AUSTRALIA BY NUMBERS: The Australian Bureau of Statistics has released the first batch of its census data. We’ve asked some of the country’s top demographers and statisticians to crunch the numbers on Australia’s population: how we live, where we work, who our families are and how we spend our time.
Here, Rafal Chomik shows us what census data can tell us about the quality of our retirment, and why women have it harder.
Census data is fascinating not only because of what it can tell us about the nation’s social and demographic history but because of what it can teach us about the changing context in which we design our social policies.
Possibly one of the greatest changes that we have seen over the century is in the role of women in society.
The 1911 census, in recording the occupation of those older than 15 years of age, found that 83% of women were without profession and were “dependent” on their family. The remaining 17% were largely involved in domestic service and professions, such as textile and dress making.
Female life expectancy at the time was 59, four years higher than that of men. This, in addition to large age gaps between married couples, meant that women who had been reliant on their husbands would find life more difficult in their old age.
To address this, the Australian government introduced the Commonwealth Age Pension in 1909 (superseding some state-based pension arrangements). It was visionary at the time: the United Kingdom’s state pension was not instituted until 1948.
Unlike the pensions systems in most other OECD countries, where payment was dependent on years in the labour force, level of earnings, or both, the means-tested Age Pension allowed for a retirement income that was not simply derived through a woman’s marital bond to her husband.
This is just as well, since the Census shows these “marital bonds” weakened over the years. By the time women who were in their 20s in 1911 were in their early 60s, only 1% of them were divorced. Of the women in their early 60s now, some 15% are entering retirement divorced. In future, many may not have married at all.
Of course the world has changed in various other ways since Australia’s retirement income system was first conceived.
Not only has life expectancy dramatically increased, but many Australians also expect much more from retirement than their age pension income can afford. This is where the superannuation guarantee comes in. For most people, this allows an income replacement mechanism so that their retirement is closer to what they were used to in working life.
But here is the catch. Occupational savings through super favour what has traditionally been a typical male working pattern of continuous, full-time work with a career trajectory of increasing earnings.
So, as the significance of self-funded retirement has increased, women’s social, economic and demographic circumstances have prevented them receiving pension entitlement in their own right. Despite the improvements in gender equality, the average woman lives longer, works less, earns less, and accumulates lower levels of pension savings that must last longer, than is the case for men.
Looking at 2010 data, women between 60 and 64, who have some 22 years of life to live after they reach pension age, may be able to able to top up their Age Pension with some superannuation – but their average balances were approximately $110,000.
Men, on the other hand, have about 17 years of their life left to furnish with nearly twice the Super savings of $200,000.
Our retirement system has not kept pace with some of these changes.
In 1911, women’s eligibility age for the pension was 60, which, given a life expectancy of 59, meant that few of them lived long enough to rely on it.
While women 65 and over comprised 4% of the female population in 1911, the latest Census shows that they now make up 15%. By 2050, the ABS estimates this figure will be 24%. With further increases in life expectancy, women can expect to live about a quarter of their life beyond even the increased Age Pension age of 67.
Many may want to work longer than current cohorts. It does not help that access to super starts at age 60, which is a signal and an enticement for people to retire early. Those overcoming the disincentives to work created by the pension system can be confronted by barriers in the labour market, such as age-discriminating employers.
Thankfully, even in the realm of labour market participation of mature-age workers, women are catching up. ABS figures show that, in 2000, 48% of women over the age of 55 were in the workforce, which increased to 65.8% by 2011 – a far cry from the 17% figure in 1911. As my Centre for Population Ageing Research colleague, Peter McDonald, recently noted, future increases in mature age participation rates, which are welcome in the face of population ageing, will be driven by women, particularly because of the reduced age gaps between married couples.
We have come a long way since the 1911 census. But it will take more social change and policy intervention to help women close the gap in working life as well as retirement.
Robert Miech
Retired
Interesting article. It seems to be based on the assumption that gender financial outcome is the only attribute in scope. This seems a little simplistic but serves the purpose of simplifying a discussion around the statistics presented. However if that is the case then I cannot see how it follows that further policy intervention is necessary. If a female chooses to work as hard as a male for as long as a male in the occupations that males work in then she will receive the same financial outcome in the current environment. If other attributes need to be called into play to justify further policy intervention then the situation is much more complex.
Suzy Gneist
logged in via Facebook
In a society that does not recognise child rearing and domestic as well as volunteer contributions as valuable as paid employment contributions, this can not be achieved. Maybe when males work as hard for as long in these unpaid occupations that many females work in, then he will also receive the same financial outcome in the current environment - only he will make a lot more noise about it and - seeing he has the majority in hierarchies, change his lot through laws. Just a thought to consider, Robert ;) We are still a long way from achieving true equality between the sexes, social change is the vehicle which will get us closer - peacefully and through changing attitudes.
