Women and the pension poverty gap

Nebulous2

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! 

I've posted this before, so I'll try to keep it brief. 

I met an older nurse, in a specialist role, and enjoyed talking to her, she had a huge amount of experience to share. 

One day the conversation got to where we lived and she told me:- 

She had really wanted her own property and went to her bank manager to ask for a mortgage, he said no. A year or so later she went to ask again, and he still said no. 

Some six months or so later, she got a call from him, asking if she could come in to talk to him. He told her that a male customer had bought a flat in a nearby town, had run into financial difficulties and couldn't afford to pay it. If she took over the mortgage she could have the flat. She agreed to take it on.

I said  "xxxxx I think that's absolutely terrible." She said  "yyyy I was absolutely delighted. It was the only opportunity I had to get my own place, and I was really pleased to get it." 

I'm still conflicted over that. She had no access to a mortgage, and had to bail the bank out on a bad loan. Yet she still felt like one of the lucky ones? 

It's difficult to apply current day standards to a bygone age, but I found that one difficult to process....

Silvertabby

Nebulous2 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! 

I've posted this before, so I'll try to keep it brief. 

I met an older nurse, in a specialist role, and enjoyed talking to her, she had a huge amount of experience to share. 

One day the conversation got to where we lived and she told me:- 

She had really wanted her own property and went to her bank manager to ask for a mortgage, he said no. A year or so later she went to ask again, and he still said no. 

Some six months or so later, she got a call from him, asking if she could come in to talk to him. He told her that a male customer had bought a flat in a nearby town, had run into financial difficulties and couldn't afford to pay it. If she took over the mortgage she could have the flat. She agreed to take it on.

I said  "xxxxx I think that's absolutely terrible." She said  "yyyy I was absolutely delighted. It was the only opportunity I had to get my own place, and I was really pleased to get it." 

I'm still conflicted over that. She had no access to a mortgage, and had to bail the bank out on a bad loan. Yet she still felt like one of the lucky ones? 

It's difficult to apply current day standards to a bygone age, but I found that one difficult to process....

When I joined the WRAF in 1978 our initial training included a lesson on managing our (mostly new) bank accounts.  The WRAF Sgt instructor told us the tale of when she was promoted to Sgt in 1973 and wanted to buy her own car -  but she could only get a bank loan with a male guarantor.  The only person available to do that for her was her father, who was retired on just the basic State pension. 

BikingBud

Mistermeaner said:

DRS1 said:

Mistermeaner said:

I (man) have my 1mil+ in my DC pension, my partner (lady)200k

if we were allowed I would happily balance  that out to 600k each as it would benefit us as a unit when it comes to draw down time 

if any government is serious about equalisation they would need to make this possible as in effect it is retrospectively redressing disparity in earnings and contributions

of course it gets more complex as when we met I already had 400k+ and her only 25k …. How would we square that circle ? 

You could always get a divorce!

Have to get married first

Genius though - get married, get divorced, rebalance everything. Get married again 

all for tax benefits 

Don't forget that you might also need to marry your offspring's future spouse so you can pass on your wealth without IHT and then when you die your offspring can get it all transferred back again when they marry your widow(er).

Brie

Silvertabby said:

Nebulous2 said:

SarahB16 said:

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! 

I've posted this before, so I'll try to keep it brief. 

I met an older nurse, in a specialist role, and enjoyed talking to her, she had a huge amount of experience to share. 

One day the conversation got to where we lived and she told me:- 

She had really wanted her own property and went to her bank manager to ask for a mortgage, he said no. A year or so later she went to ask again, and he still said no. 

Some six months or so later, she got a call from him, asking if she could come in to talk to him. He told her that a male customer had bought a flat in a nearby town, had run into financial difficulties and couldn't afford to pay it. If she took over the mortgage she could have the flat. She agreed to take it on.

I said  "xxxxx I think that's absolutely terrible." She said  "yyyy I was absolutely delighted. It was the only opportunity I had to get my own place, and I was really pleased to get it." 

I'm still conflicted over that. She had no access to a mortgage, and had to bail the bank out on a bad loan. Yet she still felt like one of the lucky ones? 

