What would happen if....

[Wheres Toto]

Yes, I'm sure the sudden rash of moms embroidering hand towels and selling them on Etsy will offset the economic crisis. Except you realize how little those business actually generate, right?

 

And go ahead and be condescending. It's not that I didn't "get" what you said. I just think what you said is absurd.

:iagree:

 

mainly because on a lot of other forums (and here too but not as much) you see many, many, many posts by moms trying to find a way to earn money while staying home and not succeeding. I guess we can have a society where women earn their money and get their social life by holding/attending an endless round of home parties selling useless crap that no one needs. Doesn't that sound like fun?:D

 

I also haven't seen anyone address the idea that some women are not comfortable with the idea of relying on someone else to support them their whole lives. Would women no longer go to college? Since they won't ever work, is it worth the time/expense put in? I would guess college costs would go up due to the increase demand for all those men to retrain in the jobs currently held by women? There wouldn't be space for a women who is just auditing courses for her own edification.

[smrtmama]

Only 70% of women are not working. Maybe 30% can do certain work that is deemed apporpriate...they can work at home during nap time, or write or paint in their garage offices while their (not toxic) mothers and MILs babysit and hs. Maybe they are post menopausal and the kids are grown. They can go back to work then. I can't see why you're having difficulty with something so simple as 70% of women out of the workforce.

 

I think it's great when husbands let you go back to work or school after your kids are grown. That's very benevolent of them. Some husbands don't let you go back at all!

[smrtmama]

:iagree:

 

mainly because on a lot of other forums (and here too but not as much) you see many, many, many posts by moms trying to find a way to earn money while staying home and not succeeding. I guess we can have a society where women earn their money and get their social life by holding/attending an endless round of home parties selling useless crap that no one needs. Doesn't that sound like fun?:D

 

I also haven't seen anyone address the idea that some women are not comfortable with the idea of relying on someone else to support them their whole lives. Would women no longer go to college? Since they won't ever work, is it worth the time/expense put in? I would guess college costs would go up due to the increase demand for all those men to retrain in the jobs currently held by women? There wouldn't be space for a women who is just auditing courses for her own edification.

 

It has been hard enough for me to find work from home in my field, and I hold a master's degree in that field. I can't imagine trying to support my family off my crafting (I make Waldorf dolls). It make about enough to pay for supplies and a little extra to spend on Christmas.

[*********]

More men would be gainfully employed and therefore better able to *properly* provide and care for their families.

 

:iagree:

[eaglei]

70% of women, who hold full-time jobs, left the work force?

 

 

Just for fun-what do you think would happen?

 

:lurk5:

 

The *vehemence* in some of this thread surprises me . . . maybe I misunderstood the original premise, but it sounded to me like:

 

1. 70% - not 100%

 

2. full-time jobs - not part time

 

3. left - the implication [to my mind] was by choice - not compelled

 

4. therefore, those leaving by choice would pursue that which interests them, which could include, e.g., working from home, or working part time outside the home; this does not preclude starting their own business as they would have left the *established* work force and taken their experience, etc., with them

 

5. having left by choice, they are exercising their freedom to make their own decisions and to continue making decisions regarding their own personal life/work

 

:001_smile:

[smrtmama]

The *vehemence* in some of this thread surprises me . . . maybe I misunderstood the original premise, but it sounded to me like:

 

1. 70% - not 100%

 

2. full-time jobs - not part time

 

3. left - the implication [to my mind] was by choice - not compelled

 

4. therefore, those leaving by choice would pursue that which interests them, which could include, e.g., working from home, or working part time outside the home; this does not preclude starting their own business as they would have left the *established* work force and taken their experience, etc., with them

 

5. having left by choice, they are exercising their freedom to make their own decisions and to continue making decisions regarding their own personal life/work

 

:001_smile:

 

The 70% is the percentage of women currently in the workforce. That 70% would all be leaving.

[LibraryLover]

I think it's great when husbands let you go back to work or school after your kids are grown. That's very benevolent of them. Some husbands don't let you go back at all!

 

 

And sometimes when you go mad they put you in the attic and woo a new women. Sometimes you can set that new woman on fire.

