Saving Money as a Feminist Issue
Dec. 12th, 2002 11:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gurdonarkThis week on NPR I heard a spot about how gentrification in artsy Venice Beach, California may cause retirees to have to leave subsidized apartment housing near the beach as developers change the use of their property. This is an important issue, but my ear was caught by something else. Two women, one a retired executive secretary to powerful men, and one an actress who'd had a long career, explained that they would have a hard time moving. All they had was their Social Security, you see. They had no retirement savings.
Let's talk statistics. 2/3 of all women work for less than 30,000 dollars a year. 90% of all women work for less than 50,000 dollars a year. 1/2 of all women work in traditional "women's work" job with little or no pensions. Women in general still earn about 70 cents for every dollar a man earns. Even when we compare "apples to apples", that is, women with similar jobs to men, there is still a gender gap, but a lesser one. In our society, though, we make women's careers bear the brunt of domesticity and child-bearing, and women are shunted into "orange" careers much less lucrative than men's.
Women live longer than men. Half of all marriages end in divorce.
Many women will spend many of their declining years alone. Women make less money, so they need to work harder on saving for retirement. Yet studies tend to show that women invest more conservatively than they should for retirement. The simple fact is that our patriarchal society still does not empower enough women to handle their own finances.
I do not believe it is an accident or genetics that we teach women to "dislike math" by the time they are teenagers. I also believe that even as times change, worlds of women still live the "Cinderella" myth, that some Prince Charming is going to take them away. We do not treat women fairly in this society, and we equip them in droves to retire impoverished.
I listen to a few women say "I am just a shopper" or "I am not good with money" and I just hear "daddy" or "Prince Charming"
in every line. So many embedded assumptions exist about money that can and should be gotten rid of in this society. We're not talking about great wisdom here or stock market timing. I'm talking about basic long-term retirement planning, middle range home ownership, and simple financial cleverness. The lessons needed here are things one could get from a good middle of the road library book, or from 6 issues of a middlebrow consumer guide like Money Magazine or Kiplinger's. This is not talking genius stuff here, or high risk. Indeed, I mean gradual slow self-protection through simple retirement saving/investment.
This issue is vulgar. This issue is not sexy. You can't get people wiring money to non-profits with this issue the way that certain "hot button" issues work for the left or right. This issue is not even a conservative or a liberal issue (though ultra-conservatives who discourage financial independence for women and ultra-liberals who reject participation in the capitalist structure both do immense damage to women in this vein).
As vulgar as money is, though, women are disempowered because they live longer without retirement savings. Although any one middle class woman can only save so much, in masses women shareholders can help change corporations. We have seen this happen in other contexts already. Empowered women with savings can start businesses, help micro-lenders, invest equitably, support candidates in small ways, and participate in the culture in ways that those on Social Security alone cannot do.
I get disappointed when I see so many important but narrow-focused issues get so much attention, and this issue ignored. Millions upon millions of women who could have protected themselves are now 20somethings and 30somethings and 40 somethings who "just can't see their way clear" to start an IRA, contribute to a company pension, start a mutual fund and otherwise empower their declining years. Of course, many folks just don't earn enough. But of those who do, too many ignore this issue. It's just too monetary and financial, for folks who hate both. Even those with modest incomes can take steps to protect themselves.
My theory is that while our society is improving on gender equity, in my lifetime we will not see true economic gender equity. Men will not "protect" women in their old age,either. Women must protect themselves. It is now abundantly clear that government will not do it, no matter which party is in power. Women must protect themselves.
Of course, men need to save more for retirement, too. Many women do save enough for retirement, and many women are financial wizards. But I'm concerned that I meet far too many young women who just "can't save". But this really is the way for women to really help one another--by teaching one another to protect themselves. I don't mean "selling services"; I mean developing primer savings and retirement savvy and implementing non-radical gradual savings for old age. This is a real crisis, and it deserves more attention. I just hate to hear 89 year old women on the radio who worked "real" jobs but have no money. It's something that should pass with time.
Those who are interested in a good website on how to do more might refer to www.wiser.heinz.org. I am sorry to rant on a vulgar topic, but this one matters to me. I'm tired of seeing older women suffer, and younger women who could avoid it run like lemmings to the same fate.
