Why don't men complain?

DairyQueen

xylophone wrote: »

But here (given the ages of the spouses involved), is an unusual situation....

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-7555243/Can-husband-claim-state-pension-wifes-NI-record.html

Very unusual. I suspect that had this been more commonplace it would have been addressed decades ago. Suffice to say that there are many, many more women than men in a position of dependency in old age courtesy of the assumptions that Steve Webb describes.

lisyloo

DairyQueen wrote: »

(not 'choice' lisyloo)

At the end of post #23 I acknowledged that it was not a choice in the past.

Now it’s a choice as social services are available (I understand that some people may want still want to provide care themselves).

DairyQueen

lisyloo wrote: »

At the end of post #23 I acknowledged that it was not a choice in the past.

Now it’s a choice as social services are available (I understand that some people may want still want to provide care themselves).

I won't hijack this thread on the subject of adult social care. Suffice to say that for many people in many situations their experience is somewhat different from your's. 4 x 15 minute visits are not enough to maintain the basic dignity of existence for those who suffer severe disability. Residential care (for decades in some cases) will not provide reasonable quality of life for some.

My 'choice' was to sacrifice my career or support my dad in keeping my severely disabled mum out of residential care (and I mean the LA-funded variety) for as long as possible. Without her family my mother would have required state-supported care from her early 60s (she has primary progressive MS). She would not have adapted well. My dad would have been miserable. Mr DQ was able and willing to support me. However, he would not have been willing to provide the care my mother needed in order that I could continue working in order to support him. This contrast with my aunt by marriage's experience as she took on the care of my grandmother as my uncle (her son) was not willing to do so.

Please don't assume that everyone's experience mirrors yours. For some people the obligation to provide care is an imperative. I am no saint or martyr (and tbh this is not my choice). However, I was in a position where I could provide the support that my mother needed to maintain her and my father's quality of life. I anticipate that the 'payback' will be after they die. At least I will know that I was instrumental in maintaining their quality of life for as long as possible. I will be able to sleep at night knowing this. I'm not sure my conscience could have withstood the alternative.

Each to their own.

zagfles

lisyloo wrote: »

I totally agree in theory,
There’s a practical issue with employer pensions though.

I’ve had 6 employers, of which only one (a very small startup) was prepared to let me do what I wanted with my pension pot and that was mostly to do with the fact that they were too small to set up a scheme (would probably be easier now than the 90s).
All other employers have insisted I use their pension scheme, presumably for their ease.

Also tax wise you can only get personal tax relief and NI relief on your pension. This is individual.

Also isn’t it fair to say that people could already split their money privately if they wanted to (playing devils advocate to a degree).
A working partner can currently give a spouse money tax free and they can have a fair split on divorce.
The above comment on tax/NI still applies though.
My point is that there is nothing stopping a couple being fair with their own money right now and I’m sure many are.

I think you've missed the point. The point is that couples do generally pool money, but that should be formalised, recognising the value of parents who look after their children, so enabling women who look after the children to get paid and get a pension in their own right.

For example, say I earn £40,000. We have our first child, my wife gives up work and after maternity pay, has no income.

I say to my employer, I want you to pay me £20,000 and my wife £20,000. For all purposes, payroll, tax, pensions etc, I now have a salary of £20,000 and so does my wife. My wife is just like another employee of the company, including pension. So she can build up a pension exactly as if she worked for the company earning £20k.

It'll cause a bit of an admin burden on the company, and obviously wouldn't be allowed under current law, but if it were it would be a way to far greater equality in pay and pensions, and formally recognise the value of the best form of childcare.

zagfles

DairyQueen wrote: »

Do you mean gender equivalent pay isn't significantly lower amongst younger women? If so, I haven't seen any stats to that effect. Could you provide a link?

Certainly, from the ONS, see fig 2:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/genderpaygapintheuk/2018
"The gender pay gap for full-time employees is close to zero for those aged between 18 and 39 years"
Also for part time employees under 50 it seems women are paid more!