Rosie Torr
Does it matter what I do?
Also, Robert, women in Australia get paid 18% less than men in the same professions. It is not the choosing of work for however long or hard it may be, it is the fact that women get paid less or nothing for the work they are expected to do once they have children. I would say the way superannuation is accumulated, as a percentage of ones pay, is in fact discriminatory against women and certainly doesn't cover our needs for our lifespan. And upping it to 12% will make it even more unjust to those on lower incomes or those who don't earn an income. A flat rate across the board would have been much better and fairer.
Robert Miech
Retired
My point was that the scope of the concluding paragraph went well beyond the scope of the article. People in Australia, unlike other places, have considerable freedom to make choices which will affect their outcomes in a number of ways not just financial. The statistics you quote to some extent reflect those choices. I don't think you can force people to make decisions that maximise their financial outcomes at the expense of other considerations. The issues that you and Suzy have raise need to be included in the analysis. Also they do need to be examined objectively to separate popular myth from reality before we consider policy changes.
Adrian Jones
Consultant
But who will reimburse a mother and home-maker for the work she does? Her husband is paid by his employer, but who is his wife's employer? Him? No. His boss? I guess so. There's no one else unless she is to be paid from the public purse. And what does that make her? A public servant? A pensioner?
I wonder if we cast home-makers adrift when we abandoned the family wage principle in the 1970s. It seemed to make sense at the time (to abandon it) and, in reimbursing the employee without consideration…
Read morelavinia kay moore
child and family counsellor
Touche Suzy!
Read moreChildrearing and unpaid support so that those poor hardworking men can earn their high salaries and big super pots ought to be considered as "work" and should be superannuated.
The contribution goes towards others, not just the husband and the children. It sustains our country and all the wealth that is generated here.
Separating myth from reality is something I recommend.
And the reality is that most single women at pension age right now have never had any opportunity to accumulate…
Adrian Jones
Consultant
My super has been reduced radically in the past few years, as large amounts have been transferred to my wife. I believe that's a standard practice as people get close to retirement. There are tax benefits, you see.
The idea that it's normal that a man goes off to work and makes pots of money and leaves his wife destitute is a bizarre one, I think. Wherever did you get that idea from?
Suzy Gneist
logged in via Facebook
I don't think it bizarre, as an ex-professional who helped a husband finance his career, then stepped back to look after our children and let him establish his career, I was left with some difficult decisions when he decided to choose life with someone else in another country. With two small children to care for my professional options had closed and my super has not received another payment since I stopped work - instead i watched it dwindle over the years - yet I had a mortgage and family to spend…
Read moreAdrian Jones
Consultant
Thanks, Suzy, for your clarifications.
I did write from my own perspective, which I gather is a widely shared one, but clearly, as you say, is not universal and perhaps not as widely shared as I had thought.
All the best to you.
Adrian
Anne Collins
Former IT Manager
I love the view that men work extremely hard. I worked with men all my life and was often the first female manager the organsation had. I watched men do their jobs hour by hour and the resultant productivity. ( I am talking about men who are managers of people in large organsations) It amazed me at how little change or improvement they implemented. Most of the staff they did not even know the names of , let alone anything about their lives. Most of the time the staff resented any interaction as…
Read moreAdrian Jones
Consultant
Looks like you've had a pretty bleak work history, Ann. What you say is quite disturbing.
I worked with a reasonable balance of women and men in my profession (education administration and consultancy) over a long period (48 years in education; 13 as a teacher and 35 in administration) and found that both the women and the men were all very conscientious. Some of the women worked shorter hours, as they attended to family responsibilities, but they worked intensively at their jobs and they were very capable. The men were probably more inclined to come early and stay later. I guess their domestic arrangements allowed that, but they certainly weren't slack at their work either.
Perhaps I was lucky to have worked for so long with so many dedicated and capable people of both sexes.
Michael Glass
Teacher
It's a concern when women live in poverty in their old age. However, it's also a concern that there is such a gap between male and female life expectancy. This gap is not set in stone.
I have seen the life expectancy gap get larger and later get smaller again. Pert of this may have been due to men giving up smoking in large numbers. However, there are other differences in male and female experience of work, and this could contribute to the gender gap in life expectancy.
By all means look to the proper support of women, but let's not forget the fact that large numbers of men never get to enjoy their old age. They die before they reach it.