Women at least 12 years away from financial equality: index

Parity unlikely to be achieved before 2031, index finds

worried women

Economic equality is unlikely to be achieved until at least 2031, despite women making record progress in the March quarter, according to the latest Financy Women’s Index.

The index, an independent report, is sponsored by Australian listed fintech company OneVue, AMP Financial Planning and the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA), measures the economic progress of Australian women on a quarterly basis.

The index rose 1.9 points to 122.7 points in the March quarter, up from a revised 120.8 points in December 2018. The result reflects the fastest pace of women’s quarterly progress in two years, according to index founder Bianca Hartge-Hazelman. It was helped by record female full-time employment, workforce participation, improved educational enrolments and earnings growth relative to men as reflected in a record low of the gender pay gap.

However, Australian women were 34 per cent short or on current trends, 12 years away – at the current rate of improvement – from achieving financial equality.

“We still have too many Australian women unable to realise their economic potential,” said Ms Hartge-Hazelman.

“Surprisingly, in a time of rising employment, there are women who are still underpaid and the female underemployment rate is worse than a decade ago.”

On International Women’s Day, YourLifeChoices sought your views in the Friday Flash Poll on women’s key concerns.

Financial security was top (26 per cent), personal safety in the community was next (15 per cent), followed by family breakdown and abuse (13 per cent), physical and mental health concerns (13 per cent), affordable housing (11 per cent), coping with the physical challenges of ageing (11 per cent), loneliness (four per cent), ability to continue to care for others (two per cent) and transport availability (two per cent).

Other concerns raised by respondents included employment opportunities for women aged 55-plus and abuse of women and children in the home.

Asked which issues should be fixed today, and financial security (33 per cent) was again the top issue followed by personal safety in public (19 per cent), equal opportunity in the workplace (17 per cent) and suitable compensation for carers (nine per cent). Surprisingly, only four per cent wanted immediate action to narrow the superannuation gap, perhaps a likely indication the issue is in hand.

We also asked if baby boomer women should receive a more generous Age Pension to compensate for their smaller – or absent – superannuation balances (median balances for 55 to 59-year-old men in 2015–16 were $115,000 and for women $50,000). An overwhelming 70 per cent of the poll’s 383 respondents said yes.

The poll evoked a strong response from members, and sexist attitudes would seem to be alive and well. However, there were also many measured and responsible comments, including:

“A liveable universal pension, assured, reasonable, safe accommodation where people have access to and participation in the community … with effective income distribution to have this happen … a true ‘common wealth’. This sounds like a civilised society that values all peoples of all ages.” ~ Zen

“I agree the past was dismal, but that by no means justifies any ‘catch-up’ or ‘make-up’ by ‘punishing’ men as some feminists seek to do …” ~ TREBOR

“Fact is most women in Australia are comfortable in their own skin and are in caring and loving family relationships. Most of these have no time for this leftie-promoted fake event (International Women’s Day).” ~ Not a Bludger

“I find the selection ‘narrow the superannuation gap’ quite offensive. There should be no superannuation gap or any other gap. Gender should never be even mentioned when it comes to things like super, wages, positions.” ~ Ted Wards

“So many of us have spent our lives caring for our partners, children, parents, families and even the community and it is just expected. Beside that, we often worked full or part time and though we age equally, it is mostly the women who continue to do the caring for their grumpy old men. I was dismissed when I married and it was years before we had equal pay in my profession. It was extremely difficult to get permanency and thus I ended with a ridiculously small super, even though I worked (between having children) for well over 30 years.” ~ Omacarla

Is sexism in the community still as much of an issue as ageism? What has been your experience of sexist or ageist situations?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login

    12th Mar 2019
    11:00am
    There is no gender pay-gap; it's a lie:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/#2c2e3dc02596

    It's said that women earn on average 78% of men's total earnings across their careers. But women take time off to raise families (good on them!), so the discrepancy is understandable - and fair. Women get paid exactly the same as men do for doing the same job for a given period (assuming equivalent experience and qualifications). There is no injustice: it's just bloody feminists trying to privilege women over men, as usual.
    Pentop
    12th Mar 2019
    11:47am
    If one takes your analysis as given.... so what happens when a woman reaches pension age??? Do they just agree to live in cars, homeless, without the privileges that men take for granted? Is this their reward for doing what you have suggested is their lot?? Is this fair?? The problem with your analysis is the unstated assumption that there will be someone to "provide" for them.... well given the divorce statistics and the fact that women are often "traded in" for younger models (much like cars) where does that leave them?? To look at things solely in the prism of women versus of men is the real problem ... some acknowledgement needs to be taken .... we are human beings and deserve to be treated properly.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    12:05pm
    Pentop, Pentop, Pentop - look at the homeless figures for real - FAR more men live in those conditions than women, and women are given first priority in any available housing...

    Let's leave it alone...