Assuming that this is the case, and assuming that 'younger women' are defined as those under 40, the impact of taking time out to provide care compounds over time. The consequence being that: "Women’s pension wealth is 51% of men’s pension wealth by their late 50s". The biggest factors identified are: 1) working patterns and 2) (lower) lifetime salary. The latter being the result of 1) and also of the gender pay gap - which becomes worse with age because of, yep, 1). See here.

Indeed. No argument there. What do you think of my "solution" in my PP?

I do indeed suggest that testosterone levels are a factor in risk-taking behaviours. Not the only factor but significant. However, I don't believe that 'risk-taking', whether or not the result of hormones, contributes to male advantage in the workplace. Nor do I believe that testosterone is linked positively to 'assertiveness', nor that this trait has any link to career success or higher pay.

None at all? Even in jobs like, say, firefighters, soldiers etc? Risk taking is also stuff like speaking up in meetings, where you could possibly risk making a fool of yourself, but could also mean you get noticed. I'm not saying it's a major effect, but it could contribute a few % to the gender pay gap, considering it seems to contribute 2000% to the prison population gap. Minus any discrimination in the court system.

'Lack of assertiveness' was an over-used justification for paying women less in the late 20th century. Assertiveness adds zero to an individual's skills or productivity. Assertiveness is not a trait required by either gender in order to discuss increases in pay, manage people or projects, make decisions, analyse information, create and design, set objectives, start one's own business, teach, sell, form ideas and implement them, etc.

We were taught "assertiveness" at the graduate training I did in the 80's! It was very much a required behaviour.

'Focusing on' one's career is a luxury often denied those with caring responsibilities.

Well of course.

Nothing whatsoever to do with 'assertiveness' or, ahem, 'testosterone'. Simply a question of the number of hours available to devote to one's career/work. You miss the point that males are still more likely to focus on their career because there is a female taking care of their children and/or their elderly parents.

I didn't "miss" that point, I made it!! Several times in this thread!

Ironically, increasingly the family member who relieves career/work-focused women of childcare isn't their domestic partner but their mother/mother-in-law.


It's actually 18%

Age adjusted?

and hormones play zero part in the gender pay gap.

Any evidence for this? Do you not think hormones play a part in women wanting to take time off to look after children? Do really you think hormones result in massive differences in stuff like prison population, suicide rates etc but none whatsoever in other areas of life, like employment, career choices etc?

Apparently not. It seems that men who are able to gain custody of their children then rely on a woman to care for them. A new partner becomes the carer or their mother steps-in.

That's likely to be because virtually the only men who do get custody of their children in the sexist family courts system are not the ones who want to be a stay at home parent, but ones who have a violent, abusive, or incapable partner. Who usually wouldn't provide the financial support required for him to be able to be a stay at home parent.

People talk about "deatbeat dads" who don't pay child support, well female "non resident parents" are far less likely to pay child support than male NRPs.

So, women are now becoming disadvantaged at both ends of their working lives. They are providing care for their (or partner's) children when they are younger or caring for their grandchildren and/or parents when in their 50s/60s.
Grandparents providing childcare is a recent phenomenon. The expectation is that women should have equal work/career opportunities but men are not compromising in order that they may do so. The compromises are made by older generations of... women. Increasing longevity means that women in their 50s/60s are also caring for elderly parents for longer.

So paying them in the way I described in my PP, ie salary sharing, is good idea then? No reason not to extend it to other forms of caring.

I did not suggest that societal discrimination should be addressed by implementing discriminatory legislation. What I am suggesting is that women are so far behind men in overall pension provision that removing the one aspect of legislation that discriminated in their favour will simply exacerbate the profound inequality of outcome on total retirement provision (SP and non-SP). Addressing age differences in SP that favour women makes zero difference to the massive difference in non-SP provision which has not been addressed.

It is addressed in various ways, eg informal sharing (my wife will have a much smaller pension than me, but we pool our money), and more formal sharing (eg pension sharing on divorce). A woman who has taken time out to look after kids will likely rely on the resources of her partner, ex partner, or late partner. I know a widows who hasn't needed to work since she was 40, because she can live comfortably on her late partner's pension.

