To think the back to 60 campaign is grabby

[Neaoll]

It's been known about for a long time that state pension ages would be equalised.

State pension is just unsustainable, it was never supposed to be something people claim for 20-30 years. Was for people that had a hard time so they didn't starve to death in their last few years. Now it's a top-up to the richest part of society. It should have been linked with life expectancy a long time ago.

I'm in my 40s and dont expect to ever get a state pension. I've been contributing to my private pension ever since I worked to support myself.

zsazsajuju I agree.

I am very slightly younger than the ‘waspi’ group but same generation in terms of the opportunities available.

Some people are talking as if these women were born in the 1920s or something! I had my first child in 1989. It was entirely possible to return to work. Was it easy?
No. Maternity leave was very short. I returned to teaching with a 12 week old baby. Childcare was harder to access- far fewer day nurseries. I had to get on the phone (pre home computer and internet days) and phone the local council for a list of child minders and then I had to go round and visit them to find someone suitable. As a proportion of my income, childcare costs were very similar to now, though of course there were no free hours back then so we paid the full whack. Once we had more than one child, the costs pretty much wiped out my income. At this point some women decide it’s not worth working, but I thought long term and kept working for my pension if nothing else. I reduced to 3 days a week when my children were tiny but stepped back up to full time really quickly- again, because I knew that part time working = part time pension.

The fact is, it’s not all about an entire generation of women having no choices. There were choices but not everyone chooses the same things.

Of course it would be lovely to take life easy and be able to receive a state pension for decades, but the fact is, the situation has changed radically from when people claimed their pension and lived for perhaps another ten years if they were lucky. It’s very normal now to live into your 80s or 90s and the pension changes have to reflect that.

While I have a small amount of sympathy for people affected by the second change the fact remains that unless they have a serious sickness or disability (which puts them into a different bracket anyway) they can keep working a bit longer to account for the extra 18 months or so before they can get their SP. if these women had actually stopped working already, before they could claim any pension then they’re hardly living in penury as they could clearly afford to stop work.

I’ve no sympathy at all for people bleating about the 1995 ruling, which was the major change to equalise things between men and women, for God’s sake if you choose to bury your head in the sand you’ve only got yourself to blame.

What’s clear is that people with access to the same information and opportunities make different choices. It’s no good complaining when you don’t like the outcome of some of those choices.

There are still regularly posts on MN from women saying it’s ‘not worth their while’ working because child care takes all their wages. Makes me despair. No thought given to their pension, to the fact that staying in work makes them remain more employable and more likely to get future promotions.

Likewise as a teacher I look around me and see a huge number of female colleagues, my age (late 50s) who still work part time. No young kids any more, no caring responsibilities- it’s a life style choice. Likewise I can count at least 5 LSAs in my school, all women, who are graduates, perfectly capable of earning more money (2 are even qualified teachers) but they choose to work as LSAs because they want to work term time only, between 8.45 and 3 pm and not have to think about work outside of that.

I’m not knocking any of these people individually - it’s their choice, but people should own the choices they make.

Until I was well into my 30s the expected SP age for me was 60. It’s now 67. It is what it is. We’re all having to pay in more and get less out, but it’ll be even harder for future generations. I’ve never ever seen the SP as a guaranteed thing though, and I’ve always worked on the basis that I should be making other provisions too... not relying on the state or my husband to ‘look after me.’
I’m a capable woman, from a very ordinary background, no great advantages, and as someone just slightly younger than the waspis I know first hand that while maintaining a career hasn’t been easy it’s been entirely possible, and that’s without any free childcare, family help or whatever. Yes, it would have been far easier to be a SAHM or to work part time for decades even after my children were in school, but that would have left me in a financially precarious position.

I think the infantilising of women helps no one. We’re not delicate little flowers who can’t be expected to work and earn. We’re capable adults who have a responsibly to keep ourselves informed.