It's difficult to apply current day standards to a bygone age, but I found that one difficult to process....

When I joined the WRAF in 1978 our initial training included a lesson on managing our (mostly new) bank accounts.  The WRAF Sgt instructor told us the tale of when she was promoted to Sgt in 1973 and wanted to buy her own car -  but she could only get a bank loan with a male guarantor.  The only person available to do that for her was her father, who was retired on just the basic State pension. 

In my (non uk) high school in the early 70s we had phys ed/health classes divided by sex.  So for sports boys did football, girls did volleyball.  And the "health" classes boys did financial planning (which included how to discuss mortgages with a bank) and girls did baby care.  I refused to do baby care and asked to do financial planning instead and was told it wasn't possible.  We had an test on baby care at the end of the term and I refused to do that and instead wrote a protest letter on the back of the paper.  The teacher, to her credit, said she completely understood but had to fail me as I'd not answered any questions on the test.  

Pollycat

Brie said:

Silvertabby said:

Nebulous2 said:

SarahB16 said:

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! 

I've posted this before, so I'll try to keep it brief. 

I met an older nurse, in a specialist role, and enjoyed talking to her, she had a huge amount of experience to share. 

One day the conversation got to where we lived and she told me:- 

She had really wanted her own property and went to her bank manager to ask for a mortgage, he said no. A year or so later she went to ask again, and he still said no. 

Some six months or so later, she got a call from him, asking if she could come in to talk to him. He told her that a male customer had bought a flat in a nearby town, had run into financial difficulties and couldn't afford to pay it. If she took over the mortgage she could have the flat. She agreed to take it on.

I said  "xxxxx I think that's absolutely terrible." She said  "yyyy I was absolutely delighted. It was the only opportunity I had to get my own place, and I was really pleased to get it." 

I'm still conflicted over that. She had no access to a mortgage, and had to bail the bank out on a bad loan. Yet she still felt like one of the lucky ones? 

It's difficult to apply current day standards to a bygone age, but I found that one difficult to process....

When I joined the WRAF in 1978 our initial training included a lesson on managing our (mostly new) bank accounts.  The WRAF Sgt instructor told us the tale of when she was promoted to Sgt in 1973 and wanted to buy her own car -  but she could only get a bank loan with a male guarantor.  The only person available to do that for her was her father, who was retired on just the basic State pension. 

In my (non uk) high school in the early 70s we had phys ed/health classes divided by sex.  So for sports boys did football, girls did volleyball.  And the "health" classes boys did financial planning (which included how to discuss mortgages with a bank) and girls did baby care.  I refused to do baby care and asked to do financial planning instead and was told it wasn't possible.  We had an test on baby care at the end of the term and I refused to do that and instead wrote a protest letter on the back of the paper.  The teacher, to her credit, said she completely understood but had to fail me as I'd not answered any questions on the test.  

I finished high school in 1970, after my O levels.

We too had separate PE sessions (football/hockey).
Unsurprising really as women and men don't play against each other/in the same team even now.

I've never heard of 'baby care' lessons.
The boys didn't have financial planning lessons either.

I attended a grammar school.

I played for a ladies football team from 1975 for a few years.

Silvertabby

Brie said:

Silvertabby said:

Nebulous2 said:

SarahB16 said:

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! 

I've posted this before, so I'll try to keep it brief. 

I met an older nurse, in a specialist role, and enjoyed talking to her, she had a huge amount of experience to share. 

One day the conversation got to where we lived and she told me:- 

She had really wanted her own property and went to her bank manager to ask for a mortgage, he said no. A year or so later she went to ask again, and he still said no. 

Some six months or so later, she got a call from him, asking if she could come in to talk to him. He told her that a male customer had bought a flat in a nearby town, had run into financial difficulties and couldn't afford to pay it. If she took over the mortgage she could have the flat. She agreed to take it on.

I said  "xxxxx I think that's absolutely terrible." She said  "yyyy I was absolutely delighted. It was the only opportunity I had to get my own place, and I was really pleased to get it." 

