Choice and consequences in the fight for a healthy old age

Constantly we read sweeping and often misleading generalizations in the press about today’s over 50s. Take these two articles which appeared in one recent issue of the Daily Mail:

First was a story about the development of a new ‘polypill’ which Professor Sir Nicholas Wald of the University of London maintains should be given to all over-50s to prevent heart attacks and strokes. Tests showed that taking the tablet every day for 12 weeks gives those in their  fifties, sixties and seventies the blood pressure and cholesterol  levels of twentysomethings.

The proposal is that we should all be taking it. ‘It is specifically designed for healthy people to keep them healthy,’ the professor commented. ‘It is like taking anti-malarials if you are going to Africa – you take them in order to reduce your chance of contracting the disease.’

The second story focused on the rise of eating disorders in older women which apparently have increased by 42 per cent in the past 11 years — leading to all kinds of health problems such as osteoporosis, heart, liver, digestive and gastro-intestinal problems, not to mention depression. Surprisingly, women over 50 — average age 69 — comprise 78 per cent of all deaths from anorexia.

So, on one hand we are all thought to be eating and lazing our way to disaster and in need of mass preventative treatments that will keep us physically as young as in our twenties, and on the other we – women at least – are being criticized for wanting to counteract the signs of ageing and being told to resign ourselves to the inevitable: “our mothers at [this] age would have slipped into a skirt with an elasticated waist and indulged in another cake,” the journalist comments.

While the author of this piece maintained that a desire to emulate impossibly beautiful women celebrities has led to a new anxiety and discontent in older women, I don’t think it’s that simple.
One of the biggest challenges for us all today as we age is that we have unprecedented amounts of choice.  And exercising that choice and making those decisions about what we want and need and have to do is hard.

Should we choose to take the easy option and decide that polypill protection is an easier path than living a healthy lifestyle?  And should we, men and women, choose to disregard aspirational role models that perhaps in earlier years encouraged us to up our game and slump into invisible comfort rather than taking a robust stance against some of the unwelcome signs of ageing such as grey hair, increased weight and lack of flexibility?

As a nation of elders it’s surely time we grew up, got a grip and took greater responsibility for ourselves and our futures – physical, financial and emotional – so that attitudes such as this become irrelevant.

Yes, we’re ageing, and yes it isn’t always all great,  but aren’t we lucky to be alive for longer to enjoy it?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2175493/Polypills-Why-50s-offered-slash-risk-strokes-heart-attacks.html#ixzz213UC4fPX

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2175610/An-obsession-looking-Fab-Fifty-rise-older-women-eating-disorders.html#ixzz213TiTzBe

The horrible truth about age, work and gender

According to a recent (June 2012) report from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) the numbers of those now working past state pension age has nearly doubled in past 20 years – from 753,000 in 1993 to 1.4 million in 2011. Of these, 39 per cent are men and 61 per cent are women.

They report, unsurprisingly, that over that time, the numbers were relatively stable until 2000 but rose quickly thereafter to a peak of 1.45 million in 2010.

So what are all these older workers doing?

Although a high proportion (32%) are self-employed (compared with just 13 per cent of those below that age) the remainder demonstrate shocking differences in terms of the types of work undertaken by men and women.

Around two-thirds of these men work in jobs classed as higher skilled such as property managers, marketing and sales directors, production managers and chief executives of organisations. That said, of all the jobs carried out by men, the two most common were farmers and taxi drivers.

On the other hand almost two-thirds of female older workers above state pension age (and remember there are a lot more of them) work in lower skilled jobs -  the most common job being cleaners, followed by administration assistants, care workers and retail assistants.

How does one interpret this? As reflecting the success of feminism or its abject failure?

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/mro/news-release/working-past-state-pension-age-nearly-doubles-in-past-20-years/owlm0612.html

“Madonna generation” of women aged over 50 defy jobs recession

In its latest Work Audit report, published today, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) looks at how the jobs recession that began in 2008 has affected men and women across the age spectrum:

The report Age, gender and the jobs recession, which is based on official statistics from the Labour Force Survey paints, at least in some areas, a largely encouraging emerging picture for older women workers, both employed and self-employed.

However, such a report, also put into context with a detailed analysis of today’s latest employment figures, needs more space than can be given here.

Below is a link to CIPD’s own press release and above a link to the report itself.

http://www.cipd.co.uk/pressoffice/press-releases/Madonna-generation-women-over-50-defy-recession-180412.aspx

Deciding when to retire

Today, when standard mandatory retirement ages are a thing of the past, it is more important than ever for employers to understand some of the factors underpinning the retirement decision. For example, the timing of retirement where one of the key myths is that a person’s retirement date will depend largely on when their partner decides to retire, particularly in the case of women.

However, as a recent article in the Wall Street Journal indicated, the days when a husband automatically retired at 65 with a corporate pension and his wife dutifully followed him, are over. Most women approaching retirement age are now working, and many have their own retirement savings and viewpoints about the nature and timing of retirement.

