To think that a lot of us will be in trouble when we retire...

[Fleetheart]

This generation seems very unlike the previous ones in that we take out loans for everything, buy holidays on credit, kitchens on credit, new clothes etc etc. And pension schemes are getting less and less generous. And most of us don’t understand them anyway. I’ve always earned well, but have split up from partner, so still have s lot on my mortgage, no savings, and really not very much in my random pension schemes most of which are money purchase schemes and won’t pay a lot. And I know many people of my age (mid 50s) who have no pension at all. And meanwhile the govt is being less and less generous. What will become of us all?

I’m 35 and have always worked on the assumption there will be no state pension for me and that my employers’ scheme will get continually less and less generous (I’m lucky that it’s still a decent one that I’ve been paying into since I was 22, DH is similar) and I’ll be working in some capacity until I’m at least 70. 16 years left on the mortgage and then we’ll have to really ramp up saving for the future. But plenty of people my age will be absolutely screwed.

We went nowhere, we did nothing until we could afford it, rarely did anything on credit apart from two very old second hand cards.

One particular neighbour used to acitvely sneer at us. We called him gadget boy.

He told me once when they were going on holidays and we weren't that the equity in your mortgage was there to fund your lifestyle and we needed to loosen up a little.

Come 2008 crash he had been borrowing on credit cards and they were in a hole for about £50k.

He scofffed at us, for hammering into our pensions.

We are now out the otherside, mortgage free, retiring with the same income we have now and he/ they are still paying back.

Some people fail to see the long game and some sadly can't afford it.

Sorry meant to add he was on a greater salary than my DH at the time.

We will be setting up a pension for DS when he turns 21, we will trickle money in until he is on his feet financially.

Pensions are important, no matter how small the payments initially.

Well with an unlucky run of illnesses or worse an ongoing chronic condition, school holidays, inset days and half days it can add up. Especially so when there are no grandparents around to help.

I've seen it with my own colleagues gradually pissing off the boss with all their odd days off until the working relationship breaks down and they feel they have to leave. If one parent earns a lot more it can make more sense to prioritise their job.

Haha! Hmm, when I’ve sorted out a pension I’ll work out whether a part time husband would be a good idea...!

There was never any question of my husband going part time or taking any leave - we’ve always discussed it and he’s had the opportunity but every time has said he didn’t want to. He doesn’t really enjoy the baby stage. So I’ve definitely been the fall guy from the part time point of view. Her has the cheek to complain about how much he pays into his pension (NHS) when mine is private sector. Minimum contributions.

@SnuggyBuggy " If one parent earns a lot more it can make more sense to prioritise their job." No I fundamentally disagree with that, as an employee and a manager. With women earning less in general it's attitudes like that that have resulted in women making the bulk of the sacrifices, it becomes a cycle. It doesn't make sense at all. And why should the lower earner's career be seen as less important because they earn less? I happen to earn more than my husband, I wouldn't dream of telling him it's his responsibility to pick the kids up again because I earn more. We have managed a military career with deployments, full time working, no family around and childhood health issues by working together, at NO point did we make the decision to prioritise the higher earner. And to take it back to the thread that would be poor individual financial management, whatever happens to us as a couple we have our own pensions.

Until more employers become more flexible and understanding of the needs of parents its no good for both to be antagonising their bosses.

If one parent earns a lot more it can make more sense to prioritise their job

The problem with this is that, in practice, the man's job gets prioritised no matter what in the vast majority of couples. If he's the higher earner then it's decided that that's why, but if he's not it still magically turns out that his job is less flexible/his boss is less nice/etc. We did shared parental leave and people (mostly women) endlessly told me that their husband's work 'wouldn't let them do that' (unsurprisingly, it always turned out they'd never asked, as if they had they would have discovered it's a legal right). Similarly, if the man was the higher earner then 'we'd have liked to have done that but it didn't make financial sense', but if he earned less there was always some other reason why it was impossible.