    BTW - homelessness is defined as not having a home of your own - living with rellies is considered homeless. **rolls eyes**

    Emotive discussion and hyperbole will not aid discussion here... what a pity I have to go out and inspect a house... while I'm gone - PLEASE - don't let facts get in the way of a good emotive argument. The one I want has a fine cellar space, dry and cosy - a few walls and some homeless could stay their cheap.

    Give men that Powerball, Lord, and I can buy that villa for sale now and give it to that old lady living there.

    For the fools out there - the fact that I argue fact and reality does not in any way mean I am a heartless cad or cur... more likely it is your kind who fit that bill in my experience..

    How many homeless have YOU taken in lately?
    Pentop
    12th Mar 2019
    12:12pm
    I am glad that you brought out the old "emotive" thing.... always comes out when the argument gets too much to handle... but you did manage to answer my last question... regarding human beings... quite clearly the answer would be "NO".
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    6:32pm
    No need to discuss that, Pentop - deal with the issues..

    That is no question - you make a statement - and I explained to you that it is not I looking at these issues in a 'prism' - it is those creating the issues.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    6:59pm
    You do jump to some amazing conclusions - obviously to avoid actually discussing the issues, and clearly you leap to personal stuff in lieu of valid argument.
    Adrianus
    13th Mar 2019
    9:02am
    Pentop, I disagree with your inference that women are incapable of looking after themselves.
    Hoohoo
    13th Mar 2019
    12:21pm
    If women, after a lifetime of work & toil, end up having to live on the charity of relatives, I find that demeaning. Women are often infantilised in our society, where they are expected to remain permanently dependent, despite all their hard work.

    Many homeless women have left abusive relationships, where their male partner had all the assets in the man's name & all the bills in the woman's name, so when they split she inherited (& continues to inherit) his debt.

    Of course these men are a tiny minority, thank heavens, but women who are homeless are also a tiny minority. The numbers are rising for older women.

    It is the presence of sexism that creates this imbalance in society. Sexism is alive & throbbing, even today.
    Anonymous
    13th Mar 2019
    4:17pm
    Hoohoo, it's not society who infantilize women: it's FEMINISTS. As for "abusive relationships", that cuts both ways. Sexism is alive indeed, fuelled by feminists - misandry and female privilege is thriving.
    GeorgeM
    13th Mar 2019
    7:57pm
    That's right K-A-L, Feminists are the problem, too much sexism as a result of their activities. Also, there is NO discrimination in Australian jobs about what women can earn vs men - if you compare the same job and same hours of work.
    Lots of good comments from Trebor - I would say the "sensible centre" here.

    Ridiculous feminist articles from Janelle of YLC on the topic using statistic to tell lies.
    The statement "Australian women were 34 per cent short or on current trends, 12 years away – at the current rate of improvement – from achieving financial equality" is just an example of a warped view. How will that be achieved - are women going to stop having babies? Or are they going to be paid higher than men for the same work, to make up for the time they need to have and bring up children? Clearly an agenda is in progress from such feminists to discriminate against men.

    Also, she ignores the role and value of Married Couples as the basis for earning sufficient income to bring up families and manage further through retirement - with joint income and assets being what is relevant, rather than what an individual woman earned. I believe the pendulum will swing back again, once enough people recognise the havoc these feminists are causing.
    Hoohoo
    14th Mar 2019
    12:02pm
    You blokes just don't know how good you got it. You are being greedy. When you wake up to the fact that balancing gender fairness is to the benefit of our whole society, you'll understand you're thinking is just about self interest.

    I fear your references to "Feminists" are way too generalised. Yes, there are some extreme feminists who are just that - extreme. It would be like me calling you "Masculinists" & bundling you in with radical male groups that promote & enable sexual assaults on women. Would that be fair?

    Stop conflating pay with work - it's not the same thing. As long as you continue to lack acknowledgement that hours of unpaid work is work, you just bolster my argument that people who generally do unpaid work to the detriment of their financial well-being (usually women) are less valued than those who consider this work below them (generally men).
    GeorgeM
    15th Mar 2019
    12:25am
    Only Feminists are proven time and again to be greedy, greedy, greedy, always asking for more, more, more, without doing anything extra for it. You seem to be taking everything personally, Hoohoo, maybe you have a personal issue. Don't do unpaid work if you don't want to, no one asked you to do it, that's why it is unpaid - you are doing it because YOU want to - then pay yourself! Also, a wild and silly generalisation about women doing more unpaid work than men, many men do more (many die early as a result of the hard & dangerous stuff they took on). I haven't noticed such men complaining, unlike feminists. Feminists have brainwashed many, and that has had and will have consequences in society.
    Hoohoo
    19th Mar 2019
    6:47pm
    GeorgeM, women are already doing extra, so asking for equality is just asking for fairness. You are saying they are greedy & they should do even more. Try it on, as so many men do, but I'm calling you out for being the greedy one here.

    Maybe it would be personal for you, too, if it was something that banged you in the head from the time you woke up every day of your life, as it did for me growing up in a very patriarchal, sexist family.