[Rivka]

I don't think it would double, just increase slightly and shift. We would lose some businesses in large numbers: restaurants, day cares, etc. University enrollment would drop by half of more, so they would be closing. The men employed in some of those industries would have to change careers. The women who were home wouldn't do nothing at all, so the men's work load wouldn't double.

 

We're also denying women access to education? :glare:

 

Something I left out of my original assessment: The divorce rate would plummet, not because marriages are happier but because women can't afford to leave. Many women who are being abused, or whose kids are being abused, wind up staying in the abusive situation because they can't support themselves if they leave. (It's safer to keep your kids in an abusive household than it used to be, because remember? No more social workers.)

 

Their kids grow up thinking it's normal for a man to hit a woman, or for a married couple to have screaming fights all the time, or for a married couple to barely speak at all.

 

Some women are able to get out of a bad marriage by latching on to a different male provider, but the odds are they won't be taking their kids with them.

[smrtmama]

And sometimes when you go mad they put you in the attic and woo a new women. Sometimes you can set that new woman on fire.

 

 

Wait. You mean that's not the way all marriages work? Shoot! I didn't know I dind't have to stay in the attic.

[patchfire]

Wait. You mean that's not the way all marriages work? Shoot! I didn't know I dind't have to stay in the attic.

 

I'm just so relieved MY attic is fully furnished, with a working HVAC unit.

[angela in ohio]

We're also denying women access to education? :glare:

 

I assumed if we had come to a point where women weren't allowed in the workforce that we were also assuming they wouldn't be college educated. Some would still go, but most would not. I know few women who go to college with any other intention than to get a job.

[angela in ohio]

And sometimes when you go mad they put you in the attic and woo a new women. Sometimes you can set that new woman on fire.

 

Leave it to homeschoolers on the WTM board to bring this 'round to classic lit. :D

[eaglei]

The 70% is the percentage of women currently in the workforce. That 70% would all be leaving.

 

Yes, 70% is the percentage of women now in the workforce - but - 70% OF the women leaving would be like . . . taking 70% out of that total number and 30% remain in the workforce . . .

 

I'm not expressing this very well . . .

 

Using small numbers for the sake of trying to clarify - if 70% is equal to 1000 women currently working full time, then 70% of that 1000 would be leaving [by choice] and 30% staying - so 700 leave and 300 stay.

 

This is how I interpreted it . . .:001_smile:

[kokotg]

Fine, send most of the men home.

 

 

 

To me, this has NOTHING to do with gender roles.

 

But that would be a very different thread. And one in which I imagine a lot more common ground could be found. The OP very deliberately DID make this thread about gender. General cultural shift emphasizing family and community over the marketplace? I'm all over that. That's not what the OP posted, though.

[angela in ohio]

Yes, 70% is the percentage of women now in the workforce - but - 70% OF the women leaving would be like . . . taking 70% out of that total number and 30% remain in the workforce . . .

 

I'm not expressing this very well . . .

 

Using small numbers for the sake of trying to clarify - if 70% is equal to 1000 women currently working full time, then 70% of that 1000 would be leaving [by choice] and 30% staying - so 700 leave and 300 stay.

 

This is how I interpreted it . . .:001_smile:

 

It's all in the commas in the original post, imho:

 

"70% of women, who hold full-time jobs, left the work force." means 70% of ALL women. So all the women who work full-time, which happens to be 70% of all the women there are working or not working, would be leaving the work-force.

 

70% of women who hold full-time jobs left the work force." means 70% of just those women who hold full-time jobs (leaving 30% still emplyed full-time.)

 

ETA: I never checked OP's statistics, just went with them. I just googled, and it appears that 60% of all women in the US are employed full-time, as of 2009.

Edited October 26, 2010 by angela in ohio

[Melinda in VT]

But that would be a very different thread. And one in which I imagine a lot more common ground could be found. The OP very deliberately DID make this thread about gender. General cultural shift emphasizing family and community over the marketplace? I'm all over that. That's not what the OP posted, though.

 

:iagree:

 

Many workers have gained work-life balance benefits due in part to more women in the workforce. Telecommuting, flex-time, and family leave exist in part because of the needs of families with employed women. And men benefit from those as well as women.