Yes she could user. Had she done so, say, for five years from 1990, based on a typical accrual rate and contribution rate for the time, she could expect to have a fund now (say at 5% pa) which would provide around 8 years of the same pension she could have expected to receive for life had she been able to join the occupational scheme. Based on average expectancy that could be 28 years. So less than 30% of the pension she could have accrued had she been able to join the scheme.

Pension inequality solely due to her sex. Why should she have to fund her own pension when a man didn't have to?

A man working part time would have been in exactly the same position and could have paid into his own private pension.

The point is that a woman from the WASPI cohort, working full time at a business with an occupational pension scheme, would have had exactly the same opportunity to join the scheme as a man would. A part time man couldn’t have joined the scheme to which Pleasebeafleabite refers. So no inequity there. And yes, I know that many women chose to go part time to fit in around children: a big mistake in my view. If I had been working for, let’s say, Legal and General in 1982 and discovered that if I worked part time I couldn’t join the pension scheme, I’d have gone full time or, if I really couldn’t, I’d have made private provision.

I agree with @zsazsajuju about infantilising women. Every man and his dog was trying to flog personal pensions in the 1980s (yes, that’s another one of my ‘sloppy generalisations killing debate on mumsnet’: I hope you enjoyed it), and yes, I know that some private pensions didn’t work out but nevertheless they were very much part of everyday life. As much as buying a house was.

I recall that starting work for a company that offered a pension was widely regarded as something to aspire to. So pensions were absolutely on the radar during the 1980s. All the big life and pensions companies advertised regularly on the TV and pensions were regularly covered in newspapers. How can anybody claim that they had no opportunity to plan for their future because of lack of information?

Great post @Acciocats

Iamthewombat Agree.

Like I said, we all make choices, and of course we have to make choices within certain parameters, but those parameters were nowhere near as narrow for women born in the 1950s as a few posters are making out.

As I said, there are still women saying now, in 2019 ‘oh it’s not worth my while going back to work because childcare is so expensive.’ Are these same women going to be complaining in years to come that they have shit occupational pensions and state pensionable age of probably 70?! Because the warning signs are there, the govt is making it very clear that people need to make financial provision for themselves. And if anyone thinks the SP age won’t continue to rise then they’re in cloud cuckoo land.

I began my career in the 1980. I had my first baby in sept 89 and returned to work Christmas 89. Yes of course it was hard. Yes of course it would have been easier to not work. Just as it would have been easier to continue working part time forever after having kids, as a number of women I know have continued to do... through their 30s, 40s and 50s!

My sympathy is for people who genuinely have no choices, those with really serious Sickness or disability. Not women who think that just by virtue of being female they are somehow owed an easier ride

c85% of the part time workforce in 1995 was female. I'll just leave that out there

The most disappointing thing about this thread is the mixture of:

"I'm alright jack/women should have made better choices" from teachers/civil service/LGPS members still benefiting from defined benefit pension schemes, for whom retirement ages were only raised for the future and not retrospectively and whose accrual rates were increased as part of this package of measures

and

younger women with "my pension will be shit (although I don't know that because no-one knows what will happen to pensions in future) but my pension will be shit anyway. So why should anyone else have a pension less shit than mine?"

Depressing

JinglingHellsBells Sun 06-Oct-19 09:12:25
"Also, @HelenaDove if someone works in a store there are different roles. You can be on the till or stocking shelves. You don't have to be doing 'manual' work"

Ive worked retail in the past Including at Christmas, You dont get to cherry pick what bits you want to do and leave the rest. Its all hands to the pump and you have to do a bit of everything. As an arthritic ex colleugue of mine who had to leave her previous job is now finding out.

And as for Glasgow bin lorry man...................you really think there wont be more people who try to hide ailments and illnesses from employers to avoid poverty. HE might not have done it for that reason i dont know but others may well feel that they have to . IM not the stupid one.

