Tracing the retirement savings crisis back to its policy roots — and what it means for your financial future
Picture two colleagues — one man, one woman — who began their careers on the same day, in the same office, doing the same work. They both worked hard, raised families, and, somewhere along the way, tried to save for retirement. Now imagine them both at 75. Statistically, the woman is significantly more likely to be in poverty. This is not a hypothetical. The National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) found that women are 80 percent more likely than men to be impoverished at age 65 and older, and women aged 75 to 79 are three times more likely than their male counterparts to fall below the poverty line (NIRS, 2016). The retirement savings gap is not an accident — it is an outcome of policy architecture.
Understanding the Wealth Gap vs. the Wage Gap
Most people have heard of the gender wage gap — women earning less per dollar than men for comparable work. As of 2024, women working full-time, year-round were paid approximately 81 cents for every dollar paid to men (National Women’s Law Center [NWLC], 2025). But the gender wealth gap is a deeper and more persistent inequality. Wealth encompasses not just earnings but accumulated assets — savings, investments, home equity, and retirement accounts. Research from the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) found that women have retirement account balances approximately 40 percent lower than men, even when controlling for income level (CEA, 2024). Wealth compounds over time; so does its absence.
The Wage Gap That Follows Women Into Retirement
Over a 40-year career, the cumulative wage gap can cost a woman more than $398,000 — requiring her, on average, to work nearly a decade longer than her male counterpart to make up the difference (Women’s Retirement Protection Act, H.R. 2023, 2025). That lost income is money that was never deposited into a 401(k), never matched by an employer, and never allowed to grow. NIRS research confirms that older women receive only about 80 percent of the retirement income that older men receive — a disparity that mirrors the pay gap throughout working life (NIRS, 2020). The wage gap does not end at retirement; it echoes through it.
Social Security: Designed for a World That No Longer Exists
Social Security was constructed in the 1930s around the assumption of a male breadwinner and a female homemaker. Though formally gender-neutral today, the program still calculates benefits based on a worker’s 35 highest-earning years (American Academy of Actuaries, 2017). For women who stepped out of the workforce — or reduced their hours — to care for children or aging parents, those years can be counted as zeros, permanently reducing monthly benefits. In 2023, the average monthly Social Security benefit for retired women was $1,544, compared to $1,911 for men (Social Security Administration [SSA], 2023). That $367 monthly gap — $4,404 per year — accumulates into a profound disadvantage over decades of retirement.
The Caregiver Penalty: Unpaid Work With Paid Consequences
Caregiving is overwhelmingly performed by women — and it is economically punishing. Data from the 2023 American Time Use Survey confirm that while gender gaps in unpaid care have narrowed somewhat since 2018, they remain substantial in both likelihood and hours (Institute for Women’s Policy Research [IWPR], 2025). Women who leave the workforce to care for elderly family members lose not just wages but an average of $131,000 in lifetime Social Security benefits (Brookings Institution, 2021). The motherhood penalty alone reduces a woman’s Social Security benefit by an average of 16 percent after a first child, with each additional child adding a roughly 2 percent reduction (Brookings Institution, 2021). Caregiving is not a personal choice happening outside the economy — it is labor happening inside a system that refuses to count it.
The Pension Shift: From Guaranteed Income to Individual Risk
The decline of defined-benefit pension plans over the past four decades has been particularly harmful to women. Pensions provided a guaranteed income stream regardless of career interruptions or part-time status — structures that inherently accommodated caregiving patterns more common among women. Today, the dominant retirement vehicle is the defined-contribution 401(k), which rewards consistent, high-income employment and long job tenure. Women’s lower wages and more fragmented careers mean they contribute less annually. As of 2024, women workers had saved a median of $56,000 in household retirement accounts, compared to $92,000 for men (Transamerica Institute, 2025). Among Baby Boomers, the gap is especially stark: men had a median of $350,000 saved versus women’s $165,000 — a difference of $185,000 (Transamerica Institute, 2025). Eighty-two percent of women surveyed by NIRS say that all workers should have a pension (NIRS, 2024).
