Baby boomer women will retire with less than two years of savings, says report

The comments section is quite interesting!

Baby boomer women will retire with less than two years of savings, says report



A couple of comments

• theoldgalah Posted at 8:09 AM Today
How does anyone save for retirement? I mean unless you have a job that pays vast amounts in excess of what you need no one I know can save at all. Anyone on a regular wage will never be able to put extra into their super because there is nothing left after food bills etc


• Geoff of Berridale Posted at 9:19 AM Today
To Rob of Larundel - Do you have kids? After raising three kids, seeing them through school and Uni I can assure you that there is nothing left to accumulate "assets" with. I would suggest that for most people their greatest asset is their home, something which is not income producing. I hope you remember your words when you get old.
 
Baby boomer women will retire with less than two years of savings

Saddens me but doesn't surprise me. They were at the end of, but still in "A Man's World".
 
I didn't bother reading past comment #41 by Taxman of ACT, but you've got to admire his breakdown and use of the weeks wages with no allowance for income tax.
 
Battler, why so aggressive about a simple statement of fact?

If you can present evidence that "Babyboomer women are rolling in it, forum rules would allow you to present that evidence.
 
Battler, why so aggressive about a simple statement of fact?
There was no aggression meant, I was just commenting that his calculations of how to save the excess after expenditure, were not allowing for income tax on the initial wages.

If you can present evidence that "Babyboomer women are rolling in it, forum rules would allow you to present that evidence.
I don't know what you mean, I certainly never suggested this.
 
Not sure if there's a tongue in a cheek, but this is the comment that battler is referring to:

Saving shouldn't be that difficult. Lets take someone earning $40k p.a. That will leave ~$769 a week for all of your bills. Assume rent of $300 will leave $469 for the remainder. Take another $200 out for food and rates and your left with $269.00 of savings or play money. Now let's put that $150 a week into a savings account. Thats $150 a week is $7800 a year, and over 40 years will be $312,000.00 That's not including interest earned either. I do believe the greatest problem with most people is that they seem unable to not spend what money they have and end up with no savings. Not that the rates or taxes are too high.

Someone earning $40k pa is not taking home $769 pw. They need to pay income tax first of $6k pa, resulting in a take home pay of $653 pw or $126 pw less. So by the original quote, we can now put $25pw away, not $150! :eek:

Of course, if TAXMAN from ACT had used the words "someone taking home $40k pa" then the rest of the comment is fine by me (even if I disagree with the actual numbers used.)
 
Don't any of you people have older relatives you can ask about this? The way you talk it sounds as if you were laboratory kids, born in a Hitler Hostel.

Fact: Baby boomer women never earned $40k/yr or it's equivalent. Only the daughters of the intellectual set (and few of them) went to uni. The rest were grossly under employed and under paid. They were "chattels" in the marriage. This attitude was universal in my grandfather's time and still hadn't died in the post-war period. It really was a brave woman who sought a divorce and there was scant support for those who did.
 
People don't seem to understand that things were very different years ago.

As an example of how different I'll reproduce a comment on the article referred to:

JudyK of Adelaide Posted at 11:18 AM June 16, 2010
My first job was with the Australian Public Service. I was paid less than a male doing the same work until I had the temerity to marry, whereupon they sacked me. I raised four taxpayers with no baby bonuses and very little in the way of handouts, went back to work when my youngest were in school and earned very little. We had some bonds that were supposed to be safe; they dived in 1987. And now approaching 65 I haven't got a lot to retire on- go figure. Why is this surprising?
 
Hi,

My wife and I are BB's and our kids and grandkids are astounded that the myths created by next generation are not true.

BB women should have more Super ? My wife had an option when we married, resign or be sacked. She worked in a bank, which bank :) but all banks, insurance offices, gov dpts etc etc did not allow married women to work at all once they were married.

Nurses used to continue working using their maiden name so they could get some work. Female hairdressers kept working OK and a few feminine trades but as a whole, women were expected to raise the family (without childcare, subsidies etc etc).

Only kids born after 1956 were able to get free uni education, not all BB, we had to pay CASH up front each year before the course started. For this reason very few women went to Uni, why waste money training a female when she couldn't work if she married !

BBs grew up in a very, very different world to the following generations, womens lib caused great changes in society, some bad but mostly good, if the next gen would only listen to what it was like then and what the women BBs achieved for the future gens they may appreciate the freedom of choice they enjoy more than they do.
 
BB women should have more Super ? My wife had an option when we married, resign or be sacked. She worked in a bank, which bank :) but all banks, insurance offices, gov dpts etc etc did not allow married women to work at all once they were married..

That's absolutely unbelievable! :eek: I know what my solution to that would be... NOT MARRY!!! The thought of being dependant on a man, not having my own independance and effectively being a slave... thank goodness I wasn't born in those times!!!
 
Hi, being in the discussed demographic, I'll give it a bit of balance with examples I know.

We have 4 BB women born between 49-58. I'm the sch teacher in the middle. And yes, I remember the days of the school fees [$2 per child per month] that my mother worked her fingers to the bone for, or begged or borrowed.

1st girl: occupation nurse, married Aussie man, bought Housing Trust home for $10500 in Christie Downs, 'retired' cos husband's work took him away from SA. Now they're worth a lot, in the 7 figures.

