News on 1950s women’s Pension

[Immaculatemisconception]

Women's state pension: Compensation closer for Waspi campaigners www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57900320

I wonder how many people who are due to finish work at 66/67/68 etc How many actually will remain in their jobs till that age.

The people with low stress, low paid type jobs. Call centre, type rolls.

The people with the high flying careers will take early retirement. They can afford too The people with the heavy manual jobs will end up on the sick as years of heavy manual work takes its toll on the body.

So the people left are those who can't afford to retire and can't get sick pay or change jobs.

the argument is that some women born in the 50s due to inequality etc as mentioned in previous posts were unable to build up a private pension of note, so in order to retire they really needed the state pension which was denied to them

Yes, but that is still true for women today: women born in the sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties and early 2000s. Many of those women won’t build up a decent private pension, certainly not compared to men because it’s women who tend to go part time and seek more junior roles to accommodate having a family.

So the inability to make a good private pension provision was not unique to the WASPI women. Why should the women who came after you, who are affected by the same problem and who will retire much later than you, pay to compensate you? You know that general taxation is how it would be paid for, right? And you know that these women are your daughters, nieces and granddaughters?

And, the state pension was not ‘denied to you’. The WASPI women had to wait, on average, another 18 months for the state pension compared to the previous forecast. It was delayed, not denied.

But there is more equality of wages now than their was then. I’m
Not saying it’s brilliant, but when my boss left in 1989, l was promoted. Onto 10k less than him. Which was a lot of money in 1989

@lockdownbear

Genuinely interested. How is a call centre job low stress? Being shouted at all day by abusive customers with call targets to meet etc. doesn't strike me as low stress.

That might be so for the exact same role, in the circumstances you describe (although not that often, when outside the public sector people negotiate their own salaries when moving jobs! I negotiated a higher salary for my current role than the previous incumbent, because I could, although it’s more often men who do that), but women are still choosing the lower paid professions because they are seen as more family friendly.

Example: teaching assistants are paid a pittance. I am surprised how little they earn. And yet, competition for TA jobs is, I hear, ferocious because well-qualified women want to do them to accommodate children.

So whilst on the face of it the pay gap has closed slightly since the 1980s, younger women aren’t that much better off. To say nothing of student debt: in the 1980s only 10% went to university. Now it’s closer to 50%, and we regularly hear, on this site, about jobs asking for a degree when 30+ years ago a few O levels would have sufficed. Younger women carrying debt for their student living costs - not their tuition fees, their living costs - but now earning below the national average, I.e. no so-called ‘graduate premium’, might argue that if they had been born in the 1950s, they would have been better off.

What I’m saying is, every generation has its challenges so it’s hard to argue for the 1950s born women, exceptionally, being allowed to claim state pension much earlier on the grounds of unique disadvantages (sexism, lack of opportunity, not approving of the eleven plus, [still haven’t worked out why that is relevant], lack of childcare, shorter maternity leave).

[quote tealappeal]@lockdownbear

Genuinely interested. How is a call centre job low stress? Being shouted at all day by abusive customers with call targets to meet etc. doesn't strike me as low stress.[/quote]
It's a job you can switch off to at the end of a shift. Somebody else takes over. It's not like what you don't get done will still be waiting for you tomorrow. You have set hours not the shite that is "the hours required to do your job" type of stressful job.

I'm a so-called WASPI but I'm more concerned about what will happen to pensions for those in their 30s who've struggled to find a career path, can't get on the housing ladder (so no property to downsize) and know that they can't rely on the state to support them when they retire.

I don't really understanding the reasoning behind the campaign. Women born in the 50s were definitely disadvantage in a work sense, there is surely no debating that. Wouldn't that be more of an argument to scale up women's state pensions in general for all generations, so the average is the same for both sexes at any time? I.e. maybe paying women more from the retirement age rather than back-dating to a younger retirement age? It seems like the argument is that women expect to retire at 60 but can't afford it without the state pension as they have less private pension provision than men, but it is arguable that very many people of either sex that are younger than the Waspi women will be able to retire at 60. The average retirement age for men is currently 64.7 and 63.6 for women so women are already retiring younger than men despite the levelling up of the retirement age (and enjoying longer retirements as women tend to live longer). There is maybe reason to argue for some levelling up if women were unable to accrue as much private pension, but lower wages affect women of all ages (albeit to differing degrees), but I just can't see how a lower retirement age for women who spent fewer years in the workplace is the right way to go about it (or that these issues only affected women born for a few years in the 1950s).

@Billandben444

I'm a so-called WASPI but I'm more concerned about what will happen to pensions for those in their 30s who've struggled to find a career path, can't get on the housing ladder (so no property to downsize) and know that they can't rely on the state to support them when they retire.

I am in total agreement. Whatever you think of the WASPI thing, there is a storm brewing for pension provision for younger people. And as far as I know, no one in government is doing anything about it. And that's another scandal.

The government's answer to the pension crisis is to sort your own. In theory everyone should be paying into a private scheme. But many in short term jobs or low paid jobs probably won't bother.