I once read a book (can't remember what, sorry) which cited a study of couples where one half was a medical doctor and one an academic (it was done somewhere in the US with a big university next to a big teaching hospital which is why they could find so many couples like this!). When the woman was the academic the couples would explain that they wanted to split things more equally but, alas, academia is so much more flexible than medicine that it was only logical for the woman to adjust her working patterns and do lots more childcare. When the woman was the medic the couples would explain that they wanted to split things more equally but, alas, medicine is so much more flexible than academia that it was only logical for the woman to adjust her working patterns and do lots more childcare...

I do think it's wrong that it's automatically seen as the woman's job to take the hit. I just don't think it's a responsibility that many couples can evenly split unless they are both lucky to have flexible jobs.

@SnuggyBuggy well you just sit there and wait for that to happen, in the meantime my DH and I both work with our employers to balance working with our family commitments between us, and we are both doing pretty well in our careers. Hopefully our actions along with others are then paving the way for others who work around us, and we are certainly replicating it in our own management styles. So you say "until employers become more flexible" but how do you think that happens? I'm not waiting around for the world to change, I will change my environment.

Most ordinary people don't have a whole lot of power to change their employers mindset. I know my limitations and me and DH will just have to do the best we can with what we have.

@SnuggyBuggy you're coming across defeatist though I understand where you're coming from. My DH is probably in one of the most inflexible jobs, the military, very old fashioned too although improving. When the kids were in nursery if they were ill and needed picking up and it was DH's turn without any other bigger priorities like a deployment, or because it was more convenient for him than me that day, he would have to put his foot down. His boss would assume I would go, especially in the military where there are more SAHP than average, but DH would insist he has to go and I was unavailable, I don't think they were used to being challenged very much! He was promoted within 3 reports which in his trade is faster than average so it's done him no harm, and it's meant less of an impact on my career. It also shows our children that neither one of our careers takes precedence over the other.

@namby, you’re quite right. I always earned more and I always had to be more flexible. My ex always claimed his job was not flexible. In reality it was something to do with him believing that it was the female’s role to look after the kids (and do the. Washing, cleaning, household admin etc etc)

I'm defeatist because I've seen it happen too many times to colleagues who have sick dependants and a workplace unwilling to give them the opportunity to make up time or offer flexibility.

I totally get why many families simply don't want to risk the jobs of both parents by being awkward. Some employers make no bones about the fact that they see their staff as expendable.

@SnuggyBuggy and while you call it being "awkward" you will get no where. It is not awkward to have to prioritise home sometimes, it's life, we aren't robots. I'm bloody good at what I do, and if I have to take some time of work to look after my children I will do that and my employer knows that, and they recognise work life balance is integral to maintaining an efficient and loyal work force. My DH's employer is not as "progressive" but they're not going to sack him for leaving early now and again, and the more people push like him, the more it'll change, look at flexible working. Yes A LOT has to change, but we can start with our own attitudes.

You can't feed a family with a positive attitude. I can understand why some don't feel able to take risks with their jobs.

I'm not naive enough to think it's all about PMA, what has worked for us wont for everyone, but it's sexist and unhelpful to have the attitude you have. If I had your attitude I would not be where I am today. I would have resigned to being a military wife, worried about being "awkward" to any potential employer and thus prioritised my DH's job. My DH would no doubt be in the same position no matter what.

So actually you could argue my positive attitude has "fed" my family quite a lot, as I say, my income now surpasses his.

That’s so interesting about the academia and medicine example. That’s definitely what’s happened in our case - I realised recently that my husband just hasn’t asked for any flexibility. I believed it was because his work was less flexible but I now know he just hasn’t even questioned it and doesn’t want to. I don’t begrudge him personally on our individual level for not wanting to look after babies but it’s easy to see how women end up in this situation if lots of men are making the same choice.