We all know that the majority of the part time work force is female. No one is disputing that. We’re just pointing out that often it is a matter of choice. No one forces women to work part time. Every time a woman posts that it’s ‘not worth her while’ to return to work because childcare costs take all her income, or because she has to be at home to facilitate her husband’s ‘stellar career’ then she’s making a choice. Other women in the same circumstances make the choice to continue working. And certainly among the many women I know in their 40s and 50s who continue to work part time even when their kids are at secondary school, university or even in work, it’s a choice which benefits themselves in the here and now. I work alongside well qualified women who choose to work as part time LSAs because, in their words, they like to have time to pursue their hobbies, go for weekday lunches etc

Which is fine- their choice- but own it. Don’t turn around when your pension is shit or you have to work longer and complain. Make your choices and accept the consequences.

Nothing depressing about seeing women as equally capable and financially savvy as men are expected to be.

It's not very women supporting women for them to not campaign for every women to get pensions at 60.

All generations face issues, but the current cohort of people just about to receive pensions are statistically part of the the most fortunate generation there has ever been. Even with the speeding up in 2010 thats ample time to plan for an extra year or two before the state pension comes in.

I agree Pleasebeafleabite

I would also like to add there are many people here who seem unable to imagine anything outside of their own experience.

Regarding not being any poorer at 63 than 65/67, it is very very likely for older workers to find themselves made redundant at any point over the age of 50 and getting a new job as an older person is a lot more difficult. They may also be dealing with their DH ill health, be bereaved or have health issues themselves, very common for illness to show up at 50+

Add to that looking after elderly parents and it is easy to see why some may only be able to work part time or find themselves unemployed.

Speaking of childcare here is zsazsajuju feministly reacting to a child minder who hadnt been paid in July last year.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/childminders_nannies_au_pairs_etc/3308201-Non-payment

Its really fucking sly to use groups you couldnt care less about the rest of the time as a stick to beat other groups with.

Upthread she has mentioned how younger women have it hard. I totally agree They do and not being paid on time dosent help.

HelenaDove- that’s one woman responding to a specific issue about childcare. Hardly relevant.

FWIW, Someone asked upthread about whether we pay our childminders enough to not need tax credits.... tax credits were before my time, never benefited from them at all. But I do know for a fact that in terms of having money in her pocket, my childminder was way better off than I was when I was paying her to look after dc 1 and 2. She also had the luxury of being able to be at home with her own toddler whereas I had to breastfeed a baby, get said baby and 3 year old up and dressed, get them to the childminder and then go and do a days work before paying her the equivalent of what I earned.

Do I regret it? No. Like I say, I was playing the long game. Stopping work or remaining part time ad infinitum would have been easy street in comparison.

And yes I’m probably way better off now and have a better pension than my childminder. But she made choices she was happy with.

MN on pensions at 60 " 60 is not old."

MN on dating when it involves dating a 60 year old man and you happen to be under 55 "what are you dating such a decrepit old man for You will end up being his nurse.

yes and her choice helped facilitate you going back to work. What if no woman wanted to be a child minder any more Would men step up and do it.

And my link is relevant when the person in question has banged on about younger women having it harder but showed no empathy to someone in that situation. Its hypocrisy.

It's not very women supporting women for them to not campaign for every women to get pensions at 60

I'm struggling with the double negatives in this but there's a difference between "not campaigning" and being unable to recognise that there was a legal case to be heard regarding lack of notification, at least for the acceleration in the rise of pension age.

You seem very angry Helena.

Yes, my childminder helped facilitate me returning to work. Me paying her everything I earned facilitated her being at home with her toddler while earning without incurring childcare costs.

What on Earth is the problem with that?

We both made choices we were comfortable with. Neither of us is a ‘victim’ here. The problem is when people make choices and then complain about them!

I dont like hypocrisy slyness and goalpost moving. Ive had a few disagreements with another well known right wing poster on here but at least she is consistent and isnt sly.