Women of Color: Compounding Inequalities
The retirement wealth gap is not uniform — it is deepened and compounded by race. In 2024, Black women working full-time, year-round were paid just 65 cents for every dollar paid to white non-Hispanic men; Latinas earned only 58 cents (NWLC, 2025). The consequences for wealth accumulation are severe. As of 2019, Latinas had average retirement wealth of just $8,571, Black women $11,157, compared to $57,180 for white non-Hispanic men (NWLC, 2023). Among older women aged 65 and older, 19.1 percent of Black women and 19.8 percent of Latinas lived in poverty — more than double the rate for white non-Hispanic women (NWLC, 2023). Multiple forms of structural disadvantage — occupational segregation, wage discrimination, limited access to credit, and disproportionate caregiving — converge to leave women of color particularly vulnerable in retirement.
Oklahoma: Behind the National Average
Oklahoma women face a more acute version of the national challenge. The state’s gender wage gap is wider than the national average: Oklahoma women earn approximately 77 cents for every dollar earned by white non-Latino men, compared to the national figure of 79 cents (The Black Wall Street Times, 2019). The state also lacks a number of structural protections — including paid family leave, pay transparency requirements, and a higher minimum wage — that can buffer the cumulative financial impact of caregiving and lower wages. Women in Oklahoma who work minimum-wage or low-wage jobs, where pension coverage is least likely, face a particularly steep climb toward retirement security. Without state-level policy interventions to supplement federal programs, the pipeline of disadvantage that begins with unequal pay is likely to end with disproportionate poverty in old age.
Longevity as a Financial Risk
Women live longer than men — at age 65, a woman can expect approximately 20 more years of life, roughly three years more than a man (CEA, 2024). This is not merely a statistical curiosity; it is a financial planning reality. A larger nest egg is required to sustain a longer retirement. But women arrive at retirement with smaller balances, lower Social Security benefits, and a greater likelihood of being widowed — often absorbing a partner’s end-of-life medical expenses before facing their own. Women also make up 63 percent of Social Security beneficiaries aged 85 and older, and 95 percent of survivor beneficiaries (NWLC, 2023). Longevity, in the absence of adequate savings, becomes a liability rather than a gift. The policy system has not been designed to account for this asymmetry.
A Personal Reflection: Policy in Your Own Financial Picture
If you are a woman reading this, pause and consider your own financial picture. Have you taken time away from work for caregiving? Have you worked part-time, in jobs without employer-matched retirement benefits? Do you earn less than a male colleague doing equivalent work? These are not failures of individual planning — they are the predictable outcomes of a policy environment that was not designed with your economic life in mind. Less than half of women aged 25 and older have saved for retirement, and approximately one-third expect that their retirement income will not be enough to pay monthly bills (National Council on Aging [NCOA] & Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement [WISER], 2024). Seeing your financial position within this broader structural context is not an excuse for inaction — it is the prerequisite for effective action, both personal and political.
What Policy Reform Could Look Like
The retirement wealth gap is a policy problem, and it has policy solutions. NIRS (2016) has outlined several evidence-based approaches: crediting caregiving years in Social Security benefit calculations, expanding auto-IRA enrollment for workers without employer plans, increasing the Saver’s Credit for lower-income workers, expanding defined contribution plan eligibility for part-time workers, and strengthening spousal protections in retirement accounts. At the state level, paid family leave programs, pay transparency laws, minimum wage increases, and expanded childcare access have all demonstrated measurable improvements in women’s lifetime earnings trajectories. A fully functioning retirement security system would price in — not penalize — the caregiving work that sustains families and communities.