But I think more formal voluntary sharing could address the problem better, as described in my PP.

So, I understand the satisfaction that men (and many women) express at the removal of the SP age advantage previously afforded women. However, there seems to be a policy of silence that, despite this, and despite their higher longevity, women receive lower SP weekly and over their lifetimes. Yes, the nSP will address much of that disparity in time. It will, however, take decades as the legacy of lower earnings/NI contributions applies to all cohorts of women in transition and who retired under the oSP. There is also an inverse correlation between female age and SP. Her age in 2016 will determine the likelihood of her receiving the same SP as a male of her age. The older she was then, the greater the likely disparity.


There also seems to be a general reluctance to acknowledge that the (much higher) non-SP pension advantage enjoyed by men is actually increasing.

It's easy to support revocation of one discriminatory law when this is viewed out of context. The context being that women were already receiving less lifetime SP than men despite receiving it for 5 years longer.

5 years plus the life expectancy difference. Don't forget that!

It is much more difficult to address the fundamental causes of the large disparity in non-SP pension income.

It isn't. I've just described a method I think will go a long way towards that.

It seems to me that we are cherry-picking to appease those who want to believe that pension gender inequality is now addressed. We can all tick that off the list as, in a few decades, women will be receiving the same SP as men. Indeed, they may receive more over their lifetimes by the end of the century courtesy of 2.2 (or more) extra years of life. So what are older women caught in transition (and who will be dead before this nirvana comes about) whinging about?

...while travelling in First class quaffing champagne? Sorry

IMHO addressing the non-SP disparity is the real long-term challenge. The answer isn't for grandmothers to take over the care of their grandchildren. This will just delay the point at which pension gender inequality begins. I'm sorry guys (and I mean 'guys') but you need to make some concessions and consider that having children (or elderly parents) means that your's may be the career that is interrupted or abruptly ended.

That's fair enough. When we decided to have children, we were both firmly of the view that we will not be dumping them in childcare at 6 months of age. That meant one of us would have had to give up work temporarily. I would have been perfectly happy to, the only reason it was my wife was because she earned a lot less. Having breasts helped as well, but wasn't the major issue.

Also I worked shifts, which is great with pre-school children because I could take them to all the activities like tumbletots, soft play centres, jo jingles etc, I even used to gatecrash the local mothers and toddlers groups.

I really feel sorry for fathers who miss out on all this sort of stuff, especially those who find they have to work extra overtime etc to make up for the loss of their wife's income, so they see even less of their children.

Mind you when they become teenages it's any excuse to work late

I will now don my tin hat and duck.

No need. It's not DT, we're all quite civilised here

Terron

Deleted as point made in another post

ArcticRoll

I understand the argument that we should make allowances based on raising kids, caring for elderly relatives etc. I don't understand the argument that it should only be for women that we make these allowances.

That seems to be the argument.

It seems to be that in a mixed-sex couple where one partner has taken time out to care for the children or look after elderly relatives then as long as that person is female then considerations as to the SPA should be made. If in a mixed-sex couple of the person who has undertaken the above is male no considerations as to SPA should be made. In a same-sex couple where both partners are male then regardless as to the historical social or economic disadvantage, how long as taken out to stay at home to look after the kids or no matter how long either or both of the couple had to put their careers on hold to care for elderly relatives, no allowances in regards to the state pension age should be made.

It isn't a terribly noble cry is it, that people's individual circumstance should be taken into account when assessing the state pension age - but only if look like me?

ArcticRoll

I've also never got why we had a state pension age that took into account historical, and general, disadvantages in terms of work place opportunity, discrimination and earnings potential of one group but completely ignored it for groups such as ethnic minorities, homosexuals and disabled people.

It seems that there wasn't much concern for them even though the similar or, in many cases, the same arguments could be used to suggest those who fall under this group should be disproportionately compensated in regards to the state pension age and benefits.