Many of today’s older women entered (or re-entered) the workforce later than their partners following a period of non-work or part-time working while they raised their children. Consequently they may be at their peak with prospects ahead of them when men slow down and want out.

Add to this the fact that retirement, particularly for women, who tend to live longer, can now last for up to thirty years or so and women may look with horror at the prospect of relinquishing an income, social relationships and recognition for many potentially unfulfilling years ahead.

Of course, it’s not all bad news; many people – female and male – have very positive retirement plans. But, as the article indicates and my own experience with coaching and advising older people bears out, many individuals simply don’t talk to each other in any meaningful way about retirement beyond a shared acknowledgement that it will be good to leave the rat race behind.

Employers can help in many ways, not least through providing meaningful, couple-centred later life planning programmes and coaching. That may sound overly altruistic and unrealistic in this economic climate but, if employers want to see their older workers making positive transitions into retirement and being clear and open about their future plans, something has to change.

See the WSJ article at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204571404577255662010466038.html?KEYWORDS=retire

Thinking of starting a business?

Hear what we had to say on BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour

Click Here to listen

What older women look like

Worth taking a look at Bel Mooney’s piece in today’s Daily Mail defending Carole Middleton’s (soon to be mother-in-law of future King) choice of clothes. Carole is 56 and apparently has been criticised for dressing “inappropriately” for her age.

How long will it take journalists to accept that today this is what women in their fifties, sixties and seventies look like? If you’ve always been interested in fashion and looking good, why would you stop and put yourself into purdah when you reach a certain age?

As the article quite rightly points out, the younger Middletons got their sense of style from their mother – and no doubt will continue to be guided (if only in their own minds) by that inherited sense of what looks appropriate and good – whatever their age.

Let’s hope that Carole, in her newly prominent position, turns out to be another much-needed standard bearer for older women.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1374699/Hooray-Carole-Middleton-frump-free-style.html

The right to a dream retirement

The good old Daily Mail has done itself proud again with an article entitled Women pay price of retirement at 66 in Osborne’s sneaky pension age hike.

Let’s disregard the issue of whether Mr Osborne’s decision does or does not represent “a sneaky hike” bearing in mind that the previous Labour government had already decided to increase women’s pension age gradually from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2020, and to 66 between 2024 and 2026.

The complaint against this article is that it, as so many others, confuses the issues of retirement and pension provision.  It states:

“Campaigners and experts said it was grossly unfair that those who have worked hard all their lives will have to struggle on… when they had hoped to be enjoying dreams of retirement.”

Two elements in that statement represent the crux of the issue: “will have to struggle on” and “dreams of retirement”.

First of all, retirement means stopping work – whether or not that work is for your long-term employer, or other work that you do after that.  No one can force you to keep working; if you have the means to support yourself financially you can stop working, i.e. retire, whenever you like.  And now that the government is abolishing Default Retirement Age, most people can now continue to work as long as they like if they have a job.

State pension provision relates to the age at which those who have worked are entitled to receive a fairly derisory amount from the government in the form of a pension. Until recently, women could start receiving their state pension – currently worth £97.65 a week – at the age of 60.

The article quite rightly states that although not everybody will have to keep on working, millions of women won’t have a choice because they simply cannot afford to retire before their state pension starts to pay out. But it’s pushing the bounds of credulity to suggest that a situation of living on £97.65 could equate to “dreams of retirement”.

What is really meant by this statement is illustrated by the case studies of two women included in the article – one of whom is 58 and the other 54 – who will now retire at different ages. Both women have a company pension but say they need the money from their state pension before they can afford to retire.

One will have to work longer before qualifying for the state pension, delaying plans “to indulge a passion for scuba diving”. Meanwhile, the other, who will still retire at 62 “intends to spend as much time as possible playing golf, especially on foreign holidays”.  These are “dreams of retirement”. 

All well and good – and good luck to them. But one has to question the role of the state pension in supporting these dreams. And the idiocy of suggesting that for people such as this delaying the receipt of a state pension is somehow “a cruel blow”. If these ladies were to rein in their aspirations they could probably – like millions of others –afford to retire right now.  You pays your money – you takes your choice.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322696/Women-pay-price-retirement-66.html#ixzz134WGqN9l

 

The mutton and lamb debate

Last week Debenhams announced that it was to “break a fashion industry taboo and became the first retailer to launch a campaign featuring models in their 40s, 50s and 60s to target ‘forgotten women’.”
 
A laudable aim, although a questionable claim as Woman and Home, M&S and Saga Magazine in particular regularly feature older models.  However, their underlying point is a valid one: high fashion and high street imagery is dominated by models under 25 with the result that older women are neglected in terms of fashion advice and styling tips – and clothes that we might actually want to buy.
 
The campaign, which the retailer is calling ‘The Style List’, sees Debenhams joining forces with fashion commentator and diversity campaigner Caryn Franklin. The Style List will give ongoing solutions, advice and guidance on how women 40+ can achieve any desired look, whether it be evening, day or weekend wear. This will be delivered in stores, online and through photography used by Debenhams.
 