    I didn't just say women do more unpaid work than men, I said women do more work than men overall. The nature of UNpaid work is that it's never finished, no matter how many hours you put in, it's never done, because of its repetitive nature.

    GeorgeM, YOU are the one who has been brainwashed. That you suggest I don't do any unpaid work if I don't want to suggests this is a choice for independent adults. Everyone should do unpaid work - it's the most important work that must be done every day for a household to run smoothly. All I'm advocating is that since it goes unpaid, it be shared by everyone who benefits, including children (of both sexes).

    Many young,unattached men choose to do dangerous work, because they want the danger money that goes with it. I've worked as a labourer laying pipes & building curbs & gutters. I've worked as a farmer with cattle, orchards & crops. I chose to do these things - they're not jobs women aren't allowed to do, you know. Stop being such a cry baby about it - you probably worked in an office anyway. Don't blame the opposite sex for dangerous jobs that some men choose to do & then try to discount the hours & hours of toil & lack of reward for unpaid domestic work.

    Feminists aren't complaining about it - only the women trapped in domestic situations where they are treated like dogsbodies & can't escape unless they get a divorce. We feminists have created our own lifestyles where unfair treatment isn't tolerated. It makes me happy that my partner & I share responsibility for doing the necessary domestic tasks.
    Paddington
    12th Mar 2019
    11:01am
    Q and A last night addressed this issue and the audience contained men as well as women. The panel was comprised of women only. One important point that came out was that if men joined women in the fight for equality everyone would benefit. A father and daughter in the audience showed support for advancing women’s rights and another young man asked how he could best support his three sisters. Only one young man expressed concerns for men being victims because of feminism rights and struggles. He was advised to be part of the struggle as it would benefit him too. Overall, it was shown disparity exists in politics and sport in particular. The liberal lady was on the right side of the topic by stating she was working at equality within her party and there was a long way to go. She seemed strong and determined. One male within a meeting mimed taking off his pants. So she stood up and left the meeting. She did not name the man who apologised the next day. Why would the guy do that? My guess is that he tried to bully her with shock.
    AFL is heavily unequal but with Nicole in a senior position and she is working hard for equality in a man’s world.
    Males being obstinate and crying victim are missing the point. Join the fight so everyone is able to live happily. If you have been treated badly by women know that many women are murdered by their men or hit and children have to flee with their mothers to stay alive.
    Of course men can be victims and they are. Some women are nasty but that is a different issue and has nothing to do with seeking a general gender equality which would benefit all.
    Anonymous
    12th Mar 2019
    11:05am
    "The panel was comprised of women only."

    I saw that too. So much for 'gender equality'. It seems that some (i.e. women) are more equal than others.
    Anonymous
    12th Mar 2019
    11:11am
    What's important is equality of OPPORTUNITY, not equality of OUTCOME. The latter is frequently an injustice. The damned feminists want equal outcomes - that a 50/50 split be mapped onto every field of human activity - which is ridiculous. And they want it only when it advantages women. They're strangely silent when it comes to equal gender representation in, say, sewage work or ditch-digging (overwhelmingly done by men).
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    11:50am
    So the tame sheep out there, force fed this nonsense from school age, support more and more special rights for women?

    What part of 'a Right, to be a right, must apply equally to all' do you NOT understand?

    Paddo - me old sparring mate - what PRECISELY are these 'women's rights' that need to be 'advanced', etc?

    So any dissenter is advised to 'become part of the struggle' - on the side of CityHall - rather than express and hold and pursue his own ends and aims of equality?

    Talk about playing with loaded dice.

    Paddo - me old sparring mate - what PRECISELY are these 'women's rights' that need to be 'advanced', etc? Let's get down to tin tacks here and actually discuss these things.
    Linda
    12th Mar 2019
    12:05pm
    Because it is a time of looking at the lives and perspectives of women, these topics are getting a lot of air time and women, (for a change) have had ample opportunities to discuss topics of interest to women. What women think and experience is important and their lived perspective is just as valid as any other. Historically, women have not had any seats at the table and we need their talents, input and participation in all levels of society. Some women have lived lives where they did not suffer financially from lost earning power, because their partner found ways to ensure she didn't. Lots of women don't have partners and even those that do, can upon loss of their partner, find themselves with incomes so low they can't sustain themselves. In recent years, women do earn incomes, whereas in the past many stayed at home or only worked part time and thus their personal superannuation is very low. When this is the case, then the public purse helps but in the most extreme cases it is not enough to pay the increasing costs of living and after a lifetime of service to their partners and their children and their parents, find their sacrifice sentences them to extreme poverty in old age. As time goes on, the young women today, who do earn a living and do get superannuation will be more financially secure.
    Cautious
    12th Mar 2019
    12:28pm
    Paddington explain how everyone benefits?
    Sundays
    12th Mar 2019
    1:02pm
    The problem, like all discrimination is that unless it directly affects you it can’t be seen. For example, a man is treated differently by tradesmen, salesmen, bank employees, financial advisers etc. Whenever my husband and I go together, these people always address him, even though the decision will be made by both of us. There have been other times when he has gone alone, but said I will have to check with my wife before making a decision.. Shock, horror! Yet a woman saying she has to check with her husband is par for the course. It’s the same in the workplace. Go to a meeting and unless the woman is the boss, the men always dominate the discussion.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    7:16pm
    "Go to a meeting and unless the woman is the boss, the men always dominate the discussion. "

    a. so the reason for this is either pure oppression or just that women can't stand the heat in the kitchen?

    b. so are you suggesting that when a woman is the boss, the women dominate the discussion?

    c. are you suggesting that when a woman is the boss, everyone gets a fair hearing of their views?