2nd girl: dropped out after Primary school, became a seamstress earning $5 per day, to this day semi illiterate, semi retired, worth quite a fair amount. Enough to sustain a family's retirement. Operated an itinerant noodle stall, sold from a mini van.

3rd girl: me, never married, bought 4 houses, 7 shops & 5 student accommodation units. 'Retired' relatively early, not worth as much as some of my siblings.

4th girl: banker/CEO internet business. 'Retired' from both, now running an education on line business which gives her time to go trekking in Tibet. She's there now.

Friends of my sister's : nurse, still working, own their home, has a shop in Modbury, married, no children.

Another one, nurse, 2 children, husband disabled, have assets of their own & some income from family trust by husband's parents.

My niece, Echo Boom generation, income about $120K owns own home. I don't how much she has.

Friend, above nurse's sisters, 1 teacher, has 2 houses & still working. Early 50s. Sister, clerk, works part time, 1 daughter, own home, will probably work part time until she qualifies for age pension.

And lastly my friend who's building their home now & who borrowed $300 from me, on Centrelink & will continue to do so till age pension, I guess.

So take your pick, these are the people I know who fall into the age group.

KY
 
When I started work in the early 80's, superannuation was not paid for women. It wasn't until 1986 that women had the option of superannuation being paid at the company I worked for. I am not sure if this was the case in all professions or not. I was originally employed as a receptionist.

Kinga
 
At the end of the day, there are some people who can manage money effectively, and plenty who can't. Education is the only solution.

Agree, they existed then as they do now, however women now have it so much easier in that they are encouraged to be financially independent (not dependent on their husband), have better access to education, have the ability to earn more and enter professional fields more easily, are allowed to work in a profession after marriage, enjoy the positive changes in divorce laws, don't suffer discrimination when trying to borrow for property (happened to me about 30 years go), enjoy more equal pay, get generous employer contributed superannuation etc, etc.

Woman now also enjoy better welfare if they are single parents, recieve money to have children :eek:, get maternity leave payments, and have the internet to advance their financial education (somersoft :D).

Considering all these points it's no wonder that some have been left behind. The ones left behind in retirement now have less of an excuse.
 
At the end of the day, there are some people who can manage money effectively, and plenty who can't. Education is the only solution.
A tad elitist don't you think? It is exactly that attitude that I have tried to dispel.

How does "education" about money help when you have none?
 
A tad elitist don't you think? It is exactly that attitude that I have tried to dispel.

How does "education" about money help when you have none?

I have to disagree on this.

If you take yer average 17 year old - who usually has no money, and teach them money management, there is a good chance that they will get to 30 and be a financial success.

They never had any money to start with, but they had the knowledge to manage any money they received after receiving the knowledge.

Also, take yer average 8 year old (my son). Kids this age never have any money.....or do they?

My son gets $8 per week pocket money/pay for chores. He has been getting this since he was 5, but back then it was $5. He gets $1 for each year of life, so when he turns 9 he will get $9.

The rule is this; he gets to keep 80% of the total for spending, and the other 20% is given back to me to put into his ING account towards his house deposit.

He gets to see his account balance online whenever he wants, and it is growing nicely. He cannot touch it - it's for his house, andd he is happy about it.

But the point is this; he started with no money, and with a little encouragement has now adopted a terrific money management habit of saving 20% of his earnings towards an asset.

When he gets a part time job at Maccas or whatever at aged 15, he will be doing the same.

I only took notice of this basic habit at about aged 30, and only did it half heartedly for about 10 years after this.
 
Here's a few facts about baby boomer women.

Most of us left school at 15 as "there is no point in educating women as they will just get married and have babies". The choices were school teacher (if your parents could afford for you to stay at school), nurse or typist/clerical.

Wages for women were very low. I started work in 1966 and earned $17 per week. The basic situation for most was to pay parents 1/3 of take home pay for board.

When we married many were forced to leave work. Most of the rest of us left when we had our first baby. If you had kids and kept working you were pitied as only women worked "who had to", apart from the few pioneers who bore the brunt of "womens lib" jibes.

Once all the kids were at school (after 10-15 years) we took part time jobs on low pay to fit in with our kids lives, and our lack of skills after being out of the workforce for so long.

Superannuation was unheard of for women until the 1980s, unless you worked for the government.

Most BB women NEVER had a chance to save money in their own right.

Most BB women volunteered. We ran the tuckshops, school fetes, hospital auxilliary, Church social groups, meals on wheels, charity shops etc. We sewed the ballet costumes, managed the soccer teams, did the lamington drives and other fund raising for all manner of activities.

We did our best considering the culture of the times.

So please hold the criticism.
Marg
 
My mother had her first baby in 1958 (honeymoon baby) and had to resign from her public service job as soon as she married. (It is not REALLY that long ago.)

Many of her friends have spent most of their earnings, whilst my parents worked hard, bought a business, built it up, made a profit and bought their first IP in 1975, and never looked back. Meanwhile, many others of the same age never returned to work.

I started working in 1976 on about $3K a year. My brother started the day before me. He was able to get a discounted housing loan after six months' service (bank) while I had to wait for eight years to get the same discounted housing loan (same bank), unless I had a child to support without a partner.

So even in 1984, there was massive inequality for women wanting to borrow money (not just bank employees either). Heck, even eight years ago I couldn't get a carpet measure and quote without my husband being home :eek:.
 
Top