 

I would love to discuss general cultural shifts that would improve the quality of life. Personally, the best solution for our family would be two part-time employees, I think.

 

But I agree that the OP posted something entirely different and with which I could not disagree more vehemently.

[clarkacademy]

In the perfect world.. Kids would have dinner on the table everynight. Moms would suffer less depression, more family time, moms would be more involved and I think it would cut down alot of teen issues. Now in our world.. Welfare would become horribly overburdened because there is too much of a majority of men who don't take care of their kids which is why the mom had to work in the first place. I am not bashing it is a statement. I am not saying all men but the percentage is pretty big.

[justamouse]

The work load wouldn't go away either. So the men would be doing double the work, be more stressed, and probably spend less time with the family. Divorce rates would rise, suicides rates would probably increase in both men and women (some women aren't built to stay at home, some men aren't wired to be the sole provider), and our society would lose a lot of valuable contributors to the workforce.

 

Yeah, what fun. ;) I'd have to find a new pedi, a new dentist, a new ballet school, a new voice teacher, a new gyno, a new art tutor, a new language tutor. There would be about 10 teachers left at the high school my son attends. All the libraries would shut down. Several businesses I frequent would cease to exist. What happens in countries when women are forced to stay home? Are the countries stronger/better? Are families happier? Are people healtheir?

 

You are all mostly very scary people. You know that, right?

 

PS There would be no WTM books.

 

Yes, women should definitely quit their jobs so that men can be providers.

 

Excuse me while I go throw up a little at that completely sexist statement.

 

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

 

the whole economy would come to a crashing halt. Everything would come to a crashing halt. Stores would shut down, traffic would stop, schools would close, banking would shut down...seriously, there's a way to bring a county to it's knees and kill it.

 

And, wages would go up? Really? Like that's the right prescription for the malady? How about people get paid a living wage in the first place and the Lilly Ledbetter law doesn't have to be the first bill signed by Obama in 09?

Edited October 26, 2010 by justamouse

[eaglei]

Another poster questioned the definition of *workforce* so I decided to google it.

 

The Free Dictionary and Answers basically said the same thing:

 

1. The workers employed in a specific project or activity.

2. All the people working or available to work, as in a nation, company, industry, or on a project.

 

1. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) the total number of workers employed by a company on a specific job, project, etc.

2. (Economics) the total number of people who could be employed

 

Merriam Webster gave this:

 

1: the workers engaged in a specific activity or enterprise

2: the number of workers potentially assignable for any purpose

 

The second definition simply tickles me --- all the people available to work - who could be employed - potentially assignable --- so if those "available", or "could be", or are "potentially" - LEAVE the workforce (as stated in the OP) --- I can't even find the words as to why this particular definition strikes me as so funny . . . maybe because those who CHOOSE not to be in the workforce are, by this definition, still in the workforce :confused:

[justamouse]

The GDP would plummet. The US would drop many immigration barriers in a desperate attempt to prop up the economy and fill huge gaps in the workforce. Tax revenues plunge at the same time that there is a massive increase in the need for public assistance. Female-headed families become hungry and homeless in droves, and unfortunately there are very few social workers or professionally-run charities to assist them because the women who dominate those professions have all gone home.

 

Your husband will almost certainly get a big raise, but he'll also almost certainly be pressured to put in 80-hour weeks as his company tries to function with so many fewer workers. Don't expect to see him much. Don't expect his increased wage to improve your family's standard of living, either - in such a dramatic labor shortage, wages for jobs like supermarket checker and gas station attendant will have to go through the roof if those positions are to be filled, and so the prices of basic goods and services will skyrocket. Lots of US jobs will simply move overseas where there is plenty of cheap labor.

 

Hospitals are plunged into chaos with virtually no nurses; all elective procedures and routine care will need to be canceled while nursing training programs are hastily set up to train some of the new male immigrants in nursing. The death rate for hospital patients soars. Because things like mammograms, Pap smears, and colonoscopies are halted due to the need to prioritize on emergency medical services, the cancer rate climbs. If you have a relative in the hospital, be prepared to go and stay with that person yourself 24/7 to provide personal care, prepare and serve meals, administer meds according to the doctor's instructions, etc. If you need to go into the hospital and don't have someone able to sit with you, I hope you survive. There are no more midwives. Your options: unassisted childbirth at home or a virtually unattended (no L&D nurses) hospital birth in a criminally understaffed facility. Maternal and neonatal death rates soar.

