Women and the pension poverty gap

Brie

I heard an interesting discussion on Radio 4's Woman's Hour this week about how women are disadvantaged in pension provision.  I'm not talking about the state pension issue but private and work pensions.

The R4 summary:
Over a third of women could face poverty in retirement due to a growing gender gap in private pensions, according to a report from Scottish Widows, with women's finances being hit by caring responsibilities and career gaps. YouGov carried out the reseach for the Scottish Widows annual Women and Retirement Report, asking 4,000 women from across the UK about their pensions and retirement planning, as well as savings, investments and career breaks. Nuala McGovern talks to Lily Megson-Harvey, the Policy Director of retirement finance company My Pension Expert.

Woman's Hour - The pension gap, Rape trial delays, Author Harriet Lane - BBC Sounds
(please be aware that some other issues discussed may cause distress)

And here's the report from Scottish Widow's
Women and Retirement Report 2025 - Lloyds Banking Group plc

I hope that men will read this as well as women as they effect many women's ability to get the pensions they need and deserve.  I say this also because I suspect there are more men than women on MSE in general and on the pension forum in particular.  Maybe I'm wrong.  But if you have women in your life that you care about it would be good to have a conversation about this.

Of particular note to me (as an ex work pension admin) is that some women on maternity leave are given less employer contributions than are legislated for, mostly due to employers not being aware (rather than being too cheap).  So it's essential to check that the correct contributions are being made.  

Grumpy_chap

I am mindful that it is difficult to comment on this without falling foul of the rules around political discussion.

However, I suppose if women have historically earned less while in work and possible also worked less hours / months / years in their career, then the outcome will be lower pension fund accrual.  As equality increases through the workplace, does that mean that the delta in pension provision will self-resolve?

It is also important not to generalise.  I have what I consider to be a good and well-rewarded job and very high portion of worked years.  My wife has a far lower paid administration job and fewer worked years.  A period of her working time was in an NHS pension where she accrued however many years of DB pension.  Her forecast retirement income will match or exceed mine, even though I am desperately seeking to make up prior years of underfunding to my DC pension at the maximum rates permissible.

p00hsticks

Grumpy_chap said:

However, I suppose if women have historically earned less while in work and possible also worked less hours / months / years in their career, then the outcome will be lower pension fund accrual.  As equality increases through the workplace, does that mean that the delta in pension provision will self-resolve?

I suspect that the main issue is not so much equality in the workplace, but outside it, as far more women than men take on the role of unpaid carers - either for growing children or elderly relatives - which restrict their job opportunities.

MyRealNameToo

Grumpy_chap said:

However, I suppose if women have historically earned less while in work and possible also worked less hours / months / years in their career, then the outcome will be lower pension fund accrual.  As equality increases through the workplace, does that mean that the delta in pension provision will self-resolve?

In theory but whilst laws have enabled greater equality gender bias in roles remains well and prospering. Leave for a new baby can now be shared rather than the mother having the right and the other parent just a token amount but uptake is low and in particular in lower earning families 

Women remain twice as likely to be part time workers than men, women are typically still seen as the carers of the family. There needs to be a much bigger shift in that before these issues go away but almost all media etc continue to reinforce the working dad, stay at home mum with any stay at home dad in a film or series often ridiculed or presented as an oddity. 

I'm not going to be brave enough to speculate if its simply more women want this role then men, that they are taking one for the team by allowing it to be them or something else but until it becomes as common for the "dad" to stay off work and the woman to go straight back to work after a baby etc then the situation won't fully resolve. 

westv

p00hsticks said:

Grumpy_chap said:

However, I suppose if women have historically earned less while in work and possible also worked less hours / months / years in their career, then the outcome will be lower pension fund accrual.  As equality increases through the workplace, does that mean that the delta in pension provision will self-resolve?

I suspect that the main issue is not so much equality in the workplace, but outside it, as far more women than men take on the role of unpaid carers - either for growing children or elderly relatives - which restrict their job opportunities.

I would imagine there are also a higher proportion of women than men in lower paid roles.

Albermarle

MyRealNameToo said:

Grumpy_chap said:

However, I suppose if women have historically earned less while in work and possible also worked less hours / months / years in their career, then the outcome will be lower pension fund accrual.  As equality increases through the workplace, does that mean that the delta in pension provision will self-resolve?

In theory but whilst laws have enabled greater equality gender bias in roles remains well and prospering. Leave for a new baby can now be shared rather than the mother having the right and the other parent just a token amount but uptake is low and in particular in lower earning families 

Women remain twice as likely to be part time workers than men, women are typically still seen as the carers of the family. There needs to be a much bigger shift in that before these issues go away but almost all media etc continue to reinforce the working dad, stay at home mum with any stay at home dad in a film or series often ridiculed or presented as an oddity. 

I'm not going to be brave enough to speculate if its simply more women want this role then men, that they are taking one for the team by allowing it to be them or something else but until it becomes as common for the "dad" to stay off work and the woman to go straight back to work after a baby etc then the situation won't fully resolve. 

I think the main issue is not really which gender is the breadwinner, but what happens if the marriage/partnership is poor or breaks up. That is when the real problems start.

bjorn_toby_wilde

Albermarle said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Grumpy_chap said:

However, I suppose if women have historically earned less while in work and possible also worked less hours / months / years in their career, then the outcome will be lower pension fund accrual.  As equality increases through the workplace, does that mean that the delta in pension provision will self-resolve?