Let's talk statistics. 2/3 of all women work for less than 30,000 dollars a year. 90% of all women work for less than 50,000 dollars a year. 1/2 of all women work in traditional "women's work" job with little or no pensions. Women in general still earn about 70 cents for every dollar a man earns. Even when we compare "apples to apples", that is, women with similar jobs to men, there is still a gender gap, but a lesser one. In our society, though, we make women's careers bear the brunt of domesticity and child-bearing, and women are shunted into "orange" careers much less lucrative than men's.
Women live longer than men. Half of all marriages end in divorce.
Many women will spend many of their declining years alone. Women make less money, so they need to work harder on saving for retirement. Yet studies tend to show that women invest more conservatively than they should for retirement. The simple fact is that our patriarchal society still does not empower enough women to handle their own finances.
I do not believe it is an accident or genetics that we teach women to "dislike math" by the time they are teenagers. I also believe that even as times change, worlds of women still live the "Cinderella" myth, that some Prince Charming is going to take them away. We do not treat women fairly in this society, and we equip them in droves to retire impoverished.
I listen to a few women say "I am just a shopper" or "I am not good with money" and I just hear "daddy" or "Prince Charming"
in every line. So many embedded assumptions exist about money that can and should be gotten rid of in this society. We're not talking about great wisdom here or stock market timing. I'm talking about basic long-term retirement planning, middle range home ownership, and simple financial cleverness. The lessons needed here are things one could get from a good middle of the road library book, or from 6 issues of a middlebrow consumer guide like Money Magazine or Kiplinger's. This is not talking genius stuff here, or high risk. Indeed, I mean gradual slow self-protection through simple retirement saving/investment.
This issue is vulgar. This issue is not sexy. You can't get people wiring money to non-profits with this issue the way that certain "hot button" issues work for the left or right. This issue is not even a conservative or a liberal issue (though ultra-conservatives who discourage financial independence for women and ultra-liberals who reject participation in the capitalist structure both do immense damage to women in this vein).
As vulgar as money is, though, women are disempowered because they live longer without retirement savings. Although any one middle class woman can only save so much, in masses women shareholders can help change corporations. We have seen this happen in other contexts already. Empowered women with savings can start businesses, help micro-lenders, invest equitably, support candidates in small ways, and participate in the culture in ways that those on Social Security alone cannot do.
I get disappointed when I see so many important but narrow-focused issues get so much attention, and this issue ignored. Millions upon millions of women who could have protected themselves are now 20somethings and 30somethings and 40 somethings who "just can't see their way clear" to start an IRA, contribute to a company pension, start a mutual fund and otherwise empower their declining years. Of course, many folks just don't earn enough. But of those who do, too many ignore this issue. It's just too monetary and financial, for folks who hate both. Even those with modest incomes can take steps to protect themselves.
My theory is that while our society is improving on gender equity, in my lifetime we will not see true economic gender equity. Men will not "protect" women in their old age,either. Women must protect themselves. It is now abundantly clear that government will not do it, no matter which party is in power. Women must protect themselves.
Of course, men need to save more for retirement, too. Many women do save enough for retirement, and many women are financial wizards. But I'm concerned that I meet far too many young women who just "can't save". But this really is the way for women to really help one another--by teaching one another to protect themselves. I don't mean "selling services"; I mean developing primer savings and retirement savvy and implementing non-radical gradual savings for old age. This is a real crisis, and it deserves more attention. I just hate to hear 89 year old women on the radio who worked "real" jobs but have no money. It's something that should pass with time.
Those who are interested in a good website on how to do more might refer to www.wiser.heinz.org. I am sorry to rant on a vulgar topic, but this one matters to me. I'm tired of seeing older women suffer, and younger women who could avoid it run like lemmings to the same fate.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
missed a word, bad girl
Date: 2002-12-12 10:24 pm (UTC)I was an only child and came to my parents late in their lives. I was coddled, spoiled, and never taught how to manage money -- whenever I needed something, it was handed to me. To be honest, I can't remember anything that I had to work for.
I received no allowance, did no chores, and my father thought that I walked on water. When I repeatedly got bad grades in math, he would tell me things like math shouldn't be all that important to me.
By the time I was 21, I had went through three new cars -- my dad almost bought me a 63 corvette but my mother, for once, put her foot down, saying with my driving skills I'd end up killing myself at 100 miles an hour.