Conclusion: The Stakes Are Personal and Structural
The retirement savings gap did not appear from nowhere. It was built — brick by brick — through decades of policy decisions about how wages are set, how caregiving is valued, how pensions are structured, and how Social Security calculates benefits. Each of those decisions compounded silently in the background of women’s financial lives, culminating in the stark reality that women aged 80 and older have a 14.7 percent poverty rate, compared to 10.3 percent for men of the same age (H.R. 2023, 2025). But understanding the architecture of the gap is itself a form of empowerment. When we can see the structural forces shaping our financial lives, we can name them — and we can work, individually and collectively, to change them. The gap is not inevitable. It is a policy choice. And policy choices can be unmade.
F A Q s
Common questions about the gender wealth gap, retirement policy, and what you can do:
Q: What is the difference between the gender wage gap and the gender wealth gap?
A: The wage gap refers to the difference in earnings between men and women — currently around 81 cents on the dollar for full-time workers (NWLC, 2025). The wealth gap is broader and more consequential: it captures the total difference in accumulated assets, including savings, investments, home equity, and retirement accounts. Because wealth builds on itself over time, the wealth gap is typically larger and more persistent than the wage gap alone. A woman can earn relatively close to a male colleague but still retire with dramatically less wealth if she took career breaks, worked part-time, or spent years in jobs without employer-matched retirement benefits.
Q: Why does Social Security pay women less than men?
A: Social Security is technically gender-neutral — benefits are calculated using a worker’s 35 highest-earning years, regardless of sex. However, because women are more likely to take time out of the workforce for caregiving, those absent years are counted as zeros in the formula, dragging down the benefit calculation. Women also earn less over their careers on average, which further reduces their benefit amount. In 2023, the average monthly Social Security benefit for retired women was $1,544, compared to $1,911 for men (SSA, 2023). The structure was designed for a male-breadwinner model and has not been fundamentally updated to reflect modern workforce realities.
Q: How does caregiving specifically affect retirement savings?
A: Every year a woman spends out of the workforce providing unpaid care — for a child, an aging parent, or a sick family member — is a year without wages, without 401(k) contributions, without employer match, and without Social Security earnings credits. Research from Brookings (2021) estimates that women who leave work to care for elderly family members lose an average of $131,000 in lifetime Social Security benefits. The motherhood penalty reduces Social Security benefits by approximately 16% after a first child, with each additional child adding roughly another 2% reduction. These are not small numbers — they accumulate into significant wealth deficits by retirement.
Q: Are Oklahoma women more financially vulnerable in retirement than women in other states?
A: Yes. Oklahoma’s gender wage gap is wider than the national average — women in the state earn approximately 77 cents for every dollar earned by white non-Latino men, compared to the national figure of 79 cents (The Black Wall Street Times, 2019). Oklahoma also does not have state-mandated paid family leave, pay transparency laws, or a minimum wage above the federal floor — all policies that research links to improved lifetime earnings for women. Women in low-wage or part-time work, which is more common in Oklahoma’s economy, are also less likely to have access to employer-sponsored retirement plans, compounding the vulnerability.
Q: Does the retirement wealth gap affect all women equally?
A: No — the gap is significantly worse for women of color. In 2024, Black women working full-time earned just 65 cents for every dollar paid to white non-Hispanic men; Latinas earned only 58 cents (NWLC, 2025). The consequences show up starkly in retirement wealth: Latinas had average retirement savings of just $8,571, and Black women $11,157, compared to $57,180 for white non-Hispanic men (NWLC, 2023). Women of color face compounding disadvantages — occupational segregation, wage discrimination, less access to credit, and disproportionate caregiving burdens — that together create a far steeper retirement security gap than white women experience.
Q: What is the “caregiver credit” reform and why does it matter?
A: A caregiver credit is a proposed Social Security reform that would assign earnings credits to workers — disproportionately women — who leave the workforce to provide unpaid family care. Under the current system, those years count as zeros in the benefit formula. Crediting them would partially offset the Social Security penalty that caregivers currently face. NIRS (2016) has identified this reform as one of the most direct policy tools for closing the retirement gender gap. Several peer countries already use similar mechanisms. The reform would not eliminate the gap on its own, but it would be a meaningful structural correction to a system that currently treats unpaid caregiving as economically invisible.
