Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
RETIRED WOMEN HAVE 35% less income to live on compared to men on average, new research has revealed.
The ESRI has said that the gender pension gap is down to a “complex mix of factors” but that policymakers should consider greater interventions to ensure the gap is reduced.
The data used in the study comes from 2010′s Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing.
It found that the total weekly pension income for that year was €280 for women and €433 for men, indicating a gender pension gap of approximately 35%.
The ESRI says there is no gap between genders in the State pension but that there is a large disparity in private and occupational pensions.
The figures show that 55% of retired men receive a private or occupational pension, compared to only 28% of women.
This particular disparity is greatly affected by the number of years worked by men and women, with 93% of retired men having worked for more than 30 years compared to 33% of retired women.
As a result, women are less likely to receive a contributory pension and among those who do, the average income received is much lower than the average income received by men.
It is worth noting that the data is almost a decade old and applies to individuals who had retired in 2010, meaning more recent changes in work patterns would likely show different results.
Regardless, the ESRI’s Adele Whelan says the government must consider measures to ensure that women can participate adequately and fairly in the workforce.
“A complex mix of factors shape the working lives of women and men, such as personal desires, household decision-making processes, social conditions and public policies.
In order to reduce the pension gender gap, policymakers need to consider measures to raise female employments levels, reduce the differences in occupational and private pension coverage across genders, ensure increased continuity in employment and adequately protect against care-related interruptions.
“Policies concerning the provision of increased and more affordable childcare and long-term care services can also play a role to increase female employment levels and ensure increased continuity in employment,” Whelan added.
The ESRI’s research echoes others studies which have shown that women are far less likely to be preparing for their retirement than men.
Figures from last year showed that just over one in three women own a pension (36%) compared with 55% of men and that 71% of women say they don’t know how to start a pension.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Complex mix of factors? Eh not really, the fact that women take on caring responsibility of children and/or elderly parents, so women either work part time and/or take career breaks and this is not recognised by society or the government as ‘working” so therefore no contributions.
I have taken career breaks and work part time due to the above, I know my pension will be effected but I will always choose my family and their needs, plus I am contributing towards society by providing unpaid care.
I could be dead by the time I can retire!
@Gucky: nail on the head here – my wife chooses to stay home and mind our children (not that we could afford childcare anyway) but I still think we would choose this anyway – all the government does is give you a measly 1500 per year tax credit for this and doesn’t recognize the work that goes into raising and taking care of the family – how about a better tax credit/ tax break for those spouses that want to contribute on their spouses behalf? All they seem to talk about is how they can get women back to “work” – equality should be there for those that choose to work and those that decide to stay at home.
@Gucky: And also the group in the study would have been affected by the Marriage bar – only lifted in the 70′s. Meaning a lot of them would of had to leave work once married, further hampering their potential to work and earn a pension. Horrible to think how they have been treated, forced out of work and also no provisions made to support them.
@Grainne Tallon: good point, I didn’t even think about that. A better analysis would be to analyse the current pension provisions of the current workforce if that’s the demographic that the laws are to effect.
@Sean Baylon: are you seriously saying that those that decide to work should get the same pension as those that decide to stay at home – with your logic the Jobseeker’s Allowance should be same average wage as those that go out to work
@lorcmulv: that isn’t what I said at all – I said that people who’s partners work should be allowed to contribute on their behalf as they are “working” in the home.
@Sean Baylon: 2 people work the same hours and one is specialised and earns 90k but the other 45k. Should they get the same pension? 2 people work different hours one earns 90k and the other 45k. Should they get the same pension? It doesn’t matter about gender or why the person works less hours. Simply some people pay more into their pension.
I’m not at all shocked by this. Women with children tend to not stay in the workforce as long as men over the course of their lives, as such, they get a lesser pension, usually just the state pension. Hardly a groundbreaking story.
So men who worked between 1965 and 2010 earned more pension than women in the same period?! They also earned more income. Women in the same period traditionally stayed home more. How is this news and why is the data 10 years out of date?
But there’s three different categories in retirement isnt there? Men women and politicians.
It is incorrect to conclude that there is no gender variance in the average state pension actually awarded.
The averaging of contributions over lifetime employments does reduce the actual, particularly for women, whose employment contributions are reduced by periods of domestic commitment.
Another factor is involuntary contract employment, whereby the state allowed widespread abuses by employers, to recategorise previously insure able jobs as self employment.
The recent announcement by a lady minister to redress these discriminations is limited in scope by age & records constraints, & does not offer equity universally. Unfortunately, The headline pronouncements do not reveal the continuing limitations to the rectification of these pension reductions.
I work with a number of job sharers who chose to work less hours because they wanted to spend time with their children. They are able to do this because their partners work full time. As a result they will have less pension contributions than their partner. Gender doesn’t come into it they simply earned less in paid employment which was their choice.
Every job sharer I know does no overtime and expect other team members to because they don’t have kids or they have a partner. This is not equality
Don’t have baby’s basically
Women also tend to be much more risk averse when it comes to finances. They are far less likely to invest money, preferring to keep it in deposit accounts – thus becoming poorer over time.
By the way, I’m not saying this is the main cause but it’s a large contributor.
Total household income is a much better indicator of economic well-being!
have your say