 

At first it seems that elementary schools will have to close, but then they triple or quadruple class sizes so that male middle school and high school teachers can be spread out to cover all the grades. Parent volunteers fill in as best they can. Special needs students suffer the most; the vast majority of OTs, speech therapists, etc. are women, and those aren't jobs that can be taken over by volunteers.

 

By the time everything shakes out and we return to some degree of economic stability, 30% of American workers are permanent residents or new citizens born in a foreign country. The huge influx of immigrants is hard to assimilate; they're so critically needed that they must be welcomed, but U.S. culture returns to the atmosphere of New York City in 1900. Language barriers and lack of experience continue to depress the economy. There are nurses in the hospitals again, but they only speak rudimentary English and most of them are brand new. So the death rate doesn't exactly go back down again.

 

And, by the way: women who wanted to work and/or needed to work will not universally find joy in being a stay-at-home wife and mother. Especially not given the increased economic stress caused by soaring prices and the increased workload caused by the scarcity of service workers.

 

"Just for fun?" It would be a social and economic nightmare. An utter nightmare.

 

 

:iagree: Like I said the country would come to it's knees.

[LibraryLover]

I'm just so relieved MY attic is fully furnished, with a working HVAC unit.

 

Now all you have to worry about is the cute young thang he brings in to tutor the children.

 

Oh wait. It will be a guy tutor, most likely. Hmmm...maybe he would like to share the attic and the AC while dh is at work? Or maybe he's a predator...or worse yet, your dh is *outsourcing* his children's education! Why did he even have children if he wasn't going to take care of them?!

Edited October 26, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Daisy]

Maybe this is just an emotional question that expected an emotional response.

 

Honestly, if my husband was struggling to find employment, I can see wanting to ask this question. But it comes from an assumption that most women are the second earner in their family.

 

That just isn't the case for a huge percentage of the population.

 

The vast majority of the women who teach with my husband are single income earners (widows, divorcees, never married, abandoned, etc) and I imagine this is true for more than 30% of women working full-time.

 

Those women are not stealing jobs from men who want to work.

 

And if the question is asked on the basis of being a women in the workforce who wishes she didn't have to to work...I feel for you. But a better focus may be on the fact that thankfully you live in a society that doesn't prohibit you from contributing to your family's income on the basis of your gender.

[Tarreymere]

Ignoring for a moment the sexist and ridiculous notion of women taking jobs away from those poor, unemployed men who are apparently longing to be sole providers but are prevented from getting a job because of evil greedy women.......and assuming we live in a perfect universe where everyone gets married and marriages last forever.....

 

Maybe overall having less money we would spend less time buying 'stuff' in an effort to be happy and spend more time finding happiness at home with our families. Of course, the effect on the economy with less people buying 'stuff' would be horrible...But maybe it would settle out eventually that most people would find that they are happier with less 'stuff' and that most of the 'stuff' isn't that important after all....

 

But, I would rather have the option to kick a mate to the curb without worrying if my kids would starve, if he became abusive,or addicted, or harmed my children. I suppose, on reflection, that if I had to, being prevented from earning my own living, it would be better to be proactive and set HIM on fire, and collect the life insurance and live happily ever after.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Rainefox

[LibraryLover]

 

Those women are not stealing jobs from men who want to work.

 

QUOTE]

 

 

Exactly. Women are not 'stealing' jobs from anyone. They have their own jobs.

 

Some are good, some are fabulous, some feed families, some fulfill great passions, and some are terrible jobs that nobody wants to do-- just as they are for any worker.

Edited October 26, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Mejane]

Yeah, what fun. ;) I'd have to find a new pedi, a new dentist, a new ballet school, a new voice teacher, a new gyno, a new art tutor, a new language tutor. There would be about 10 teachers left at the high school my son attends. All the libraries would shut down. Several businesses I frequent would cease to exist.