When you break it all down and look at how there existed and still exists absolutely no real interest in other social groups similar workplace discrimination, no interest in taking other people's child/elderly relative career breaks other than women's, the argument really boils down to: I should retire early...because I'm a woman.

They'd be happy for a black, disabled, gay man who took a 10 year career break in his 30s to raise his kids and a 5 year career break in his 50s to care for his ailing parents, to be told that he should still retire 5 years later than a white, able-bodied, heterosexual woman with no kids and rich parents fortunate to pay for their own care, because of her 'disadvantage' that they suddenly want the state to consider .

You can't propose such a situation, or even back the continuation of a law that would lead to that situation and not expect to get doubting looks when you suggest you're doing so out of a sense of fairness.

colsten

ArcticRoll wrote: »

the argument really boils down to: I should retire early...because I'm a woman.

That's it, you got it in one!

A substantial part of the rationale behind it is that we were, allegedly, discriminated against all our lives and therefore have deserved some sort of recompense. As a woman, I find this rationale entirely counterproductive. It suggests we are cheap enough to endure and accept a lifetime of discrimination in return for a measly £48,000, or however much individuals believe they have been denied. How ridiculous would that be?? Simplistically, that would be £1,200 a year over a 40 year working life, £100 a month? I mean - really?

Asking for women to be positively discriminated against when it comes to state pensions nurtures the idea that women are always unequal birth machines, weak, only good for earning less than men and to do jobs men don't want to do. It does absolutely nothing towards getting to actual equality. Would this be a reason why some men are supporting the WASPI idea, and would be quite happy to grin and bear when it comes to different state pension ages for men and women?

spadoosh

DairyQueen wrote: »

I'm older than my natural teeth and very much older than my dental implants

I'm delighted that you can report a high percentage of female breadwinners but the stats suggest this is atypical even for your age group. Of the same-age couples that you know with children are 90% of the men the primary carer? Who gave up working, or now works part-time, or has changed career, or earns relatively less, since junior came along?

I would be delighted if you report that things are changing.

For the record, I am 60 and child-free. I had a successful career and am fortunate to have accrued a decent pension before the carer obligation (not 'choice' lisyloo) threw me a curved ball.

I am of an age to have now known five generations of working women. I recall the experience of my grandmothers very clearly and am now witnessing the working lives of my stepdaughters and the grandchildren of my friends and cousins.

Educational opportunities for women have equalised during my lifetime but women still earn less than men on average and work less years. They accrue far less pension. Their jobs and careers still take a backseat to childcare and the consequences compound over the years.

Little has changed and little will change until both men and women share responsibility for earning and for childcare.

As I hope I have made clear, I am not pro discriminatory legislation. I am, however, against targeting the one aspect of pension legislation that favours women without addressing the fundamental issues that have created such an obvious inequality of pension outcome in favour of men.

Accident of fate (no children and entering IT in its infancy) meant that my experience was atypical. There is no way that I would have the pension I have now if I had children.

Women without benefit of good incomes for reasonably long periods suffer disproportionately. It's those women whom I see as the casualties of the pension age increase. Personally, I am happy to receive my (full) state pension at the same age as men. I have known about the increase since the 1990s. I have benefited from the nSP as I was contracted-out for a period. I have nothing to complain about. Many more women will now wait for x years to receive a pension that is substantially lower than the male age-equivalent. Many were ignorant of the increase. Amazing as this seems I know many retired, intelligent women who were unaffected by the increase and are still ignorant of it. The whole issue has passed them by. If it was so well-publicised why on earth have these women failed to register something so momentous?

Either we want equality, or we don't. That means equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Right now, and regardless of age, typically, neither gender has either. Men do not have the opportunity to be the primary carers of their children, women don't have the opportunity to earn as much income/pension as men. The latter situation is well-documented whilst the former is marginalised. Arguably, women have a lifelong advantage in their relationship with their children.

I definitely want equality but not at the expense of equality of outcome. I am not a communist. Equality of outcome kills competition. You kill competition you kill development. You kill development, you might as well fully embrace nihilism. Its a race to the bottom.