    I doubt you could apply any of those across the board.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    8:59pm
    Linda - by all means look at these things women discuss - but that doesn't make them the be-all and end-all of everything - sometimes such things need to be brought into contact with the rest of the world to actually find their true place.

    It can't just be - "I want - give me NOW!" ... there are men and their children to consider as well...
    Sophie
    13th Mar 2019
    6:32pm
    Cautious..

    KIAH wrote a very interesting post on the " Equality" thread about how "everyone benefits" from gender equality.

    12th Mar 2019
    11:04am
    YLC asks: "Is sexism in the community still as much of an issue as ageism?"

    Answer: Yes. Men still continue to be treated as the disposable sex, and women as sacred cows.

    12th Mar 2019
    11:19am
    "What women *really* want"

    This was answered centuries ago by Geoffrey Chaucer in his "Canterbury Tales" (The Knight's Tale) - POWER OVER MEN.
    Hoohoo
    13th Mar 2019
    4:09pm
    You're showing your ignorance ironically, Knows-not-a-lot.
    I studied Chaucer at Uni & let me assure you all his tales were firmly tongue in cheek.
    Besides, what would he know about women?
    Anonymous
    13th Mar 2019
    4:22pm
    I taught in various universities, Hoohoo. I can assure you that the conclusion reached in "The Knight's Tale" is NOT tongue-in-cheek.

    What would Chaucer know about women? A great deal, one must say.
    Sophie
    13th Mar 2019
    6:28pm
    Yes..I agree..Chaucer's tales are totally tongue- in- cheek.

    Chaucer knew very little about women..although he was married..he considered it a transaction and not a love match. I studied his works too at Cambridge.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    11:46am
    Not this again! Women worked, on average 32.5 hours a week compared to men's 41.8 - as per the last Census. That equated precisely to the alleged 'wage gap'.

    Women HAVE financial equality. there are no bars to their getting loans, no bars to their accumulating 'wealth', NOTHING! Not only that, but they currently occupy the high majority of positions in lovely superannuation schemed positions such as government, healthcare, banking and so forth.

    when are the endless lies about all this going to cease, and reality intrude?

    Where DO you get this nonsense, Janelle?
    Pentop
    12th Mar 2019
    11:56am
    So do you suggest that they work the same as men.... wonderful and I applaud that sentiment and I believe most women would too if it meant (as you have suggested) they would then naturally earn more. However who looks after the children??? Do they just run the streets doing whatever?? Or do you suggest we all (men and women) stop having children?? Or do you suggest that women should take responsibility for children because they are the natural child bearers... and what flows from that being less money to live on. So going back to your financial equality... looks skewed to me.

    As for lies, well I have been through the so called mortgage analysis with a bank. The young man sitting in front of me when I was 50 years of age, proceeded to tell me that it was not possible to get a loan without even looking at my payslip. Patiently I asked him to look at it. Given that I was earning over 100K he nearly fell over... this was the way it is. Needless to say he quickly recovered from his malaise!! And before you say this illustrates that men and women earn the same. I went to university as a mature age student - funded by myself no one else including the government - fought to get good jobs and worked over 60 hours a week without penalty rates or public holidays. So to put all women into your prism is not right. It is time for you look at your assumptions because as you have stated the world has changed in some ways... but not in others.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    12:11pm
    The figures show that per hour worked they receive precisely the same number of dollars ... that is the reality.

    There is no argument.

    Having children is not paid work, and nor can it be.

    What year was your bank experience? Hardly a 'young man' in banking these days... look around you ...

    What makes you imagine your life experience was any different or more difficult than that of countless others? And it is not I who am putting all women 'in a prism' - it is silly and unfounded articles such as this, and those who pursue 'the cause' endlessly who do that with their sweeping generalisations and false expounding of facts and figures.

    Let's try an example from the blurb:-

    "However, Australian women were 34 per cent short or on current trends, 12 years away – at the current rate of improvement – from achieving financial equality."

    Nowhere does it state the parameters of this 'study' and no where does it state how it was handled and the figures arrived at. I can only surmise than, that it was a collection of anecdotes (how unusual) and has no real meaning given the reality of the actual figures I posted above on incomes and relevance of the social issues raised in the blurb.

    You went to university? What did you study?
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    12:13pm
    34% of what were they 'short on'?