Their other solution is to pay out less pension, so people work longer, pay in longer, and recieve less time on pension money. But that isn't without issue.

@StapMe

"Women born after you have “lost” seven or eight or nine years of pension. I’m talking about women who were born at a time when the women’s pension age was still 60, compared to 65 for men". That is correct. But the argument is that some women born in the 50s due to inequality etc as mentioned in previous posts were unable to build up a private pension of note, so in order to retire they really needed the state pension which was denied to them. And the notifications were handled poorly, so that when they realised that their retirement age had extended by several years it was too late to do much about it. It is right that, if we want equality with men, that our employment terms should be the same, including retirement age, which has had to be extended because there are so many of we old farts that the country can't support us. No one has picked up on my previous post which stated how skint younger people are going to be when they eventually retire. Everyone has to enrol in a pension scheme these days, but because they're not salary based, the comparative returns will be pants compared to ours. You're going to really need that state pension when you retire at age 99 or whatever they've pushed it out to.....and, unlike us again, you won't have made a mint in your house either......

The argument on here might be about women not having earned enough or whatever but surely the actual argument is women weren't given enough notice of the change.

I agree for the second change not the first.

Lots of people born in the 50s haven't made a mint on a house as they never managed to buy.

I think the thing younger women should consider, and men for that matter, is if this is setting a precedent so they can change the rules with short notice. I've spent years in HR and running payrolls and I think the biggest thing that stops people planning for the future is the fear they won't get what they are promised so if we think people should plan for their old age they need to have confidence.

@Viviennemary

Prescriptions cost hardly anything in the early 1970's. So not comparable.

Wages were hardly anything as well. My first fulltime job in 1968 I was paid £5 for a 44 hr week and had to provide my own uniform.

It is hard to compare things.

ancientgran

My salary in the late 70s was £80 per month and my shared flat was £60 + bills
We used to go clubbing and expect men to buy us drinks then after as the club was near the back of Gateway supermarket my friend and I would dumpster dive for the food that they were throwing out.
We ended up going on the dole as it paid more than working. We got our rent paid and we flashed our UB40 to get free entry to the local leisure centre/cinema and all sorts of freebies.

@Bythemillpond

ancientgran

My salary in the late 70s was £80 per month and my shared flat was £60 + bills
We used to go clubbing and expect men to buy us drinks then after as the club was near the back of Gateway supermarket my friend and I would dumpster dive for the food that they were throwing out.
We ended up going on the dole as it paid more than working. We got our rent paid and we flashed our UB40 to get free entry to the local leisure centre/cinema and all sorts of freebies.

Do you think that this anecdote presents you as somebody who has contributed to the wealth of the country and hence should be compensated for having to wait to get your pension at the same time as everyone else?

This is why we need net contributors, eh?

Do you think that this anecdote presents you as somebody who has contributed to the wealth of the country and hence should be compensated for having to wait to get your pension at the same time as everyone else

This is why we need net contributors, eh

As far as I am aware I will be getting my pension at the same time as everyone else. What part of my post said I should get it earlier?

I was just pointing out how shot wages for women were,

And don’t start by pointing out we all should have been paid the same in 1975 because the reality is somewhat different to what was supposed to happen.

There were nearly 4 million unemployed and I am sure a percentage of them found themselves in the same position I did.
In full time work and realising that the state paid more and you didn’t have to fight a situation you weren’t going to win.

I get that, but if you were taking out more than you put in you’re in no position to argue for an earlier pension age for yourself - paid for by other people - as part of the WASPI campaign, are you?

I assume that you are attempting to associate yourself with the WASPI campaign, which FYI is all about asking for compensation for getting the state pension later than they wanted. Otherwise I can’t see any logical reason for you to be on this thread complaining about the lot of 1950s housewives. Unless you just like moaning.

There were nearly 4 million unemployed and I am sure a percentage of them found themselves in the same position I did.

You made yourself unemployed by chucking in your job.

Iamthewombat

I get that, but if you were taking out more than you put in you’re in no position to argue for an earlier pension age for yourself - paid for by other people - as part of the WASPI campaign, are you

What are you talking about?

I was just pointing out how shit wages were.

Please point out where I have said I should get my pension earlier.

I would say a few people chucked their job in because it paid less than being on income support.

If you have £60 per month rent, and then bus fare to work, 50% of gas and electric bills and Council tax and you get paid £80 per month there is very little for food or anything else
Or go on the dole where they paid you £11 per week, your council tax, and rent are covered and you get free entry into things you couldn’t afford whilst working.

What do you think people should have done?

Some one I know who had several children gave her job up as she couldn’t manage on the wages being paid and went on income support. They even rehoused her into a Council house big enough for her and her children.

If things are on offer and you are working but not earning enough to cover basic expenses why wouldn’t you grab a life line?

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has today 20th July published its view on the case of how the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) failed to communicate State Pension age changes to the women affected. The findings vindicate the years of campaigning by the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) Campaign and the commitment of women who have made individual complaints to the PHSO.
Throughout the campaign and despite support across Parliament, WASPI has been dismissed by successive Governments, with Ministers consistently refusing to meet with the women affected and insisting in Parliament that sufficient notice was given, when even their Department knew this was not the case. In response, WASPI now calls on the Government to urgently compensate all women affected rather than making them wait even longer while the PHSO completes further rounds of its investigation.