There are three looks highlighted in the launch campaign; Power Dress, All Woman and Casual Cool.  The photographs of each do not, however, fill one with confidence.  The “oldest” person (presumably the one representing the 60s age group) is differentiated by her silver hair. The clothes the models have been given would be difficult to wear at any age unless one is exceptionally thin and has fantastic legs.

The campaign seems to miss the point that there is a gap in the market for wearable, aspirational clothes for real women, aged 50+, living real lives.  Not plus sizes, not glamour, not overly youthful trends, but clothes that hide your ageing bits and make the rest of you look as good as possible 24/7.  Helen Mirren, a great fashion icon for the over 50s, bemoans in this month’s Woman and Home magazine that there is a lack of dresses with sleeves for older women, commenting, quite rightly, that “As you get older, there’s more you want to cover up”.

Still, it’s good news that at least there is an increasingly acknowledgement (no doubt driven by the value of this largely untapped market) that older women don’t want elastic waisted pants, fussy prints, ugly shoes and pastel cardis. We’ve just yet to see a truly inspiring representation of what we might actually want.

The double whammy of age and gender

There’s bad news and good news in the recent report from the journal Accountancy Age that male accountants over 45 currently earn 60% more than female counterparts. 

According to a Career Benchmarking study released by the ICAEW and recruiters Robert Half, the average basic salary for a male accountant over 45 is £98,400, while their female colleagues’ average is £60,500. This difference increased in the past year, with women aged 46-55 seeing their wages drop by an average of 10% from last year’s figures, compared with just a 1% drop for males.

This is obviously bad news for older women who in some form appear to be suffering the double whammy of age and gender discrimination. Possibly this harks back to the opportunities, expectations and aspirations of these women when they were younger leading to decisions which are now reflected in their current situation.

The good news is that for younger accountants the difference is much smaller. Females under 30 receive an average wage of £47,300 (an increase of 3% from the previous year) while the average male salary is only 4% higher at £49,300 (a decrease of 5% from the previous year). So if the present trend continues we will not see this situation in the future.

Putting aside the issue of why male salaries should be higher at any age, one hopes that this near-parity will continue throughout these younger women’s working lives and not be derailed by issues relating to childcare and work-life balance.

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2258629/female-accountants-paid-less

Good news and bad judgement

Hooray! Harriet Harman has announced that moves to end “default” retirement at 65 are being brought forward, with older workers also getting the right to request flexible retirement/working options (not that this means they will automatically get them). No doubt there are many dark and devious economic and political forces at work behind this but no matter – the outcome is just as welcome.

Two interesting points stood out from Ms Harman’s speech: the first referring to the role of older women, many of whom are just getting into their prime in their working life – having taken time off work when their children were young. This is a point which is largely ignored in talking about later life working where male work patterns are generally used as the standard. Much more attention needs to be paid to gender differences in work attitudes and abilities in later life if erroneous assumptions are not to be made by employers about what older workers want and are able and prepared to do.

The second point was Ms Harman’s use of the term the “wellderly” to describe well, older people. By doing so she has shot herself in the foot and demonstrated she has completely missed the point – which is that older working people are NOT elderly. Let’s hope this dreadful term is relegated to the government’s “thought it was a good idea at the time but let’s pretend it never happened” pile, immediately.

Auntie and the girls

The BBC is reported to be offering new contracts to women aged over 50 following suggestions that it discriminates against older females. Maxine Mawhinney is currently the only female BBC news presenter in her fifties although the organisation is now believed to be in talks with Julia Somerville, 62, Fiona Armstrong, 53, and Zeinab Badawi, 50.

It’s good to see the Beeb is finally doing something to address this indefensible state of affairs – although unfortunately positive discrimination is just another version of age discrimination.

 It would be satisfying if Julia, Fiona and Zeinab told them where to put their job offers and could sashay off to accept better offers elsewhere. That, of course, would depend on the commercial channels recognising a definite market opportunity…

 

In praise of older women

Writing in today’s Daily Mail, Vogue Editor Alexandra Shulman argues that mothers’ rights are making younger women unemployable.  She maintains that maternity leave (often multiple times) followed by requests for flexible working are creating huge problems amongst her workforce which she summarises as 90% female – of which 98% are women of childbearing age.

I will ignore the question of why 98% of her female workforce is under what must be around 50 or so (I don’t think I would want to hear whatever justification she chose to come up with). But therein lies the source of her problem – and the solution.  Not just replacing younger women with older women who no longer have childcare responsibilities, but ensuring there is a balance of ages.

Employers – Alexandra included – and society as a whole need to understand that today careers are made up of many different stages throughout which employees have different wants and needs and different levels to which they are able to commit to the organisation. Employers ignoring this do so at their peril and, yes, they will suffer the consequences.  Short-sightedness will lead to the demonisation of young women as it has already of older workers. All that will be left will be younger working men.  Back full circle to where we were a very long time ago.

All this on the same day as the Mail publishes another piece by Linda Kelsey on how being over 50 today is no longer old… Is it me or do we need some joined up thinking?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1226157/Vogue-editor-Alexandra-Shulman-asks-boss-hire-woman.html