    Nobody knows - it's just a bald statement not reflecting any facts and unsupported by any analysis of the questions and the results.
    Pentop
    12th Mar 2019
    12:16pm
    No having children is not work!!! But they need to be looked after... so who does that??

    Bank experience a few years ago.... not in never never land either.

    I have never said my life experience were any different to anyone else.... in fact quite the opposite.... my experience was an illustration of what happens.

    Go the Bureau of Stats for figures... not fake news ... or do you think that is also a conspiracy.

    Yes.... Human Resources and Industrial Relations... surprise surprise...
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    6:39pm
    **rolls eyes** do you understand what paid work is and work is?

    'a few years ago' - how many?

    What does the ABS tell you about the pay rate for bearing and raising children? **rolls eyes**

    The ABS ONLY tells you that all women earned - EARNED - a smaller percentage than men did - and it also says clearly that the number of hours worked on average by women was 32.5, and men worked 41.8 - PRECISELY the 'difference' between men and women's earnings - ergo - men and woMen are paid the same rate PER HOUR WORKED.

    You got it yet? Blandly stating that women ONLY EARNED xyy and men earned xxx is nonsense.

    There is NO wage gap - there is nothing but the same pay for the HOURS worked.

    Not hard.
    Hoohoo
    13th Mar 2019
    12:42pm
    TREBOR, you must count unpaid work as work.

    All your statistics are therefore rendered meaningless because they're based on a false premise. You can harp on about it as much as you like, but you're comparing apples with oranges.
    GeorgeM
    13th Mar 2019
    7:59pm
    Your logic is perfect, Trebor. Feminists do not compare apples with apples.
    Hoohoo
    14th Mar 2019
    1:21pm
    When you value unpaid work then we will have equality.
    Not only don't we value unpaid work with remuneration, you are pretending it's not work at all.
    It's madness really. If you get someone in to clean your house you pay them, but if you do the work yourself, it's not considered work at all!
    While unpaid work is not even acknowledged as work, we are ignoring a huge part of the necessary work that needs to be done for our society to function.
    It's one thing for this work to go unpaid, but it's a whole different thing to pretend it doesn't even exist or deserve acknowledgement. I suppose it's invisible to those who don't contribute. This is sexism at play - loud & clear.

    12th Mar 2019
    11:56am
    Here we go again, a slow news day apparently.
    Fact: all industrial awards in Australia are gender neutral; both men and women get equal pay.
    Fact: men are prepared to work overtime more than women do.
    Fact: pay parity is erroneously calculated on taxable income.
    Fact: nobody ever asks women why they choose to work in the casual workforce.
    Fact: superannuation is calculated on the pay received so it naturally follows that if one party gets a smaller pay packet (or no pay packet) then they will attract less super than one who get paid a larger amount because of hours worked.

    Yes, there are women who work away from the industrial award system and, as such, usually negotiate their salary structure. If some women have an inability to negotiate a higher salary package then that is an individual problem, not one for politicians to start legislating to amend.

    Add to all of this pack of hyperbole, Plibersek is moaning about wanting to pay women a superannuation amount while they are not working to enable them to retire with more money. It's typical socialism using other people's money to fulfil an ideology. (Note: for "other people's money", read taxpayer's money.)
    Pentop
    12th Mar 2019
    12:06pm
    Let's look at your facts:
    Yes all industrial awards are gender neutral... however the percentage of people working under awards is actually quite small... so what about the others???

    Women want to work overtime but often they have children which does not allow this because child care is so expensive.

    Yes, you are right pay parity is erroneously calculated on taxable income why because it is so easy to reduce your taxable income by salary sacrificing or even just have a good tax accountant.

    Do you honestly believe that an employer asks a prospective casual worker if they want to work permanently? Also given that the prospective worker wants a job and would probably realise that an affirmative answer could mean that the job would no longer be available, why would they say "yes".

    Not sure how the superannuation fact is relevant because if someone earns less then obviously their super is less... which brings me back to the point that women earn less... also by having them on a casual wage and making sure that that casual wage does not go above the threshold for superannuation per week they get away without paying any superannuation anyway.

    Women are always aware that they are not in control of negotiations... if they speak up they are "bitches" so they keep quiet and take what is given... after they "should be thankful that they are getting paid and have a job".... this is standard.

    Try walking in another's shoes... it is illuminating.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    12:16pm
    So now, Pentop - men are to blame for women's inability to negotiate?

    Funny that - someone years ago mooted that one of the reasons for force feeding women into the workforce was that they did not truly understand industrual relations and were more likely to bow down to Bossey...

    Are you supporting that?