 

Yup, this.

[Catherine]

to lower overall standards in every field and endeavor. It follows from simple economics-if you halve the number of potential employees, the standards will by necessity drop significantly, because you are drawing from a much smaller pool of people.

 

I am so sympathetic to those of us who are struggling financially, but I really don't believe women are to blame for men not being about to find work. One of the strongest factors in potential employability is academic achievement, so by homeschooling our sons with high standards, we are creating a powerful set of smart young men with good work ethics and potential to get a college education that will help them find and keep good jobs. It's no surprise that colleges now informally permit affirmative action for boys over girls-the numbers in many schools already favor girls significantly. Schools want at least even gender ratios in their classes so that means giving the boys a leg up on admissions.

[Parrothead]

More men would be gainfully employed and therefore better able to *properly* provide and care for their families.

Not necessarily.

 

If the women left the workforce prior to the crash/fall/recession I think there would still be a shortage of workers. The men that pretty much wanted to work were working.

 

Of course now there are men with a good work ethic out of work so the hole would be filled rather quickly.

 

 

I think if we go back to the previous model of the women staying home or only working as teachers, nurses or waitresses women will never again be taken seriously in this country.

 

I do believe in the family model is best for raising children. I think the best model all around would be for one parent to be home with the kids. I also think that parent does not have to always be mom. It could work very well with a stay a home dad in the picture or even mom and dad splitting the time. In order for that to happen though changes will have to be made at the core. Prejudices against dads will have to stop. The typical work week may have to change for mom and dad to split their time home.

[Tabrett]

Maybe we need more clarification. Are we talking about just married women with dc, or a total lack of any woman in the workforce? Will they be able to farm, teach from home, etc., or are they doing nothing at all to produce income?

Not women with part-time jobs-they stay working. Women who already stay home are not included in the 70%.

 

70% of of women who are PRESENTLY working full-time.

Remember that would leave 30% of the full-time, presently working women and all part-time working women.

 

Yes, women would be able to produce income. Just more part-time or work from home situations.

 

in 2009:

 

According to the Department of Labor

 

Women comprised 46.8 percent of the total U.S. labor force and are projected to account for 46.9 percent of the labor force in 2018.

 

Women are projected to account for 51.2 percent of the increase in total labor force growth between 2008 and 2018.

 

66 million women were employed in the U.S.—74 percent of employed women worked on full-time jobs, while 26 percent worked on a part-time basis.

 

So, if 46.8% of work force are women and of that 46.8%, 74% are full time that would mean +/- 36% of the jobs would become vacant? Or 36% of the current workforce would quit.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Tabrett

[LibraryLover]

I think the best model all around would be for one parent to be home with the kids. I also think that parent does not have to always be mom. It could work very well with a stay a home dad in the picture or even mom and dad splitting the time. In order for that to happen though changes will have to be made at the core. Prejudices against dads will have to stop. The typical work week may have to change for mom and dad to split their time home.

 

Now this I can back. I would love a Rethink about a whole new way to work and live *together*...I am all for that.

[In2why]

Yes, women should definitely quit their jobs so that men can be providers.

 

Excuse me while I go throw up a little at that completely sexist statement.

 

 

 

I agree....I feel like I am in the twilight zone. I love the options women have, and would fight to my dying breath to keep them for our daughters, and future generations. I don't want to ever need a man, and I don't want my daughter to ever need one. Want one...YES, need one....NO!

 

As for keeping men from having jobs???? I am literally speechless!

[In2why]

Schools would virtually shut down, since the vast majority of teachers are women.

 

 

Well it isn't like the girls would need an education, so we could just remove them from the schools to make up the difference.

[Daisy]

Not women with part-time jobs-they stay working. Women who already stay home are not included in the 70%.

 

70% of of women who are PRESENTLY working full-time.

Remember that would leave 30% of the full-time, presently working women and all part-time working women.

 

Yes, women would be able to produce income. Just more part-time or work from home situations.

 

in 2009:

 

According to the Department of Labor

 

Women comprised 46.8 percent of the total U.S. labor force and are projected to account for 46.9 percent of the labor force in 2018.

