..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

almond yep. I'll just have to dig out the data but I'll get back to you

But by your argument F1ame, men too could be the ones to stay home so their children do not have to take part in wrap around care. If real change is to happen, there has to be a change in attitudes so that both partners are held equally responsible for childcare. It already happens in Scandi countries and it will eventually happen here too, particularly as more women are now going to university compared to men. Also, I am thinking about the women who give up work and never go back, even when their children are adults. That cannot be right.
However, it is not just the financial implications, but also the research that shows work is good for you. We cannot ignore that as a society.

Are we expected to do it all then? Be the same as men. Stop blaming women's lack of ambition or financial acumen. For many women, they want to be around to have babies and look after them full time, pick their DC from school, look after the home for the family. Is that of less worth/fulfillment than pushing paper 9-5. I'm all for opportunities for women, equal pay and what have you, but if you're ignoring that women are physically/emotionally different and driven by different things to men, you're not a feminist. Blame society and the patriarchy for leaving women vulnerable because they're guilty of doing what women have been doing for thousands of years, having babies and god forbid- raising them.

But women want men that 'do it all'. The ones that work hard to provide for their families and take equal responsibility in the home.

I’ve actually found the data for how many graduates there are and how many are in graduate jobs (between 50 and 60%) on the ONS website.

It doesn’t say how many unfilled graduate positions there are, but if you say there are more graduation positions than graduates, that would require there to be at least six million vacancies in the UK, which seems completely implausible.

Graduate, not graduation.

OP - YANBU

I know I am screwed if I divorced. I regret giving up my well paid job to look after 3 kids, I am trying to fix this, I work FT now but on average wage, it's too late to contribute enough to my pension pot to live comfortable without my husband's pot when retire. I am somehow less desirable at this age in my industry so I don't expect my salary will go up much, infact I probably be redundant soon or later.

I feel financially vulnerable even though I know I am in better situation than a lot of women here.

Equal opportunities, equal pay and what have you will only happen when women take equal financial responsibility for providing for their families and themselves.

If people want women to be financially secure many of the answers lie in building social housing, rent control, decent state pensions and banning zero hour or unnecessary low hour jobs.

I understand the feminist principle of course Windy. All I would say though, is that there will be many women reading this thread who are in the “non-working” or “part-time” category and they, like any other woman, know exactly why they are in this position. It is their life choice for whatever reason. So to read that you are a “worry” is slightly funny but also a bit irking, tbh. I realise you’re talking in a societal level obviously, but society is made up of individual women. Perhaps in different circumstances right now, you might be working PT or be a SAHM? Who knows really?

There are other ways to work for less and make loads.

I won't go in to it because that's what I do as a student and mum who can't receive state help as my partner earns too much. But I make a weeks worth of min wage or more just from my phone in a day. I'm able to save money for lots of different thngs including my future and my DDs.

Best for women to choose the right partner too. Too many men work full time and are not willing to sacrifice their careers to raise children alongside their partner.

Do you not think it's worrying that only 39% of women work full time? That means 61% of women are on a part-time income or none at all.

It's worry how many of us putting ourselves into vunerable situation.

That means 61% of women are on a part-time income or none at all
We don’t know what that part time income though. I work 3 days a week and my DH works FT. I earn more for those 3 days then he earns for his 5. Yes I could earn more but not everything is about money.
Quite possibly a lot of those PT workers are on low wages but it’s wrong to assume all are.

Perhaps in different circumstances right now, you might be working PT or be a SAHM? Who knows really?

F1ame, perhaps but probably only if there were surprise issues like health problems or problems with DC. I've always worked FT out of sheer need and having been a single parent for the last 5 years, have kept on going. I could have gone down PT or just given up altogether but I really didn't have the luxury of choice.

but if you're ignoring that women are physically/emotionally different and driven by different things to men

Is that actually true though? There are many, many women who want children but would prefer if the male raises them whilst they work. There are more sahd' s than ever before, which is a good thing.

Men are not incapable or less able to do the child rearing. If the woman is out of the picture the men won't have to find a female to raise the child, they can do it perfectly themselves.

We don’t know what that part time income though. I work 3 days a week and my DH works FT. I earn more for those 3 days then he earns for his 5. Yes I could earn more but not everything is about money.

Yup there will always be a small portion of women working p-time on a high income but these are the minority.

I think peoples expectations depend on their age. It's only recently that there were more options for part time work or flexibility. If you read MN you'd think it had always been the case, but say 20 years ago the picture was different.
YABU because

1. its not your problem
2. there's more to life than money

But what can you do if working doesn't help you out of poverty?

almond why 6 million vacancies???

Here is some of the data. This is the 2017 data. I've not had chance to get my head around the 2018 data yet.

• 38% of the adult population of the UK had a degree at the end of 2018
• 43.4% of the UK workforce has a degree or equivalent

-128,000 of UK graduates are working in a professional level job 6 months after graduating (71.3%)

• annual population survey showed that 14.47m people were working in professional level jobs in the UK - that's 45.3% of the workforce.
• data also shows that the UK added 298,100 new professional jobs last year.

The most common occupations for graduates are:
Nurses
Medical practitioners
Primary and nursery education
Marketing
business
Software development
Financial services
HR
Accounting
Pharmacists
Welfare and housing associates

That all adds up to a bouyant graduate labour market. There are some issues around how we define graduate and professional jobs which are currently being addressed by the sector so not sure what impact that will have on figures.

*end of 2017

Windy - I respect that you’re doing what you have to do. But, theoretically speaking, what would you do if you were married to a workaholic high-earner with multiple DC together. He travelled a lot, brought work home with him all the time, etc etc. High expectations generally. Your lifestyle, over the years, has become determined by his income which is many many multiples of anything you couid ever earn. Now there are several sets of school fees to pay, mortgages on properties and all sorts. Would you insist on keeping going full time to earn, for example, maybe £40k per year, or would you think, given the school fees and situation you have got yourself into as a family, that it actually makes more financial sense to support him make his millions or whatever because it means a totally different lifestyle and future for your DC?

You may think this is an extreme example, but it happens a lot, to a greater or lesser extent. There are principles, but then there is the economic reality when two people have very different earning potential, as often happens.

OK - So I don't work, haven't for 15 years. I worked FT and then PT for the first 15 years of my marriage and then gave up "depending" on my husbands income. Everything we have, everything we own is joint.

Over time we have each put monetary value into our marriage, more recently I have run house and home as he worked away. I have a very small crap pension, he has a large pension. In the event of him dying I get everything, in the event of a divorce I get half, including his pension. I can't see that anything here is an issue for me. My poor DH might feel a bit put out, but actually the financial outcome is better for me than for him.

That doesn't read right.....should read "I gave up work, and became dependent on my husbands income"

almond I should have also added that in 2017 there were 316,690 graduates.
Unemployment figures for graduates are at their lowest since 1989.

So, if there was nearly 300,000 new professional jobs created in 2017 on top of the jobs that already exist, and just over 300,000 new graduates this again is further evidence of a healthy graduate labour market.

Olderthanaverage - fair enough if you and your dh are happy with the arrangement of him working for big bucks and you not working at all.
But many men partner women who have equal or pretty equal earning power. Many couples meet at university or in the workplace; in fact I would imagine the majority of couples are fairly equally balanced in their abilities, qualifications and earning potential.
I can see how your set up would work if a man with very high earning potential partners a woman with very low earning potential - but I honestly don’t know many men in that situation. I guess some couples start off equal but over time the woman allows her career to slide and then you end up with a big disparity