In theory but whilst laws have enabled greater equality gender bias in roles remains well and prospering. Leave for a new baby can now be shared rather than the mother having the right and the other parent just a token amount but uptake is low and in particular in lower earning families 

Women remain twice as likely to be part time workers than men, women are typically still seen as the carers of the family. There needs to be a much bigger shift in that before these issues go away but almost all media etc continue to reinforce the working dad, stay at home mum with any stay at home dad in a film or series often ridiculed or presented as an oddity. 

I'm not going to be brave enough to speculate if its simply more women want this role then men, that they are taking one for the team by allowing it to be them or something else but until it becomes as common for the "dad" to stay off work and the woman to go straight back to work after a baby etc then the situation won't fully resolve. 

I think the main issue is not really which gender is the breadwinner, but what happens if the marriage/partnership is poor or breaks up. That is when the real problems start.

Or when the higher earning partner predeceases the lower earning partner

SarahB16

MyRealNameToo said:

Grumpy_chap said:

However, I suppose if women have historically earned less while in work and possible also worked less hours / months / years in their career, then the outcome will be lower pension fund accrual.  As equality increases through the workplace, does that mean that the delta in pension provision will self-resolve?

In theory but whilst laws have enabled greater equality gender bias in roles remains well and prospering. Leave for a new baby can now be shared rather than the mother having the right and the other parent just a token amount but uptake is low and in particular in lower earning families 

Women remain twice as likely to be part time workers than men, women are typically still seen as the carers of the family. There needs to be a much bigger shift in that before these issues go away but almost all media etc continue to reinforce the working dad, stay at home mum with any stay at home dad in a film or series often ridiculed or presented as an oddity. 

I'm not going to be brave enough to speculate if its simply more women want this role then men, that they are taking one for the team by allowing it to be them or something else but until it becomes as common for the "dad" to stay off work and the woman to go straight back to work after a baby etc then the situation won't fully resolve. 

I completely agree with this (the text in bold) and unfortunately for women who have absolutely no desire whatsoever to have children if they are of a certain age (25-40ish) employers quite often, incorrectly, presume they may wish to have children, take maternity leave and then wish to return on a part time basis.  

So yes until there is less gender bias in terms of who may take this role it will continue to negatively impact on women's career prospects (even for the ones who do not wish to have children).   

As an aside I was only recently made aware that women could get mortgages in their own name without a male guarantor in 1975! Seems far too recent in my view as this should have happened decades before.  Society is improving but unfortunately too slowly for my liking so it is on all of us to try our very best to improve the situation for those around us who are suffering (women's careers and men wising to look after their children/stay at home dads) due to this inequality but also for the future generations to come too.  

DRS1

SarahB16 said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Grumpy_chap said:

However, I suppose if women have historically earned less while in work and possible also worked less hours / months / years in their career, then the outcome will be lower pension fund accrual.  As equality increases through the workplace, does that mean that the delta in pension provision will self-resolve?

In theory but whilst laws have enabled greater equality gender bias in roles remains well and prospering. Leave for a new baby can now be shared rather than the mother having the right and the other parent just a token amount but uptake is low and in particular in lower earning families 

Women remain twice as likely to be part time workers than men, women are typically still seen as the carers of the family. There needs to be a much bigger shift in that before these issues go away but almost all media etc continue to reinforce the working dad, stay at home mum with any stay at home dad in a film or series often ridiculed or presented as an oddity. 

I'm not going to be brave enough to speculate if its simply more women want this role then men, that they are taking one for the team by allowing it to be them or something else but until it becomes as common for the "dad" to stay off work and the woman to go straight back to work after a baby etc then the situation won't fully resolve. 

I completely agree with this (the text in bold) and unfortunately for women who have absolutely no desire whatsoever to have children if they are of a certain age (25-40ish) employers quite often, incorrectly, presume they may wish to have children, take maternity leave and then wish to return on a part time basis.  

So yes until there is less gender bias in terms of who may take this role it will continue to negatively impact on women's career prospects (even for the ones who do not wish to have children).   

As an aside I was only recently made aware that women could get mortgages in their own name without a male guarantor in 1975! Seems far too recent in my view as this should have happened decades before.  Society is improving but unfortunately too slowly for my liking so it is on all of us to try our very best to improve the situation for those around us who are suffering (women's careers and men wising to look after their children/stay at home dads) due to this inequality but also for the future generations to come too.  

Presumably you would be surprised that the Equal Pay Act is from 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act is from 1975?

Then again the Married Women's Property Act does go back to 1870.

Cus

Interesting topic, with many angles and perspectives.

If this thread is to remind men on this forum that they should be aware that their female partner is likely to have had their 'own' pension provisions impacted by life events that are often gender biased then fair enough.

A common thread topic on this forum, from married men, is how to maximise the tax benefits of their female partner, so that's a good sign.

I would like to think that in a balanced relationship the provisional pension share between the couple is merely academic as it's the total available to both that actually matters. That's my view.

Of course when things go wrong in the relationship then often the women then identify they have limited provision in their name. Hopefully that is evenly rectified when legally settled.

Ps-women get to be able to grow and give birth to children, a biological advantage that poor men cannot enjoy.  They had to go to work instead.

The last comment is of course a little tongue in cheek..

Brie

@Cus
thank you for the interesting take on things..    

on a serious point - not all women procreate but get treated by some employers as if they're about to pop out a quick dozen or two.    Sigh.