 

Women are projected to account for 51.2 percent of the increase in total labor force growth between 2008 and 2018.

 

66 million women were employed in the U.S.—74 percent of employed women worked on full-time jobs, while 26 percent worked on a part-time basis.

 

So, if 46.8% of work force are women and of that 46.8%, 74% are full time that would mean +/- 36% of the jobs would become vacant? Or 36% of the current workforce would quit.

 

Why would we want those women who are working full time to quit? That's what I'm not getting. Most women than I know who work full-time need to in order to support their families or themselves. It is typically the part-timers who are only supplementing an income.

 

I worked full-time for years before getting married & having children. Should I have just mooched off my parents all that time?

[Tabrett]

But women wouldn't be running small businesses. They wouldn't be in the workforce.

 

I never said women wouldn't be in the workforce. Please read my question carefully. I said 70% of FULL-TIME working women. 30% of full-time and all part-time worming women would stay the same.

 

THAT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE FROM ALL!

[Daisy]

I never said women wouldn't be in the workforce. Please read my question carefully. I said 70% of FULL-TIME working women. 30% of full-time and all part-time worming women would stay the same.

 

THAT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE FROM ALL!

 

So you are assuming that less than 30% of full-time working women NEED to work full-time?

[Tabrett]

The 70% is the percentage of women currently in the workforce. That 70% would all be leaving.

 

70% of working women, not 70% of the workforce.

[angela in ohio]

I never said women wouldn't be in the workforce. Please read my question carefully. I said 70% of FULL-TIME working women. 30% of full-time and all part-time worming women would stay the same.

 

THAT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE FROM ALL!

 

Well, this conversation was based on your original statement, so we had to go with what we had until you added more information. That's why I asked for clarificiation.

 

ETA: I wasn't going to get into the grammar more, because who wants to have to watch their commas so closely on a forum, but because you're being so insistent about it...

 

By putting commas around the modifier, you made it a nonrestrictive modifier. Your original didn't say that 70% of the full-time working women were leaving. If that's what you meant, fine, but you can't fault us for not understanding that.

Edited October 26, 2010 by angela in ohio

[Melinda in VT]

I never said women wouldn't be in the workforce. Please read my question carefully. I said 70% of FULL-TIME working women. 30% of full-time and all part-time worming women would stay the same.

 

THAT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE FROM ALL!

 

That might be what you meant, but that wasn't what your sentence actually said. ;)

 

If that was what you meant to say, you should have left the commas out.

[LibraryLover]

Why would we want those women who are working full time to quit? That's what I'm not getting. Most women than I know who work full-time need to in order to support their families or themselves. It is typically the part-timers who are only supplementing an income.

 

I worked full-time for years before getting married & having children. Should I have just mooched off my parents all that time?

 

 

Good questions.

[kiana]

I never said women wouldn't be in the workforce. Please read my question carefully. I said 70% of FULL-TIME working women. 30% of full-time and all part-time worming women would stay the same.

 

THAT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE FROM ALL!

 

Actually, you originally said '70% of women, who work full-time' which is ambiguous and could be read either as 'the 70% of women who work full-time' or '70% of the women who currently work full-time'.

 

Getting angry at people for misreading an ambiguous question seems odd -- I'd suggest editing your original post to read what you actually meant, otherwise you'll continue to receive such comments.

[FO4UR]

I think I would cry...that's what would happen.

 

There are tons of problems with our economy. Women are not the problem.

 

...says the daughter of a woman who was widowed young with 3 small dc to raise and worked HARD to provide an income. I am glad she didn't have to face a harsh sexist environment (nor forgo a decent wage for her time) to add insult to injury.

 

If 70% of women left the workforce, it would greatly diminish the quality of life for the 30% that stayed. Plus, I think the ones who could leave are likely the ones who want to work for personal fulfillment...and the ones who stay are mainly the ones who are there out of necessity, not want.

[LibraryLover]

Nonrestrictive modifier or no :) , this is pretty much the nitty gritty.

 

I think I would cry...that's what would happen.

 

There are tons of problems with our economy. Women are not the problem.