Every relationship I've been in has been with someone who wanted to take care of me -- even the husband seems to think I can't manage too long on my own without serious financial disaster. I'm by no means a trophy wife -- and on occassion I am rather clever and creative -- but without serious work on my part, being truly independent would be a long ways away.
Sometimes I think I'm too old to really try to change things -- I'll just finish up my little degree and teach disenchanted 19 year olds about commas, and hyphens, and apostrophes. Maybe a novel will some how fall from the sky into my lap, final draft, ready for publication. Because it is, probably, too late for me.
But if I have a daughter -- things will be different.
I'll send her to you, so you can explain the real world to her -- because I'm just not good at stuff like that.
Re: missed a word, bad girl
Date: 2002-12-13 11:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-12 10:56 pm (UTC)The thing I don't get is how people NEED so much money anyway... sometimes it amazes me that anyone makes 50,000 a year, let alone 10% of women. But what I consider a lot, others consider a pittance. And the cost of living is different in various places, I never remember that.
But so you don't worry, I do have a 401k at least. And I'm gonna be Princess Charming, cause I seem better with money than my b.f. is.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 05:46 am (UTC)At the same time, there's certainly nothing wrong with wanting the things that 50K can bring. A 50K income qualifies one for a simple nice middle class home, allows one to drive cars in repair, and allows one to make some real retirement savings. 50K does not allow one to really live luxuriously at all. So there's no great "greed" factor to 50K. One cannot live luxuriously in a Richmond on less than 120K or so, and I'm told one doesn't feel rich until one makes 300K, but I've never made 300K, so I can't say.
I'm glad you have your 401K, and with your frugality, you could probably start other savings funds as well. Of course, this post was not aimed at "specific people", but instead at my concern over a general problem for people en masse.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 10:08 am (UTC)However, although there is nothing "wrong" with wanting to make 50K (sure, I'd take it), I would NOT agree that someone cannot live luxuriously (in Richmond) on less than 120K. I guess the definition of luxury can be different for us.
I'm not so much frugal because I MUST be or suffer, it's more like I was brought up that way (child of a hippie child of a child of the depression kind of thing...?)Though my mom has certainly lectured me on "don't make the same (financial) mistakes I did," and that has influenced me to plan some.
I'm not trying to be obstinate, because I think the point of your post is quite commendable and needs to be considered. But it does catch me of guard that many many people think there are certain standards in income, and that if you make less you are somehow being cheated out of your rights. To a certain point, yes, but so many people are SO MUCH Poorer than 30K, let alone 50K. I guess that's another aspect: because I don't make minimum wage, I think I'm somehow safe, because I see the inequality in other ways (race, background, education: regardless of skill) I guess I rarely think of this as a gender inequality. But yes, it is.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 11:04 am (UTC)Thanks for your comments.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 12:00 am (UTC)I actually think a lot of people are going to find themselves old and poor. At 45, I'm finally beginning to pay attention to saving for retirement. I know plenty of people my age who have had a hard time keeping steady work as the tech bubble burst.
It's a pretty frightening thing, really. And I agree that it doesn't matter which party is in power, and that it falls disproportionately on women.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 11:05 am (UTC)Nolo Press did a nice book some years ago about how "traditional" retirement does not make sense, but instead savings combined with low stress low wage jobs. I need to pick up a copy of that book.
Re:
Date: 2002-12-13 11:58 am (UTC)I actually look forward to that -- my plan is to be able to afford to leave my current place d'emploi in about ten years, and then take a lower-paying job (like working for an arts nonprofit).
But the question is -- what if the semi-retired people are taking entry-level jobs that would otherwise have gone to people just starting out?
I sometimes think that the post-WWII period in US history was some vastly artificial "blip" that sunk into our collective unconscious as the way things were and always should be. Mom and dad in long-term marriages with a few children and their own house. Mom able to stay home because Dad made enough. People able to stop working at 60 and live a life of leisure. That's so false and yet so pervasive.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 04:45 am (UTC)My problem is that I have now chosen to stay home with dear daughter, which I believe is the right move- at least for us. Now, despite the fact that I have been a hard worker for 15 years, I receive no compensation for what I do. That's a fact I've had to accept, and it doesn't bother dear husband (designated hitter?...) at all. His money is our money, and I know that. However, my social security "deposits" ended when I began to stay home. If I never return to work, I only receive what I was depositing at the time my job ended, though I have "worked " at home for whatever period of years. Ditto for any retirement savings.