I am now in private sector and previously worked in local government and various charities. Something I didn’t consider was the weekly hours. 40 hours (contractually) is full time for me now but in my local govt job it was 36 and I’ve also seen 37.5. I’m doing 32 hours per week and so all my benefits are proportionate - so I’d have been better off in an org with fewer hours per week. Hindsight eh! Never crossed my mind until now.

How am I being sexist?

@Anothername19 yes I know what you mean. We have hidden behind the lack of flexibility in the military before. And when it comes to deployment obviously there is nothing I can do, but we utilised it in other ways though I won't bore with details. But you know the one thing we've never done is get him to do a flexible working request, it never seemed worth it because when he's deployed I'd need to flex anyway and with childcare being quite rigid it was difficult. But he's just been posted further away so he is putting in a request to finish work earlier, otherwise I will have to do all the drop offs and pick ups, which just isn't fair frankly and limits the hours I can max. So for the first time he's putting in a request...let's see if it's approved...flexible working is quite new to the military.

Thanks to this thread I've been on the phone to the UK pension services and HMRC today checking my NIC record. I've been burying my head in the sand for last 4-5 years hoping my NI shortfall /gap (lived in France for 9 years) could be made up before my SRA in 2031.

Bit of back story... I divorced my much older narc of an ex in 2012 after a 28 year marriage. I declined taking part of his pension due to my pig headedness / - regret that now but hey ho. Worked full time most of my life and always paid into a work related pension. Remarried this year to a lovely guy and we're both in similar financial positions pension wise. We've decided to semi retire - work 6 months and cruise on our narrowboat 6 months living a little frugally.

Back to my story...
Actually I have 27 qualifying years and so assumed 8 short for the 35 needed for the max SP but when I spoke to HMRC et al today they explained I'm only 6 short due to being with old style pension contributions - This confirms with my account on gov.uk
Anyway, if anyone has NI gap it may be worth checking with HMRC as it may not be all doom and gloom.
Also, they confirmed the amount I need to earn each year in order to qualify for annual NI credits is doable for me to work just 6 months. Seems like a perfect solution to wind down into retirement proper without working ourselves into early graves.
Thank you 🙏 Mumsnet for this thread.

I hope the request for flexible is successful. I honestly wish more employers would consider them where appropriate and for both men and women.

We’ve definitely done what Snuggy is saying - I agree sometimes it comes down to the cold hard cash available right now, and then yes some people will have to go with the higher earner which is how we’ve ended up in this situation. I’ve got an opportunity now to do a min wage job very part time that would help my career, but my husband has the opportunity to do overtime that will give him some specialist experience and pay our monthly childcare bill in one shift (bill is few hundred, very low in comparison to mumsnet averages!) We are well off enough now (because I’ve taken all this career hit now, meanwhile he’s been working on getting promoted etc.) that we can take turns so we get both benefits but I am sure for people In less comfortable circumstances it would be a no brainer to go for the higher earner.

I hope we’re making the best of it by sharing - plan is for me to qualify and take priority for a few years. He will have had 6 years of priority and then I’ll have my turn. In our situation I don’t think it would have worked for us to both be equal at work at the same time, but I think over our career as a whole we can be.

I do wonder about the health results of this. I think I am generally a happier more content person than my husband. I wonder about the toll his job and working nights has on him. Men are more likely to die or be injured at work I believe. If they have the better pensions, are they more likely to actually get them/use them/ see the benefit, or do men pay in and then die younger and not get to use them? What’s the profit margin on running a pension scheme? Maybe I should do that instead of paying into a pension!

It's not so much that you're being sexist but that by resigning to that attitude it aids and abets sexist attitudes that don't want to see progression. But I do understand where you're coming from, it is shit for too many people and it shouldn't have to be a fight, I hope one day it isn't. Thank you, we'll see, being public sector helps us both, I know many areas of the private sector are much further away from being flexible.

I do completely understand what you're saying snuggy and sorry if my post - which was really more me musing aloud - came across as if I was trying to deny the reality of your situation.