 

 

If 70% of women left the workforce, it would greatly diminish the quality of life for the 30% that stayed. Plus, I think the ones who could leave are likely the ones who want to work for personal fulfillment...and the ones who stay are mainly the ones who are there out of necessity, not want.

[Sophia]

Yes, 70% is the percentage of women now in the workforce - but - 70% OF the women leaving would be like . . . taking 70% out of that total number and 30% remain in the workforce . . .

 

I'm not expressing this very well . . .

 

Using small numbers for the sake of trying to clarify - if 70% is equal to 1000 women currently working full time, then 70% of that 1000 would be leaving [by choice] and 30% staying - so 700 leave and 300 stay.

 

This is how I interpreted it . . .:001_smile:

 

I read it this way as well.

 

I also did not think Tabrett was endorsing it, but wondering..."what if?" in a way others were contemplating a matriarchal society a few days back.

Of course, I didn't read that thread so don't know if the same amount of indignation was there...?

[Tabrett]

If I meant all, I would have said all. Why even state 70% if I meant all? I will admit grammar is not my strong point. If you would like for me to analyze an orchestral score, I can. Different people have different gifts. So be it.

 

I know many women who would love to be able to stay home and can't. Though it would be a fun thread.

 

I believe most women are FORCED into the workforce and many would love to be home with their dc.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Tabrett

[LibraryLover]

 

I believe most women are FORCED into the workforce and many would love to be home with their dc.

 

 

I think those women may be some of the ones working part -time. Most folks who really want and would love to be home with their kids try to make that work. Some of the mothers here are on WIC or other forms of government support to make that a reality. I am ok with that.

 

I also think a lot of women are home because they don't have marketable skills. I dont feel good about that one. Many women might make other choices (men, children, lifestyle) if they had more options.

Edited October 26, 2010 by LibraryLover

[mommaduck]

Yes, I'm sure the sudden rash of moms embroidering hand towels and selling them on Etsy will offset the economic crisis. Except you realize how little those business actually generate, right?

 

And go ahead and be condescending. It's not that I didn't "get" what you said. I just think what you said is absurd.

Wow, now who thinks so little of SAHM/WAHM's that they think that that is all they can produce :glare:

 

BTW, I believe we were discussing if they left by their own volition...not forced, as in having options (which we have very little of in this society).

[Perry]

nm

[Tabrett]

New question? What % of full-time working women would desire to leave the workforce if they new it would not cause financial hardship to their family?

By hardship I meant, needs would be taken care of but not all wants.

Wants being expensive clothes, expensive cars, pedicures, eating out regularly, ect...

[LibraryLover]

You should probably start a new thread with a new question.

 

Do you have issues with people wanting more than the basic of life? Are you a communist or something? lol

 

New question? What % of full-time working women would desire to leave the workforce if they new it would not cause financial hardship to their family?

By hardship I meant, needs would be taken care of but not all wants.

Wants being expensive clothes, expensive cars, pedicures, eating out regularly, ect...

Edited October 26, 2010 by LibraryLover

[FO4UR]

New question? What % of full-time working women would desire to leave the workforce if they new it would not cause financial hardship to their family?

By hardship I meant, needs would be taken care of but not all wants.

Wants being expensive clothes, expensive cars, pedicures, eating out regularly, ect...

 

 

To be blunt, our generation has had freedom to choose what we want to do with our lives. The women who are working out of the home are either working b/c they want to or b/c they have to. I can't think of any other reasons...and I don't think it's wise to deny either group the opportunity to work for a living.

[Wheres Toto]

I believe most women are FORCED into the workforce and many would love to be home with their dc.

 

Even if this were true, and I worked with a lot of women in 20 years of full time outside the home working and I'm just not sure, how would telling them they can no longer work, help? There would have to be a huge increase in social services to help those women who leave the work force but don't have the skills, or a man, to support them. Starting a new business, finding a new job can take a very long time and WAH jobs are even harder to find.

 

Your statement MAY be true for women of young children/babies but I knew a LOT of women who voluntarily returned to work when their kids went to school. They did not want to be full time housewives when their kids were gone most of the day.

 

Or do you think all these million of women would also decide to homeschool their children?