That's not fair. I am giving up a career, a much more comfortable lifestyle to raise a child, for God's sake. Not to eat bon-bons- I should get some kind of earned income credit towards my social security.
I think this may be the boat a lot of older women find themselves in. Stay home, take care of house, take care of children, when they can get a job after all of that- it's a menial wage, no retirement kind of job- boom- it's time to retire, and they have to figure out how to live on $600 a month. That sucks!
I don't think women should receive special treatment or money hand over fist- only that women who stay home should receive a credit towards social security or some sort of earned income savings credit that would somehow equal them out to those who are workingutside the home. Stay home parents are penalized for that choice.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 11:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 05:35 am (UTC)Teenage children, a husband who wants me here when he's here, a business of my own (small, to be sure), and 8 years of undetected lyme disease have all contributed to making me a-stay-at-home wife.
I'm competant at managing money and I'm not a shopper.
I used to be very brave, but time has altered that. My mother and father are close to the age of needing care.
It's a scary position to be in.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 11:20 am (UTC)But that can be something.
As for a self-employed person, even with a modest business, Simplified Employee Pensions can permit even those of modest income to put a percentage away tax advantaged. I work really hard to avoid giving legal advice over the 'net, and won't here, but I will say this is frequently something people with side businesses overlook. Speak to an appropriate financial adviser whether it might work for you.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 05:45 am (UTC)Still, when faced with the prospects you accurately reported for an elderly woman-- I've always just banked on killing myself first. I've never felt this obsessive GRIP on life so many people seem to have-- they have to LIVE at all costs-- they must go ON--even if they're eating out of garbage cans, and sick with terrible pain, and alone-- jeez-- I'd just end it. So the retirement planning thing doesn't really rev up my engines all that much. Life is going to really suck more and more with age---if I end up a penniless old hag on the street, I'll just walk in front of a truck.
penniless old hag
Date: 2002-12-13 10:11 am (UTC)Go live in the woods, that's what my mom is planning.
Then I can come visit you both.
Re: penniless old hag
Date: 2002-12-13 10:56 am (UTC)Re: penniless old hag
Date: 2002-12-13 11:09 am (UTC)Re: penniless old hag
Date: 2002-12-13 11:13 am (UTC)Re: penniless old hag
Date: 2002-12-13 11:27 am (UTC)Re: penniless old hag
Date: 2002-12-13 11:50 am (UTC)Re: penniless old hag
Date: 2002-12-13 12:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 11:21 am (UTC)I love living, so no bus for me. But I will take steps to ensure my relatives don't keep me on life support needlessly.
Re:
Date: 2002-12-13 11:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 06:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 12:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 01:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-16 11:17 am (UTC)Darn it, I cannot find where I filed your address.
Could you send it to me yet again?
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 07:13 am (UTC)Why "vulgar"? I assume you mean the "vernacular" definiton of the word, but I still wonder why you should apologize for speaking so lucidly about something you care so passionately about.
I appreciate this post, and find it to be directly in line with my observations about money and women.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 07:26 am (UTC)Why don't women (or men, nowadays) who stay at home and raise children receive a salary? From the government or some other source -- why isn't this Job of raising children and maintaining the home worth any actual money? Why isn't it considered a career worth receiving funding? So many voices these days sing out that the home is the source of violence and bad behavior, but how much support is given to those who are supposed to be doing this preventative work? We think teachers are underpaid -- what about mothers (and fathers), who are doing the work that society is based on?
I've mentioned this idea of paying mothers (and fathers) for their work to several friends of mine who I consider to be forward-thinkers, and most of them recoil in disgust. The idea of paying a woman to raise her own child offends most people, as if receiving money for a service is so horrible.
There are some deeply rooted puritanical ideas of "motherhood" and "home" that keep us from recognizing the financial value of the woman-hours clocked at home changing diapers. There's an expectation that the emotional satisfaction should be all the payment a woman needs -- furthermore, that the emotional payment she gets is more valuable than any monetary compensation she could get.
