Women and the pension poverty gap

SarahB16

westv said:

SarahB16 said:

DRS1 said:

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.

No just appalled at how recent this all is. I'm thinking back to when I bought my house with a mortgage in my own name and only a couple or so decades earlier I would have required a male guarantor or heaven forbid a husband! 

It's within living memory when female civil servants had to resign when they married.

Thankfully times are changing but even from reading some of the comments on this thread it can be seen that some people's views haven't really moved on (some comments seem more appropriate for the 1950s). Thankfully we now live in a more diverse and equal society but we're not there yet.  

westv

SarahB16 said:

westv said:

SarahB16 said:

DRS1 said:

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.

No just appalled at how recent this all is. I'm thinking back to when I bought my house with a mortgage in my own name and only a couple or so decades earlier I would have required a male guarantor or heaven forbid a husband! 

It's within living memory when female civil servants had to resign when they married.

Thankfully times are changing but even from reading some of the comments on this thread it can be seen that some people's views haven't really moved on (some comments seem more appropriate for the 1950s). Thankfully we now live in a more diverse and equal society but we're not there yet.  

It's not something I've noticed from posters on here. I will have to reread the thread.

Yarrows

Mistermeaner said:

Correlation vs causation ; it is not being female per se that leads to lower pensions

it might be better phrased that “people who earn less / work less / take career breaks do not accrue the same benefits as those who earn more / work more / don’t take career breaks. There are a higher proportion of females in the first category and a higher proportion of males in the second”

confusing correlation with causation often leads to incorrect conclusions and ‘fixes’ to issues 


Another point is that we were meant to make and raise children together as a family unit , there will always be non fault separations but one of the most important decisions any of us make is who to couple up with and breed with - that decision should not be taken lightly and jointly managing finances long and short term should be a huge factor in that decision making process. On paper my pension wealth far exceeds my missus but it’s a meaningless distinction as it’s all ‘ours’ 

But it's funny how it's primarily the women who "earn less / work less / take career breaks". How much of a free choice is it when society/your family/most of the people you know/possibly your employer/the man who's going to benefit from your choice are all on one side of the argument? Women have historically been forced, then just encouraged to be financially dependent, and then when they find themselves in financial trouble as a result, it must be their fault for not being financially independent.

Also, the relationships we're talking about are long. People change. In the absence of crystal balls, people often make the best decision they feel they can at the time. And human beings of all genders are notoriously bad at properly weighting future costs/benefits in decision-making (among many other weaknesses in our logical abilities).

Finally, we're not really meant to bring up children in a family unit, if by that you mean a nuclear family, and if by "meant" you mean anything about how we evolved and what shaped us as a species. We're meant to share the childcare with everyone else in the community while we all contribute what we can/what is expected of us to the communal good as well as follow our own individual interests. The situation we find ourselves in here and now is not optimal, and one of the issues is how childcare and care of other people in the family/community still needs to be done but we're all supposed to be individually financially self-sufficient as well. And that still disproportionately lands on women.

BikingBud

Brie said:

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.  

I wrote an extensive post but on reflection feel it would have perhaps been too controversial so here is the abridged comment:

I find the figure of £19k quite scary and find this might be the real indication of the problem, the wholesale lack of engagement with through life financial management and especially retirement planning.

I feel these problems affect both sexes.

Silvertabby

westv said:

SarahB16 said:

DRS1 said:

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.

No just appalled at how recent this all is. I'm thinking back to when I bought my house with a mortgage in my own name and only a couple or so decades earlier I would have required a male guarantor or heaven forbid a husband! 

It's within living memory when female civil servants had to resign when they married.

1946 for home service, 1973 for foreign service.  1940s for other public sector jobs.

Seems a headmistress challenged this rule back in the 1920s - but was denied, on the grounds that (in the words of the Judge) "the most important job for a married woman is to make her husband's tea" 

Qyburn

If I understand correctly the underlying issue is that women are likely to earn lower employers' contributions. It's not easy to see how that could be corrected, particularly for career breaks where there's no employer at all, but also for women who switch to part time when returning from maternity leave.

BrilliantButScary

Qyburn said:

If I understand correctly the underlying issue is that women are likely to earn lower employers' contributions. It's not easy to see how that could be corrected, particularly for career breaks where there's no employer at all, but also for women who switch to part time when returning from maternity leave.

There is a school of thought that men should pay into their partner's pension, whilst the partner is on maternity leave, or a career break to look after children. 

BrilliantButScary

westv said:

SarahB16 said:

westv said:

SarahB16 said:

DRS1 said:

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.

No just appalled at how recent this all is. I'm thinking back to when I bought my house with a mortgage in my own name and only a couple or so decades earlier I would have required a male guarantor or heaven forbid a husband! 

It's within living memory when female civil servants had to resign when they married.

Thankfully times are changing but even from reading some of the comments on this thread it can be seen that some people's views haven't really moved on (some comments seem more appropriate for the 1950s). Thankfully we now live in a more diverse and equal society but we're not there yet.  

It's not something I've noticed from posters on here. I will have to reread the thread.

Have you reread the thread and what do you think?

BrilliantButScary

This is quite enlightening, particularly the comments section!

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-15291351/New-dads-pension-gap-shared-parental-leave.html?ico=amp-comments-viewall&_gl=1*su9co1*_ga*TG5LVVd6SGdGWXVLUlJiN29GSXFESEZ6MlZQMUFzZEdVaDVxMUdybHJxUmFTTjlwa1J2cWl4M2dadDJlUWZnTg..*_ga_GQE6MT7DLZ*MTc2MzgxODA1NS4yLjEuMTc2MzgxODA1Ni4wLjAuMA..#

BikingBud

BrilliantButScary said:

Qyburn said:

If I understand correctly the underlying issue is that women are likely to earn lower employers' contributions. It's not easy to see how that could be corrected, particularly for career breaks where there's no employer at all, but also for women who switch to part time when returning from maternity leave.

There is a school of thought that men should pay into their partner's pension, whilst the partner is on maternity leave, or a career break to look after children. 

Recognising that they might be struggling to meet basic household expenses, see the furore over 2 child benefit cap and how it keeps people in "poverty", how does the "partner" cover this cost?