WASPI - Women Against State Pension Inequality

LittleVoice

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

A very high proportion of working women in the 60s, 70s and even 80s were not in professional jobs, and sat in rows in open plan offices typing dull things all day, or worked on factory assembly lines doing jobs that are now done by machines. They were not well paid, so it is unfair to suggest that all working women of the era had the chance to build up their own retirement provision. Those bright enough and lucky enough to get to university and leave with a good degree could expect to progress through the ranks of their chosen profession, but these were a minority in those days. Even in my (girls only) grammar school, unless exceptionally bright, we were steered towards catching a good husband and a life of domesticity.

I only aspired to a reasonably comfortable retirement myself due to not having the good fortune to have children, so as one of the aforementioned lowly office workers I worked full time from age 17 until nearly 51, when my parents required my care. There were not the promotion opportunities for everyone, as for every junior manager there were probably a dozen typewriter bashers, who couldn't all work their way up the ladder, and it wasn't that sort of culture anyway, as managers tended to be recruited externally.

Also not having children meant more disposable and saveable income, which coupled with our fairly frugal lifestyle gave us a bit of security for our post-working lives.

I was lucky enough to become eligible for my SRP at 61 and 10 months, and I do feel sorry for my sister who is less than two years younger than me but will not receive hers until she's nearly 66, so I'm not unsympathetic with those caught in the wrong time frame. However my SRP is and will remain about £35 a week less than the new "universal" pension, so it's swings and roundabouts.

A very high proportion of working men in the 60s, 70s and even 80s were not in professional jobs,

missbiggles1

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

A very high proportion of working women in the 60s, 70s and even 80s were not in professional jobs, and sat in rows in open plan offices typing dull things all day, or worked on factory assembly lines doing jobs that are now done by machines. They were not well paid, so it is unfair to suggest that all working women of the era had the chance to build up their own retirement provision. Those bright enough and lucky enough to get to university and leave with a good degree could expect to progress through the ranks of their chosen profession, but these were a minority in those days. Even in my (girls only) grammar school, unless exceptionally bright, we were steered towards catching a good husband and a life of domesticity.

I only aspired to a reasonably comfortable retirement myself due to not having the good fortune to have children, so as one of the aforementioned lowly office workers I worked full time from age 17 until nearly 51, when my parents required my care. There were not the promotion opportunities for everyone, as for every junior manager there were probably a dozen typewriter bashers, who couldn't all work their way up the ladder, and it wasn't that sort of culture anyway, as managers tended to be recruited externally.

Also not having children meant more disposable and saveable income, which coupled with our fairly frugal lifestyle gave us a bit of security for our post-working lives.

I was lucky enough to become eligible for my SRP at 61 and 10 months, and I do feel sorry for my sister who is less than two years younger than me but will not receive hers until she's nearly 66, so I'm not unsympathetic with those caught in the wrong time frame. However my SRP is and will remain about £35 a week less than the new "universal" pension, so it's swings and roundabouts.

But we're discussing state pension provision on here so the question of occupational and private pensions is irrelevant.

I'm a couple of years older than you and your description of attitudes an a girls' grammar school bears no relation to my own experience. Those who left at 16 (usually to do secretarial courses) were considered to have dropped out (only 1 out of 90 left at 15!) and about 80% went on to university/college of education/nurse training at 18. The subjects of marriage and children were never discussed - the assumption was that we would all have careers.

Bogof_Babe

LittleVoice wrote: »

A very high proportion of working men in the 60s, 70s and even 80s were not in professional jobs,

But the pay rates for men were generally a fair bit higher, as it was the norm for many wives to be supported in the home while bringing up their families. Besides, "trades professions" like plumbers could command quite decent wages, more so if they worked for themselves, and in those days not so many woman chose those type of jobs.

missbiggles1 wrote: »

But we're discussing state pension provision on here so the question of occupational and private pensions is irrelevant.

I'm a couple of years older than you and your description of attitudes an a girls' grammar school bears no relation to my own experience. Those who left at 16 (usually to do secretarial courses) were considered to have dropped out (only 1 out of 90 left at 15!) and about 80% went on to university/college of education/nurse training at 18. The subjects of marriage and children were never discussed - the assumption was that we would all have careers.

Okay . I was one of the 16-year-old drop-outs (no aptitude for exams, no self-motivation for study, and too interested in the boys ). I then went to what was in those days called a Technical College and did a Business Studies course, because my friend at the time was doing one. So I can't speak for all my contemporaries, although several did become pregnant in their late teens!

Yes I do have regrets, but knowing me I would do exactly the same again if I was that pupil again .

MoneyWorry

I was also one of those who left at 16 due to my parent's poverty and they needed a salary bringing into the house. I've had all those low paid office jobs, worked my way up and am now lowish paid again, lol. Am 54 now and still working so I've earned my State Pension. In addition however I've always put tiny amounts (some which would make this Board laugh) into a personal pension, as a lot of my employers did not have schemes. Currently, am forecast at 6800 pa at 61 plus another 2200 at 65 with a mortgage planned to be paid off at age 59. Thus you see my impatience with this campaign. You don't need to be rich, privileged or university educated to work out that you need to provide for yourself when older.

missbiggles1

MoneyWorry wrote: »

I was also one of those who left at 16 due to my parent's poverty and they needed a salary bringing into the house. I've had all those low paid office jobs, worked my way up and am now lowish paid again, lol. Am 54 now and still working so I've earned my State Pension. In addition however I've always put tiny amounts (some which would make this Board laugh) into a personal pension, as a lot of my employers did not have schemes. Currently, am forecast at 6800 pa at 61 plus another 2200 at 65 with a mortgage planned to be paid off at age 59. Thus you see my impatience with this campaign. You don't need to be rich, privileged or university educated to work out that you need to provide for yourself when older.

I completely agree.

My mum left school at 13 and went into domestic service, did cleanng when I was small and then very basic office jobs for the last years of her working life but she (and my dad) both took low paid jobs in the public sector on the strength of the pensions they'd get when they retired because she knew how important that would be for them in retirement.

She also paid the "married woman's stamp" but, unlike many others who now claim ignorance of the fact, was fully aware that she wouldn't qualify for her own pension but the cash was needed at the time. Another example of how some manage to remain in ignorance of commonly known facts, when it suits them!

MoneyWorry

And that was such a good decision on their part. The funny thing is if the forecasts stay true (fingers crossed) and I get a "flat" rate state pension at 66 and 8 months (will not accrue till I'm 64 because of personal pension contracting out ), I will have more disposable income than I do now!!!

jem16

MoneyWorry wrote: »

And that was such a good decision on their part. The funny thing is if the forecasts stay true (fingers crossed) and I get a "flat" rate state pension at 66 and 8 months (will not accrue till I'm 64 because of personal pension contracting out ), I will have more disposable income than I do now!!!

You should be able to get your foundation amount soon so you'll know where you are.

Mr_Costcutter

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

Those bright enough and lucky enough to get to university and leave with a good degree could expect to progress through the ranks of their chosen profession, but these were a minority in those days.

My wife reports the same. She also attended a girls' grammar school and statistics from that school show that only 8% actually progressed to university. This would have been in 1974.

MoneyWorry

In November, Jem. I did get a forecast a year ago that said £119, but that would have been accrued under old rules.

jem16

MoneyWorry wrote: »

In November, Jem. I did get a forecast a year ago that said £119, but that would have been accrued under old rules.

With that quote, you have obviously been contracted out for quite a bit. I think you'll find that the £119 will be much higher than the new rules will give you and that will be your foundation amount.