Why Older Women Face Greater Financial Hardship Than Older Men (pensions, supplement)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another thing I might add is that women aren't willing to do those higher paying jobs that are difficult, demanding, and dirty. I worked a very difficult, dirty and dangerous job in a male dominated environment for many years and made a much higher salary than my female peers because I was willing to do this type of work.
It's likely you also wrecked your body and won't live as long or be as healthy as your stupid, lazy female peers.
My Dw and I were both very active in our church for 30 years, in that denomination, they urge young men to become window-washers. Over the years we have known a lot of window-washers. It is possible to do very well for yourself in that profession.
I've always wondered why Jehovah's Witnesses push window washing as a career? What is it about window washing?
I don't get why widowers tax rate becomes the same as the rate single filers. since women are often younger and are mostly survivors they carry that extra tax burden.
On the one hand, the mistake women are allegedly making is not striving for high-level career type jobs that earn the big bucks. On the other hand, many in society are again furiously waxing nostalgic and yearning for the days that you could get by on one income (presumably, the man's). We can't win.
If you actually read the article in the OP, the main issues they address are the childbearing penalty and late in life divorce when there is little chance for recovery.
I agree that Social Security is still set up to favor the model of working husband / SAH wife that remain married forever. It's not so much the accumulation along the way (which is fairly applied to everyone's salaries pretty much equally), though that is certainly a factor when women are in lower paid jobs, it is in the payout phase that it's more significant. I don't recall the exact rules, but a spouse who never worked but is still married to someone who did has their benefit based on the spouse's earnings record, even after the spouse dies, which often amounts to more than the benefit for someone who worked a low-wage job their whole life but never married. So the 1-high income earner/SAH spouse model could get more back in retirement than a couple whose combined income was the same as the high earner. Or someone who never worked ends up with more of a benefit than someone who worked a lower paying job over the years. I'd like to see some recognition of child-care years, but I also think we need to update that paradigm.
I also hear a lot these days about promoting the trades rather than shoehorning everyone into college. I don't disagree, but those are still largely boys' clubs and not just because girls aren't interested in the work itself. It's not always a welcoming environment for women. Let's hope that culture evolves.
There are bright lines drawn between "degree + career" and "trades." In between is the thing called "making a living." Two-year tech programs in community college or technical schools. Men and women. I know so many middle aged women with English degrees who are one man away from welfare, and I know hairdressers who are buying their first house.
Men and women as groups tend to just have different financial needs and goals ….
study after study seems to show that women and their money seem to have different needs then men do.
because women tend to live on average 5 years longer then men and many more tend to be single their biggest concern is how long will my money last.
men seem to be more pre-occupied with the returns they are getting.
financial planners really have to understand they are dealing with 2 very different wants and needs.
women want their money to last but they also seem to fear investing more then men.
men will take more risk for higher returns.
women like money they can count on and the feeling of security like annuity products. men shy away from those products and want to do it on their own.
the financial planners need to recognize this fact and not paint everyone with the same brush like they do.
men by nature are the hunters and gatherers , women like safe , secure and consistant, and the two are very opposite.
Many women have that proverbial vision of ending up a bag lady
Yeah , not every woman or man is going to be like the above , we get it ..but overall that is what financial planners tend to see as a group
Sorry, but sounds like BS to me :-). Gender is (particularly in the past 50 years) not the main determinant of any behavior, including financial behavior. I am financially extremely conservative, but if one would search for reasons for that, they are likely to be (in descending order of importance):
1. having been essentially a refugee of war, for extended time (decades), where I could have been required to leave the US, to go who knows where, and not be able to work again for who knows how long. A person in that situation needs to have immediate funds, and must maximize them usually from very modest earnings (as I needed for a long time)
2. a demanding profession, where even sleeping is a luxury, and focusing on anything in life other than that profession (eg, on investing) is an unacceptable distraction... the reason why members of my profession are famously bad investors, even after the point when they finally get to be well paid
3. recreational interests which cost some money (and which I had regrettably not been able to pursue as much as I wanted due to #2) are far more important to me than maximizing the value of my assets late in life. At the age of 62, I couldn't care less that my assets are not greater than they are, but I do care and regret that I had not been able to travel more than I did internationally, due to being too busy (even though I had actually traveled quite a lot... but I still wish I did more)
These factors are far more important than my gender in my preferential routing of assets into places other than market investments. In fact, I don't see how my gender would have any role at all. As a result of the above, #1 made me learn how to find ways to creatively enjoy frugality, #2 eventually gave me an opportunity for a solid earned income through a type of work that I certainly valued far more than the work of investing, and #3 gives money a purpose. My gender does not enter the picture in any way, shape, or form.
As I mentioned a million times, I used to have a very dashing and fabulous boyfriend who died suddenly at 59. He was not American but Euro, was in a good profession associated with a great pension with full benefits at 60 (with an option to continue working til 65, then mandatory retirement due to the nature of work). He owned some practical assets he liked and needed, the rest of his money was in the bank. I think a thought of investing in the market would have been more foreign to him than a thought of changing gender (which gender was very male indeed) .
I don't get why widowers tax rate becomes the same as the rate single filers. since women are often younger and are mostly survivors they carry that extra tax burden.
There's nothing "extra" about it. They are now single and are treated like all other singles.
That is something every single married couple should be aware of and plan for.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
