Equality (but only when it suits)

Eurofighter said:
Because they have thought for most of their life they would retire 7 years earlier. Not easy to plan for with such short notice.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it about 20 years notice? There is nothing stopping those who can't afford to make alternative arrangements (independent saving) from continuing with their current career or take additional employment.
 
Eurofighter said:
I haven't done the calculations but she was 60 least year and she is missing out on 6 years pension.

They should give these women at least something.

Our pension system is one of the worst in the developed world. I think everyone should retire at the most at 65.
Click to expand...

Same as my wife who was 60 in August, she never asked for equality either so the "They wanted equality" argument is invalid in her case.
 
Dis86 said:
7 years extra work should be more than enough to help with that!
Click to expand...
"They" say that for a significant % of people, not long after you retire your health falls off a cliff and your mind starts to go as well.

Apparently there are studies which suggest that a lack of purpose and/or boredom really does exact a toll on your health. And that many people fail to fill their time productively after retiring.

Whether that's true or I pulled it from my backside I really don't know :p
 
FoxEye said:
"They" say that for a significant % of people, not long after you retire your health falls off a cliff and your mind starts to go as well.

Apparently there are studies which suggest that a lack of purpose and/or boredom really does exact a toll on your health. And that many people fail to fill their time productively after retiring.

Whether that's true or I pulled it from my backside I really don't know :p
Click to expand...

I worked with 1000s of people at the Michelin and 1000s of people at Creda/Hotpoint and you wouldn't believe how many people retired and dropped dead a few months later.
 
FoxEye said:
"They" say that for a significant % of people, not long after you retire your health falls off a cliff and your mind starts to go as well.

Apparently there are studies which suggest that a lack of purpose and/or boredom really does exact a toll on your health. And that many people fail to fill their time productively after retiring.

Whether that's true or I pulled it from my backside I really don't know :p
Click to expand...
A former boss calculated the optimum time to retire, based on the average longevity after giving up work. I guess it shows that averages are indeed just averages as he died a year after retiring.
 
Eurofighter said:
Because they have thought for most of their life they would retire 7 years earlier. Not easy to plan for with such short notice.
Click to expand...

They've had plenty of notice and it has been phased in, it didn't exactly come in overnight and with an immediate jump!

The first change was announced in 1995, raising the retirement age from 60 to 65 - it is currently near the end of being phased in gradually (from 2010 - 2020).

Then in 2011 the process was sped up to get to 65 by 2018 and 66 for both men and women by 2020. That is still several years notice for a rather small relative change.

The woman on BBC news who portrays it as something coming out of the blue once she got to her 60th birthday and found out she can't retire until 65 has no more of an argument than any man who incorrectly thought his retirement age was 60 too. She just didn't realise when her retirement age was, that's all...
 
stockhausen said:
Gender pay gap?
Click to expand...

I always wondered why this has not been discussed properly. Females promote and encourage Males to look hunky and be strong and fit. To do this and many manly jobs you need a lot of calories this is clearly reflected in the guidance for women and men 2000 vs 2500 but in reality the image they promote requires more than 2500 calories and actually more money for the food than a female.


So why should someone who is ideally of a slim attractive nature with a calorie intake ideally of a healthy and cheaper 2000k diet paid the exact same as a man? Surely this is gender discrimination? You can not really have equality until nature starts to produce male and females equally. And going by birth weights there is no sign of mother nature adapting modern equality, She seems to think equality is unnatural i guess? For example imagine the guy who played the mountain in GOT given the same pay as some 5ft vegetarian brunette you would be seriously discriminating against him because the guy seems to be naturally big and requires a mountain of food.
 
Last edited:
Eurofighter said:
Because they have thought for most of their life they would retire 7 years earlier. Not easy to plan for with such short notice.
Click to expand...

They've had 24 years so far. That's hardly "such short notice". There's no need to plan. They just carry on working, like everyone else has to. The "planning" thing is a diversion.
 
Angilion said:
They've had 24 years so far. That's hardly "such short notice". There's no need to plan. They just carry on working, like everyone else has to. The "planning" thing is a diversion.
Click to expand...

100%, my wife has just got to work 6 more years, no planning involved.
The bonus is that since she is making way more money by working, we can afford nice things, if she had retired in August we couldn't have nice things.
 
Rofflay said:
I always wondered why this has not been discussed properly. Females promote and encourage Males to look hunky and be strong and fit. To do this and many manly jobs you need a lot of calories this is clearly reflected in the guidance for women and men 2000 vs 2500 but in reality the image they promote requires more than 2500 calories and actually more money for the food than a female.


So why should someone who is ideally of a slim attractive nature with a calorie intake ideally of a healthy and cheaper 2000k diet paid the exact same as a man? Surely this is gender discrimination? You can not really have equality until nature starts to produce male and females equally. And going by birth weights there is no sign of mother nature adapting modern equality, She seems to think equality is unnatural i guess? For example imagine the guy who played the mountain in GOT given the same pay as some 5ft vegetarian brunette you would be seriously discriminating against him because the guy seems to be naturally big and requires a mountain of food.
Click to expand...

Women have unique costs based on their sex too, tampons etc. Overall I think men might even come out slightly ahead in that regard.
 
Been talking to my mum about this, I find it hard to believe that she never knew about it back in the 90's... but she swears she did not, she is angry that people were not told individually. I don't know if this is true or not, but she says she was never told individually in person or by letter that it was going to change.
 
Threepwood said:
Been talking to my mum about this, I find it hard to believe that she never knew about it back in the 90's... but she swears she did not, she is angry that people were not told individually. I don't know if this is true or not, but she says she was never told individually in person or by letter that it was going to change.
Click to expand...

I wasnt told individually when it went up last time.

Ignorance is no defence, it's not up to the government to inform you personally of every change.
 
Abraxaz1 said:
I wasnt told individually when it went up last time.

Ignorance is no defence, it's not up to the government to inform you personally of every change.
Click to expand...

How would they know then? Especially in the 90's, what if you didn't watch TV? How would you know?

They informed her personally by letter the second time around though...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom