Zeno's Pension : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
| 21 |
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
(no subject)
For me being born in 1960, I was eligible for a pension at age 65. Such is the lot of being male - you die years earlier, and you got paid a pension later. (They've fixed the second part, but not the first. With luck, they might even bring women's earnings to parity one day, too.)
Given those proposals, I will hit 65 right in the middle of the the 'raise to 66' period, so it's possible I might retire at 65 - the same age I could have expected when I was born.
I think I'd rather have your problem. Because that'd mean I was 10 years younger.
(no subject)
BTW, it turns out I have been exaggerating when I tell people how poorly paid I am. I did the sums when I got a letter about our new pay agreement (for University administrative staff); if full time I would be on jolly nearly £18k, which is approx 50% more than minimum wage! It is still, however, only 75% of male median earnings. Where are all these better paid jobs??
I wonder how it compares to female median earnings, or if they vary so much there's not good grounds for comparison.
(no subject)
Part of it is going to be that the 'break for a family' usually involves the mother being the one to take the break, and while she's off, her career is stalled. But there's also an unjust assumption by many employers that any woman can't help dropping sprogs, and will take time off, so there's no point in assuming otherwise.
Part of it is that males are more competitive. Since asking people not to be competitive is pretty much a non-starter, the solution to that has to be for the people handing out the rewards (again, the employers) to assess on the basis of value of work, and to note that although women may bring different benefits, those benefits shouldn't be undervalued just because they are different.