of life for adults, unless they are in the exceptionally rare position of being born into such high wealth they’ll never need to earn. Given that our children will realistically have working lives of 50 or so years surely it makes sense to encourage them to aim for work which is fulfilling rather than grinding away in some mundane job?

The voluntary work that people do confers a massive benefit to society but because it is unpaid it is hidden

Everyone benefits from the unpaid work, those of us who are lucky enough to be highly paid depend on the work done by the mass of society for little or no money

The rich are free riding on the poor

Does anyone have a link to the comparable rates of employment for men?

The pt thing is just an indicator. I'm classed as part time, but i work just 3 hours less than my ft colleagues. I know plenty of people who are financially independent on a half decent professional pt wage working 28ish hours

I would love to know what SAHMs are doing about their pension. I’m sure there are some out there who have included it in the household budgeting but I’d bet a lot haven’t. Are they even making NI contributions for the state pension, let alone a private one on top ?

It’s one thing to be able to cope on one income when your DH is working but will you both be able to afford to live off his pension when he retires ?

I suspect there is a lot of old age poverty ahead for this group of women.

Also, I certainly don’t think those at the top of the tree earning the most are necessarily doing the most important work.
But you’re talking about small numbers in those highest positions

Thinking more broadly, having a career which earns a decent ‘middling’ income is more likely to be stimulating and rewarding than only having low paid menial work as an option

I agree that we should encourage our children to have fulfilling roles in society
the problem is there is just not enough fulfilling work to go round is there
Most of the work is grunt work that no one enjoys

We have encouraged children to go to university so that they will be qualified for stimulating and rewarding jobs
But now we have lots of people with debts from university fees and not enough stimulating or rewarding jobs available

JennyHolzers- another very worrying factor for women who don’t have their own pension provision is that statistically, women are likely to outlive their husband. So even if he had a good enough pension to support them both, she’ll be screwed if he dies first and she’s left with just the spouse proportion which is probably only going to be half of what they were living on.

word that's a myth - there are more graduate jobs than there are graduates.

I would love to know what SAHMs are doing about their pension. For the normal ones, who aren't those few living in the £5million mansions, the short answer is absolutely nothing I think. Most of us don't have room for savings nowadays, and even if we do savings haven't been worth pursuing for a while. This is why so many of the older generation have turned to property and become buy-to-letters: which then causes the housing shortage for the rest of us. And round and round we go. Somehow we have to break the cycle, but how... I suspect that the young generation now might do better, but the lower social groups among generation x have struggled and the millennials have it really bad.

Do you not think it is changing, although slowly? It will take decades to filter down , as the new generations enter the workforce.

I must live in a strange part of the word but the people we know have both people working; I know more SAHDs than SAHMs; I know a fair few women with higher salaries than their husbands; my closest female work friends have recently retired in their 50s on good packages from working so long for the company; maternity and paternity are split; men and women work flexibly to accommodate childcare; we have young female apprentices flowing through into our teachnical roles. Maybe it is the company I work for, who focus on families and flexibility that actually makes this happen, but I can see some changes starting.

hub yes! That's so important!

It should not be the case F1ame that SAH women pick up the pieces for burnt out husbands. Surely this means that it is even more important that the wives work so there is less pressure on high achieving husbands. As Hubanmao says, 'work is a fact of life' for most adults and women are disadvantaging themselves and their husbands by taking themselves out of the work place. Work should be the norm and then once this is recognised, you can deal with issues such as making it flexible and family friendly and hopefully work towards fairer remuneration for jobs that prop up the the workers (carers etc)

IceniSky, I share your optimism for the future : )

Iceni, yes you live in a strange part of the world. You're not in Scandinavia are you? Only that sounds like them, not the Britain that I know and hate.

My dad has a fantastic job in the city & my mum didn’t need to work but she did lots of courses eg upholstery, plumbing etc & maths & IT qualifications. She has/had a very good life & was a great mother but her biggest regret was that she realised too late in life that she would have loved to become an engineer & I think she would have been great at it. Maybe that’s another reason I want to continue to work.