WASPI has continuously argued that women were not adequately informed about changes to the State Pension age but their call for action has been repeatedly ignored and dismissed by Government. The latest findings reinforce what WASPI, which represents many of the 3.8 million affected, has been calling for since the campaign was founded in 2015.

If you’d stuck with it, you might have ended up with a better salary, and a better career, and you might have been able to make better private pension provision. Instead of acting the victim and saying, “what was I supposed to do?” and “life was so hard for women then, we had no opportunities!”

In my profession, finance, you start on a pretty crap salary and deal with it on the expectation that your future salary, when qualified, will be better. It’s the same for many other professions. Medicine, the law, nursing, hospitality.

Different for people with kids, as is the case today. Your single mother friend needed help from the state, which nobody would have grudged her. You didn’t. You took out more than you put in, by voluntarily going ‘on the dole’, and you are still trying to do so, at the expense of other people. Whose taxes you expect to facilitate your life choices.

Why do you think that benefits are so crap now, compared to the 1970s? It wouldn’t be because some people then were taking the piss, would it?

@Immaculatemisconception

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has today 20th July published its view on the case of how the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) failed to communicate State Pension age changes to the women affected. The findings vindicate the years of campaigning by the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) Campaign and the commitment of women who have made individual complaints to the PHSO. Throughout the campaign and despite support across Parliament, WASPI has been dismissed by successive Governments, with Ministers consistently refusing to meet with the women affected and insisting in Parliament that sufficient notice was given, when even their Department knew this was not the case. In response, WASPI now calls on the Government to urgently compensate all women affected rather than making them wait even longer while the PHSO completes further rounds of its investigation.

WASPI has continuously argued that women were not adequately informed about changes to the State Pension age but their call for action has been repeatedly ignored and dismissed by Government. The latest findings reinforce what WASPI, which represents many of the 3.8 million affected, has been calling for since the campaign was founded in 2015.

You keep posting the same thing, but continuing to do so isn’t going to get you the outcome you want.

From the gov.U.K. site:

^Where it finds an injustice was suffered as result of maladministration, the PHSO can make recommendations which might include payment of compensation in line with its guidance. However, it says:
The 2019 High Court decision has made clear that we are not able to recommend DWP reimburse ‘lost’ pensions. We also cannot recommend that anyone receive their state pension any earlier than the law allows. To do so would reverse or try to reverse primary legislation.^

So if doesn’t matter what the ombudsman says, and the conclusion is pretty lukewarm anyway. You’re not getting compensation. Get over it.

f you’d stuck with it, you might have ended up with a better salary, and a better career, and you might have been able to make better private pension provision. Instead of acting the victim and saying, “what was I supposed to do?” and “life was so hard for women then, we had no opportunities!”

But they didn’t.

I started clubbing in 1980. I would rather have died than let some guy buy me a drink. No thanks.

@Iamthewombat

I get that, but if you were taking out more than you put in you’re in no position to argue for an earlier pension age for yourself - paid for by other people - as part of the WASPI campaign, are you?

I assume that you are attempting to associate yourself with the WASPI campaign, which FYI is all about asking for compensation for getting the state pension later than they wanted. Otherwise I can’t see any logical reason for you to be on this thread complaining about the lot of 1950s housewives. Unless you just like moaning.

I was earning £5 a week in 1968, by the time I retired from fulltime work I was on six figures. I'm still working, don't pay NI due to age but still pay tax as my pension/salary is over the personal allowance. So I've been working for 53 years, only benefit I ever got was family allowance/child benefit. I've been getting a pension for less than 3 years and I reckon I'm still well in credit.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow

f you’d stuck with it, you might have ended up with a better salary, and a better career, and you might have been able to make better private pension provision. Instead of acting the victim and saying, “what was I supposed to do?” and “life was so hard for women then, we had no opportunities!”

But they didn’t.

I started clubbing in 1980. I would rather have died than let some guy buy me a drink. No thanks.

Then you are clearly not the target of the criticism.

In any case, I don’t care whether bythemillpond was persuading men to buy her drinks. It’s not my style, but each to their own. I find it surprising that somebody would boast about chucking in her job so that she could “[get] our rent paid and we flashed our UB40 to get free entry to the local leisure centre/cinema and all sorts of freebies.”

Then complain that it’s unfair that she had to wait until past the age of 60 to get her state pension, like everybody else.

I was earning £5 a week in 1968, by the time I retired from fulltime work I was on six figures. I'm still working, don't pay NI due to age but still pay tax as my pension/salary is over the personal allowance. So I've been working for 53 years, only benefit I ever got was family allowance/child benefit. I've been getting a pension for less than 3 years and I reckon I'm still well in credit.

As above, since you weren’t chucking in a job to “get your rent paid and all kinds of freebies”, you aren’t remotely in the same category as the previous poster who did.