posted on June 26, 2001 06:31:47 PM new
So then not only are divorced women at a disadvantage having, in many instances, entered the work force later in life but, in todays economic climate those jobs may not even be there for them to reach retirement. I had not planned to retire until I was 62, however, after 22 years my company made some earthshaking changes...and I could have stayed on with them at greatly reduced income with a much heavier workload. I was 55 at the time.
I had set aside a sizeable investment portfolio, anticipating that in an everchanging world there was no way to know what lay ahead. It is never easy, even with a crystal ball, but being in outside sales at least I was making as much or more than the men in the same position within the company. The other stigma that women still face, is that in most instances they still earn less than their male counterparts for the same job. That makes it even harder for them to plan for the future, financially.
It must be a male plot, same thing with high heels and brassiers. No sane woman would run the world the way it is run today.
posted on June 26, 2001 08:24:14 PM new
Uhhh, beyond retirement is the point! Due to entering the work force late and being unable to set aside money to retire.
posted on June 26, 2001 08:37:03 PM new
These women argue that while they worked at home taking care of children, that they lost the benefit of sharing their husbands pension or of having one of their own. And, because they started working later than usual, working beyond the usual retirment age was necessary in order to remain financially afloat.
Women's groups want credit for years spent working at home so that their pensions will be higher in the event of divorce.