    I mean - this is in the same vein as lauding women's alleged wonderful skills at 'networking' - yet at the same time 'feminists' and their empty tools decry the fact that men back one another (another statement without support, BTW) while claiming that women don't!!
    Anonymous
    12th Mar 2019
    12:43pm
    Thank you Pentop, let's look at your responses:
    Yes, you're right about industrial awards. Not all workers work under them because they are supplemented by enterprise bargaining agreements which, by law, cannot pay workers below the award.
    I note you agree with my comment about overtime. The reasons why men work more overtime are many and varied but the fact is that men do work more overtime than women.
    Are you seriously saying that only women salary sacrifice? Is that why women's taxable income is less then a man's?
    The threshold for super is that all those who receive more than $450 per month have to be paid super. The minimum hourly rate is $18.29 so that equates to about 5½ hours per week. As the minimum hours per shift are 4, there would be very, very few workers involved in that scenario.
    Seems that I have a higher opinion of women's skills than you do, Pentop. In a former employment I had the pleasure of working in an industry with a majority of women and, at times, was called upon to sit in on wage negotiations. The first question asked was "What do you think you are worth?" and women invariably asked for less than the top figure. Win/win.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    12:00pm
    Financial security was top (26 per cent), personal safety in the community was next (15 per cent), followed by family breakdown and abuse (13 per cent), physical and mental health concerns (13 per cent), affordable housing (11 per cent), coping with the physical challenges of ageing (11 per cent), loneliness (four per cent), ability to continue to care for others (two per cent) and transport availability (two per cent).

    Let's look at these one at a time:-

    a. Financial security affects everyone.

    b. Personal safety affects everyone.

    c. Family breakdown and abuse affects everyone - and the full gamut of issues surrounding these things has yet to be explored at a round table discussion of ALL interest groups.

    d. Physical and mental health concerns - affects everyone.

    e. Affordable housing affects everyone.

    f. Loneliness affects everyone and can be a self-inflicted injury. See c. above - women create 86% of marital relationship' breakdowns for mostly reasons totally unrelated to abuse or violence. Make your bed, lie in it.

    g. Ability to continue to care for others affects everyone.

    h. Transport availability affects everyone.

    Nothing to see here, people -these are not 'women's issues'.
    Pentop
    12th Mar 2019
    12:07pm
    A women gets killed every week.... that is the main fact you have missed.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    12:18pm
    Not being killed is a right, sure enough - but it is a right broken more often than most of us would like.

    Note that it is a small 'r' right - and not a Right as laid down by a constitution.. a sort of general right upheld by the vast majority of men.. but don't let reality get in the way of your emotive argument.
    Linda
    12th Mar 2019
    12:20pm
    I agree, Trebor, and it seems women are the ones who are making it more visible to society. Women are the ones expressing concern. A women, may very likely care for her children and parent for 20 years, then care for her parents and then for her spouse or sibling in old age. This is a lifetime of virtual unpaid slavery, born out of love and care. Perhaps the answer, is to look deeper into the problems. In the 50's and 60's not very many women worked outside the home, as the decades roll on and the expense of living, even very modestly has gone up and up, situations for the women who were mothers and wives in the early decades are now facing a very unfair situation. They are women's issues because women are the ones that are talking about it and wanting to see a fairer situation for those who unknowingly left themselves vulnerable for security in old age. Remember, superannuation only came into Australia as a part of employment packages in the early 90's. It makes sense that we would find ourselves in this situation now. The way it was arranged, as created this situation. It has only been 4 decades that superannuation for everyone started. A person lives on average maybe 7 or 8 decades. It will be a few more decades before the superannuation for everyone becomes meaningful for the entire population. In the meantime, it is grossly unfair for those who worked and also raised a family, cooked, cleaned and supported their working partner, then cared for parents and spouse to find themselves unable to afford to live.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    12:30pm
    FYI - a crime is an abrogation of a right - it is not the right in itself. when you come up with the solution to crime, let us all know - governments have been trying for millennia ...... but let me add this - seeking to control violence by exercising state-controlled violence will not resolve the issues of violence, only exacerbate them by being violence and then inserting the reality that violence is the approved method of resolution of issues.

    Now I really have to go - I can't reach you all day..
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    7:03pm
    People being killed was not in the list posted above by Janelle, and a crime is an abrogation of a right..... are you now demanding enforcement of a negative? You can't enforce something that does not compose part of a right, civil, legal, human or otherwise.

    Put simply you can't compel people not to break laws..... you can only deter those caught.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    9:08pm
    **rolls eyes** Pentop - you can't say I did not include deaths - there were not included in the items Janelle listed.... not my responsibility in dealing with the items listed as 'what women want'. You are welcome to add others in a spirit of co-operation and open discussion - but not of accusation.

    I alluded to deaths etc in saying that you cannot control violence by exercising violence on presumption and instilling the concept that violence is the solution to any problem, as is currently the state's way of approaching relationships issues (I will not use the term domestic violence since it has been vastly de-valued and thus discredited).

    Inevitably that leads to never-ending escalating violence.
    Hoohoo
    14th Mar 2019
    2:19pm
    What violence?
    KSS
    12th Mar 2019
    12:38pm
    Given girls are outperforming boys at school and through university they have no need of any 'special treatment'.