Its the inconsistency and hypocrisy that yes make me annoyed. I wouldnt say angry.....more annoyed. Im resigned to the fact that a lot of people look down on people on a low income and only deem them good enough to use as a stick to beat other groups with.

fair enough, as long as you’re not trying to include me in any of that because I certainly don’t look down on low earners and I wouldn’t use them as a stick to beat anyone with.

As I say, life is about making choices within the parameters we all have to make choices within, and then owning it.

I also get really pissed off with all the inter generational bashing because it’s utterly pointless. There are upsides and downsides for every generation. I was actually part of the generation which lobbied for better maternity rights and for dads to get paternity leave. Did I personally benefit from any of that? Did I heck! Likewise with tax credits, subsidised childcare, shared parental leave .... all after my time so never got to benefit from any of those, but it doesn’t mean I begrudge the younger generations who do.

In the grand scheme of things, women having to wait longer for their pensions aren’t going to garner huge amounts of sympathy. We’re all paying in more and getting less out.

I do think it’s a shame that some people want to always cast women in the role of ‘victim’ rather than sentient beings who make choices.

One of my close friends is a ‘waspi’. Lovely woman, very bright and capable. She works two days a week as a LSA. No young children, no caring responsibilities. I had a conversation with her years back and asked her why she didn’t train to be a teacher - she’d make great one. She didn’t want the responsibility. Neither did she want to return to any other professional career, despite being a graduate. She could work full time as a LSA which would at least give her better pay and a better pension. She doesn’t want to. She wants free time to pursue hobbies, go on weekday outings etc.
As I’ve already said, nothing wrong with making those choices but own them. And to be fair I’ve never heard her complain. But if she ever does moan about her rubbish occupational pension and not getting a state pension until 66 then she won’t be getting any sympathy from me.

A lot of the ‘it made sense for me to stop working’ crew of my generation (40s) are in for a shock when we approach what we expect to be our retirement age. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if there’s any state pension.

Even if there is it won’t be until 70s. For that reason I’ve worked FT even though it’s exhausting and for a while when DC were pre-school I was paying out more than I earned in childcare after I’d retrained which was demoralising but I was focused on the long term benefit.

Never rely on promised future money.

Accio no im not including you in that.

i cant stop laughing at the fact another poster thinks you can pick and choose your tasks in a retail job That really cheered me up the gobsmacking ignorance and ludicrousness of it made me laugh.

DH was medically retired from his retail job in 2004.

He was in a very skilled profession until 1990 until a very bad accident at work.

woodhill DM was missold a pension I dont know all the ins and outs of it but thats a reason that she carried on working.

@Plasebeafleabite

younger women with "my pension will be shit (although I don't know that because no-one knows what will happen to pensions in future) but my pension will be shit anyway. So why should anyone else have a pension less shit than mine?

I'm not saying that nobody should have a better pension than me - by all means crack on and fund yourself the best pension out there, good for you! But if you're asking me to provide the funding to make your pension much better - when chances are I won't get one at all - then you shouldn't expect me to be overjoyed about it.

(And no, of course nobody can predict the future, but if I asked you to bet on SP age going up or down, I think I know how you'd bet.)

Regarding not being any poorer at 63 than 65/67, it is very very likely for older workers to find themselves made redundant at any point over the age of 50 and getting a new job as an older person is a lot more difficult. They may also be dealing with their DH ill health, be bereaved or have health issues themselves, very common for illness to show up at 50+

Are you being deliberately obtuse? There are all sorts of reasons why a 63 year old woman today might be poorer than she was at, say, 43 but being told eight years ago that you will retire three years later than you hoped is not one of them.

@HelenaDove You seem to be a very angry woman on here. FWIW you are also wrong on a lot of things. Like supermarket jobs. I know two people very well who work(ed) in supermarkets. Two are relatives and the other is a friend. I can assure you that they are not shelf stacking or moving trolleys. They are on the till and / or customer service desk. One was in her 70s when she took the job part time.

So do stop all this claptrap about 'you can't pick and choose' and your sarcy style of posting saying it makes you laugh because you aren't as well informed as you seem to think.