I'm still conflicted over that. She had no access to a mortgage, and had to bail the bank out on a bad loan. Yet she still felt like one of the lucky ones? 

It's difficult to apply current day standards to a bygone age, but I found that one difficult to process....

When I joined the WRAF in 1978 our initial training included a lesson on managing our (mostly new) bank accounts.  The WRAF Sgt instructor told us the tale of when she was promoted to Sgt in 1973 and wanted to buy her own car -  but she could only get a bank loan with a male guarantor.  The only person available to do that for her was her father, who was retired on just the basic State pension. 

In my (non uk) high school in the early 70s we had phys ed/health classes divided by sex.  So for sports boys did football, girls did volleyball.  And the "health" classes boys did financial planning (which included how to discuss mortgages with a bank) and girls did baby care.  I refused to do baby care and asked to do financial planning instead and was told it wasn't possible.  We had an test on baby care at the end of the term and I refused to do that and instead wrote a protest letter on the back of the paper.  The teacher, to her credit, said she completely understood but had to fail me as I'd not answered any questions on the test.  

Worked both ways.  In my last year of (UK) school in 1970/71 the girls did typing while the boys did woodwork.  One of the lads in my class asked if he could join the typing class, as he wanted to be a newspaper reporter, like his dad.  Perfectly reasonable request, you'd have thought?  Request denied, as 'only girls type'.  The lad's sexuality was also called into question......

tooldle

O’Level childcare used to be offered in England. Not available in the school I attended. I do remember the careers advisor with whom it was compulsory to have an appointment. The careers service was provided by the LA. The male advisor asked me if I had a career in mind. I explained I was interested in Chemical Engineering. The advisor dismissed that idea and suggested I consider nursing (no Uni for nursing in those days). I ignored his advice and went on to become a professional engineer. I do wonder how much worse off I’d be, and of course how bored I’d have been, if I’d followed the advice. Nothing against nursing, it’s just not aligned to my interests.

Silvertabby

tooldle said:

O’Level childcare used to be offered in England. Not available in the school I attended. I do remember the careers advisor with whom it was compulsory to have an appointment. The careers service was provided by the LA. The male advisor asked me if I had a career in mind. I explained I was interested in Chemical Engineering. The advisor dismissed that idea and suggested I consider nursing (no Uni for nursing in those days). I ignored his advice and went on to become a professional engineer. I do wonder how much worse off I’d be, and of course how bored I’d have been, if I’d followed the advice. Nothing against nursing, it’s just not aligned to my interests.

The careers advisor in my school was useless - only interested in getting ticks in the 'right' boxes so she could claim that she had done her job.

She asked me if I had any family members who had their own business.  I said only one, an aunt who owned her own little hairdressing salon, but (a) I wasn't interested in hairdressing as a career and (b) when I did a Saturday job at another salon the constant hair/hand washing gave me dermatitis.

Her answer to that was "nonsense - ideal opportunity" and she wrote down "hairdressing apprentice in family salon".  ....... NEXT ! 

I joined the WRAF instead.

BikingBud

tooldle said:

O’Level childcare used to be offered in England. Not available in the school I attended. I do remember the careers advisor with whom it was compulsory to have an appointment. The careers service was provided by the LA. The male advisor asked me if I had a career in mind. I explained I was interested in Chemical Engineering. The advisor dismissed that idea and suggested I consider nursing (no Uni for nursing in those days). I ignored his advice and went on to become a professional engineer. I do wonder how much worse off I’d be, and of course how bored I’d have been, if I’d followed the advice. Nothing against nursing, it’s just not aligned to my interests.

I do wonder what response the male advisor might have received if he tried to provide that advice to a young Margaret Thatcher.

ETA we need to encourage more people into STEM and we need to recognise that this is where the true pathway to the prosperity of the Country lies. 

If we do not develop and manufacture advance technology, things we can sell to the world, we end being consumers of mediocre junk that we import and we will always run at a loss, we will never get back to a strong growing economy.

westv

I don't remember ever having a Careers Advisor at my school - just a chat about careers from one of the regular teaches to the whole class. 70s inner London