    There is one area where the women are sadly lacking: until we have the same demonstrations of the off field (or even on court) behaviour of sportsmen, sportswomen will never have parity in the sporting arena!
    Sundays
    12th Mar 2019
    1:05pm
    Yes, KSS not to mention the disparity in earnings. Who decided that people prefer to watch men play sport which somehow justified them being paid more
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    6:47pm
    Been that way since the school education system was altered in order to more suit the way girls learn - way back in 1987 that was - when Meredith Burgmann, a 'feminist academic' and State senator, fronted a non peer reviewed 'study' of around twenty girls with established issues - that arrived at the startling conclusion that girls overall 'suffer' under the current approach to schooling.

    Could've fooled me - with my final year A class of five girls and three boys - in 1965.......

    Nobody seems to be asking why boys are struggling so much under this falsified education approach.... or to even care.

    Sundays - people just don't want to watch women's NRL and not all games attract the same sponsorship... it's a universe wide bow to draw saying that this is because someone up in Elysium decreed that men's sports are more important... doesn't work that way.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    9:12pm
    FTR - I sometimes watch women's NRL and AFL, and I have a niece who is a fine soccer player who I've urged to go into coaching.. maybe as Australia's first female coach of the big boys (whatever their team name is)...

    I've urged employers past to take on female supervisors.... I worked for a woman candidate for election for free....

    I'd not hesitate to say that none of that makes me a chauvinist or a misogynist.... such over-used terms, almost as discredited as 'domestic violence'.
    Not Amused
    12th Mar 2019
    12:57pm
    Could we please have a story on What Men Want? In the equally occupied manosphere, men are feeling like second rate citizens.I just feel that the more women complain and whine giving no respect to men's lives and responsibilities, the more we are a disliked species. I have 2 sisters who work, voluntarily care for family members without expecting financial "compensation" and are nice, all-round contented women.

    The continual demonisation of males is just causing men to turn away from women and that's a result women may well live to regret. Thank you.
    Hoohoo
    14th Mar 2019
    2:23pm
    There are a lot of males doing a lot of " complain and whine giving no respect..." here, NA. You are turning away from women because they aren't bending to your will. So be it. No regrets.
    Paddington
    12th Mar 2019
    1:29pm
    Guys taking this personally is missing the point. Feminism isn’t about hurting men it is about protecting the rights of women. You can be a man and be a feminist. Many good men are. It works well for blokes too.
    Some are repeating the same emotional arguments over and over. Sad!
    Cautious
    12th Mar 2019
    2:16pm
    Paddington explain what you mean by "it works well for blokes too"
    Not Amused
    12th Mar 2019
    2:44pm
    Attempts to persuade that men can be feminists is a transparent ploy to try and get men to succumb to women's constant wailing and complaining demands. Look at Prince Harry married to a person who declares feminism and equality whilst parading around in expensive outfits that the majority of women could only dream about.
    I'm just wondering if all this public complaining instead of just getting on with being the best person for the job that we can be, is actually working against us. II guys are taking it personally it's because they feel collectively demeaned and disparaged with their masculine capabilities being de-valued despite toiling the heaviest, hardest most physically demanding work. Then when it comes to assessing equal pay for equal work, women are highly selective according to what suits their tastes, lifestyle, time choices and on it goes. Let's give women a day laying bricks and see how long she lasts. I've worked amongst many women at all levels over a long period of time - 80% have been picky, nasty, bitchy in working groups with seriously inflated perceptions of their abilities in comparison with men's calm, low-key, measured capabilities.
    Cautious
    13th Mar 2019
    7:51am
    Paddington I note you twice failed to answer how everyone benefits..is that because there is no answer?
    Hoohoo
    14th Mar 2019
    2:28pm
    Cautious, Sophie posted this earlier to your first question. Keep up. " KIAH wrote a very interesting post on the " Equality" thread about how "everyone benefits" from gender equality."

    Lets just say every level of society benefits from having an equal & fair society, except for sexist males. A small price to pay, in my opinion.
    Cautious
    14th Mar 2019
    3:01pm
    But it has been proved that the pay gap is fake news hence there is an equal and fair society in that regard???
    Hoohoo
    19th Mar 2019
    7:00pm
    The pay gap may be closed, but the work gap is still gaping wide.
    musicveg
    12th Mar 2019
    2:03pm
    There are only five countries that have true equality, and Australia is not one of them. This is not about feminism verses males (what ever the opposite of feminism is), it is about women having equality in every way, as I said before if women keep undermining themselves and men keep undermining women, we will not get anywhere. Women need to learn to be happy in their own skin without make up and high heels, and not feel like they have to pander to societies expectations.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    6:48pm
    What countries are those? Second time asking....
    musicveg
    14th Mar 2019
    2:32am
    1. Iceland

    2. Norway

    3. Sweden

    4. Finland

    5. Nicaragua


    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/12/10-best-countries-to-be-a-woman-gender-gap-report-2018/