Just some food for thought...
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 11:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 11:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 11:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 07:39 am (UTC)here's to dying in front of whatever students i have at the time. hopefully, i'll land on the most obnoxious of the lot.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 11:11 am (UTC)But the financial pressures can be much reduced in the post-work ages and even while one is working if one invests and saves.
I hope that whomever you fall upon is inspired to enter a career in mortuary science.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 11:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 08:52 am (UTC)In my last job, up in the mountains, I had an IRA that grew to six thousand dollars. After the stock market disaster it is now worth three thousand dollars. I was hoping to let it recover without moving it. But the company I used to work for says I have thirty days to send the money somewhere else, since the account is now worth less than five thousand dollars.
I am living with my mother, who spent almost all her life as a homemaker. When she married in the 1940's, that is what women were expected to do. Her income is $667 in social security- my father's social security. If I were not living here with her, she would have to put a reverse mortgage on the house. This would mean that when she passes on, if a reverse mortgage were in effect, I would not be able to keep the house. And given the bay area housing market, neither I nor my sons would be able to buy another home in the community where we have all grown up.
My salary at work, as director of a homeless shelter, is in the range that leaves me qualified for low income housing. In fact, over 90% of the people who work for the agency (which has six shelters) qualify for low income housing. In San Mateo County the average income is around $70,000 and you can qualify for low-income housing as a single adult while making $50,000 a year.
I am sure my experience is very common. People who work in community agencies risk becoming the poor and disenfranchised clients they have spent their careers serving when they retire.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 11:25 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-12-13 02:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 10:51 am (UTC)This appears to be boiling down - how can you say *my* loved one is worth 'x' money and this other person is worth 'y' money. And the situation being there is nothing other than *money* to put into the pot.
Money is a strange measurement.
Thanks for the essay - and the generous amount of comments.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 11:08 am (UTC)I know if a terrorist attack happened to my family, it would be the end of my world in so many ways, so I understand. But some of the debate, in the vein of "why should I take less, merely because I saved my money", are very difficult conversations.
I believe that 9/11 relief is a good thing,though, and I hope it helps ameliorate economic hardship.
Re:
Date: 2002-12-13 11:20 am (UTC)Not to mention people from the OK city bombing who will say - why not us?
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 11:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 11:52 am (UTC)On the one hand, it's easy for me to wonder how one can quantify one death as worth more in cash than another death from another disaster. On the other hand, I see what she is doing with the money--all good deeds for our family and local charities.
It's a topic so personal, I almost cannot think about it ... easier to stick my head in the sand than try to think if she is really more "deserving" of those funds than say (as someone wrote below) the OK City bombing victims.
I guess it was the govt.'s act to somehow fix the pain with money, since there was little that could be done for the victims and their families. All of the people donating to different funds during the 9/11 aftermath seem to have given their money for this admirable reason as well. I know that Susan would certainly have been in a bad position without her husband's income ... he even urged her to retire, which she eventually did before his death.
It's hard for me to know how I feel about this topic!
no subject
Date: 2002-12-13 12:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-15 07:13 am (UTC)I'm lucky. I've been working since I was a senior in high school - did all the mundane jobs like KFC. Well, that was the only mundane one. I also worked in a bookstore and sheet music store (Penders, up in Denton - it's awesome). And when I married Scott, we decided to live off one income, so when I finally have children, I can stay home and it won't hurt us.
That's been our saving grace. It's the advice I'll give to any newly married person. We're starting a savings now and down the road when something happens to one of us, the other will have a nice little nestegg. The only thing is, there are so many people who didn't have this oppurtunity I did.
My mom wasn't encouraged to go to college. She was the only daughter in a large Italian family and it was assumed she'd simply be a housewife. How many women out there had the same thing happen to them? So they never really worked, never really developed skills? It's different nowadays, luckily, but I really feel for those people.
One more thing - medicare should cover hearing aids! It's ridiculous that it doesn't. I mean, I realize that's more taxes, but even if they contributed $500 or something, that'd help so many people!
no subject
Date: 2002-12-16 01:45 pm (UTC)I really think that is smart living on one income and banking/investing the rest. I know one couple who did that for years, and it gave them the comfort to know that one lay off between them would not kill them economically, as well as an ample savings!