Q: What practical steps can women take now, given these structural barriers?
A: While systemic reform is the most effective long-term solution, there are immediate strategies that can help. Maximizing contributions to any available employer-sponsored retirement plan — especially to capture the full employer match — is foundational. Women who are self-employed or whose employers do not offer plans can open a Roth IRA or traditional IRA. The Saver’s Credit, a federal tax incentive for low- and moderate-income workers who contribute to retirement accounts, is underutilized but valuable. Women returning to work after a caregiving break should re-enroll in retirement plans immediately. Understanding your projected Social Security benefit through the SSA’s online portal, and considering the impact of delaying claiming past age 62, can also significantly improve retirement income. Structural change is needed — but informed personal action matters in the interim.
Q: Why is the retirement gap getting worse for older women as they age?
A: Several forces compound over time. Women live longer than men on average — about three additional years — meaning retirement savings must stretch further (CEA, 2024). Widowhood, which is far more common for women, often results in the loss of a partner’s Social Security income or pension benefit. Poverty rates among women actually rise with age: from 8.6% among women aged 65–69 to 13.5% among women aged 80 and older (Brookings Institution, 2021). Women aged 75–79 are three times more likely to be in poverty than men the same age (NIRS, 2016). Each of these forces — longevity, widowhood, lower lifetime savings — interacts with the others to make financial insecurity increasingly acute the longer a woman lives.
References
American Academy of Actuaries. (2017). Women and Social Security. https://actuary.org/women-and-social-security/
Brookings Institution. (2021). How does gender equality affect women in retirement? https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-does-gender-equality-affect-women-in-retirement/
Council of Economic Advisers. (2024, September 20). Economic security of older women. The White House. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/09/20/economic-security-of-older-women/
Fritzberg, S., & Shadrina, K. (2024, October 8). Spotlighting women’s retirement security. U.S. Department of the Treasury. https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/spotlighting-womens-retirement-security
Institute for Women’s Policy Research. (2025, February). Care work after COVID-19: Quick figure Q114. https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Care-Work-After-COVID-19-quick-figure_February-2025.pdf
National Council on Aging & Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement. (2024). What women say: Insights and policy solutions for lifelong security. https://www.ncoa.org/page/what-women-say-about-their-finances/
National Institute on Retirement Security. (2016, March 1). Women 80% more likely to be impoverished in retirement. https://www.nirsonline.org/2016/03/women-80-more-likely-to-be-impoverished-in-retirement/
National Institute on Retirement Security. (2020). Still shortchanged: An update on women’s retirement preparedness. https://www.nirsonline.org/research/stillshortchanged/
National Institute on Retirement Security. (2024). What do women think about retirement? https://www.nirsonline.org/research/women2024/
National Women’s Law Center. (2023). Social Security is vital to older women’s financial security. https://nwlc.org/resource/social-security-is-vital-to-older-womens-financial-security/
National Women’s Law Center. (2025). NWLC resources on poverty, income, and health insurance in 2024. https://nwlc.org/resource/nwlc-resources-on-poverty-income-and-health-insurance/
Social Security Administration. (2023). Monthly statistical snapshot. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/
The Black Wall Street Times. (2019, October 15). Oklahoma women experience poverty at higher rates than most states. https://theblackwallsttimes.com/2019/10/15/oklahoma-women-experience-poverty-at-high-rates-than-most-states/
Transamerica Institute. (2025). 25 facts about women’s retirement outlook. https://www.transamericainstitute.org/docs/research/gender-lgbtq/25-facts-women-retirement-survey-report-2025.pdf
Turner, J. A., Andrews, E. S., & Rajnes, D. (2023). Why are women more pessimistic about Social Security’s future than men? Social Security Bulletin, 83(3), 11–35. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v83n3/v83n3p11.html
U.S. Congress. (2025). Women’s Retirement Protection Act, H.R. 2023, 119th Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2023/text