    Australia is at #39

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/retreat-australia-fair-we-ve-slid-backwards-on-gender-equality-league-table-20181219-p50n62.html
    Mum
    12th Mar 2019
    2:09pm
    Why is it always said that women end up with less money than men?
    I had several years out of the workforce while child-rearing, but still ended up with way more payout than my husband. It's about how much one earns, and for how long one works. I'm still working part-time (aged 71), retired from full-time at 63. My husband chose retrenchment at 56. Bad move. Never got another regular job.
    Boomah52
    12th Mar 2019
    4:15pm
    https://youtu.be/-pdnkbs4l_g
    Look at this on You Tube... lol
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    6:51pm
    Exactly.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    6:52pm
    A survey of employees.... OK - I used to work for the ABS - I know what that means..... half data not hard data.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    6:54pm
    Another waste of public money.....
    Sundays
    12th Mar 2019
    7:52pm
    Trebor, that says it all. I had a 5 year stint in ABS. The most sexist organisation ever! My comparison, the 20 other workplaces I’ve worked in
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    8:54pm
    Part of the reason I quit, Sundays - was their management style - it was disgraceful, and it was more like a boy's private school - no real idea ...

    I introduced potted trees and stuff to lighten up the place and copped Coventry for it... once said to the boss man that given half a chance I would bring their management practices into the 20th Century - around 1910 for a start - and then help them move up...
    didn't go over well.
    Sundays
    12th Mar 2019
    9:04pm
    Yes, awful. Fortunately for me I met a woman at Uni who suggested I apply for a job with her company. Never looked back.
    Sundays
    12th Mar 2019
    9:14pm
    And, in a place like that there is a wage gap because it was a boys club. The boys were always promoted over women when I was there. I even had one manager ask me not to apply for a promotion because the man acting in it would never get another promotion, but I would. This is the sort of discrimination women face. Subtle and not so subtle. I doubled my salary in 5 years, it would never have happened if I stayed.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    9:15pm
    I went private and in two years was earning as much as the head honcho was... why should I stick around in a kid's school and take it on the chin?

    I'm not really an economist or statistician - I studied economics at uni but I'm (was) a security guy... also studied terrorism and such.... IMM (International Man of Mystery (not).. but not a Fat Bastard either...
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    9:20pm
    I was there when they had clerical officers and clerical assistants - many of the latter were women, and many of those women really knew their stuff... it was a good thing when they abolished that difference and introduced merit - but they based merit on a false paradigm, so they lost while winning... clutched defeat from the jaws of victory, so to speak.

    About eighteen months after I quit, they had a study done by an independent body into their management style - they were soundly chastised - and rejected the recommendations in the report.

    More good officers resigned as a result, even prepared to forfeit their commonwealth super.... now that's bad...
    MD
    12th Mar 2019
    8:30pm
    Gender aside, including the many and self proclaimed variants thereof, can anyone conclusively state "what they really want" ? Oh of course everyone 'thinks' they know - that which they really want - until some new idea, fashion, trend, belief, conviction or socially enlightened, politically correct form of brow beating is foisted upon the mindless flock thereby compelling everyone to 'toe the line'. If you bahhhhhha! with the lot of all the other stupid bloody sheep then you're sure as hell gonna know the reply!

    To quote Stephen Fry; "Oscar Wilde said that if you know what you want to be, then you inevitably become it - that is your punishment, but if you never know, then you can be anything. There is a truth to that. We are not nouns, we are verbs, I am not a thing - an actor, a writer - I am a person who does things - I write, I act - and I never know what I am going to do next. I think you can be imprisoned if you think of yourself as a noun."

    Go ahead, beat your head up against the latest trend, just beware in so doing you don't suffer from amnesia, although it may prove to be a blessing in some cases.
    TREBOR
    12th Mar 2019
    9:01pm
    Well - it's all well and good to discuss these things that women think they want etc - but all such ideas must be exposed to the harsh light of day - other people have a stake - and if these ideas cannot stack up to reality - they are just ideas and nothing more.

    How many times does it have to be proven to some of you over and over that there is no wage gap etc?
    Adrianus
    13th Mar 2019
    9:57am
    I could, as many others do, see the humour in all this, as I see the ladies in the above photo getting the bad news of having to wait another 12 years for financial freedom. But I wont because this is a very serious issue. The left side of politics is being ruled by a global Marxist ideology which often doesn't apply in Australia, but we blindly accept it. Why? Because it takes numbers to get elected with the power to change to amped up socialism. When it suits the left there are only 2 sexes, therefor if women are victims then men must be responsible. If Labor are the women's representatives, with quotas, then it follows that the LNP are the ones who have a women problem? Labor is very good at adapting to the political winds of change. There was a time that the LNP had more women in their ranks than Labor. Edith Cowan was a LNP member.
    JAID
    13th Mar 2019
    11:57am
    "Equality" is the problem here.

    There is no worthwhile universal definition.

    If you limit it to "Equal Pay for Equal Commercially measured Output" who can disagree. There are other things at play though. One concerns the economy of a family unit and agreements made therein. Another, any inherent differences and propensities there may be in some or all fields between men and women. Another though this may usually be associated with the last, the notion of the contract individuals seek, that includes the time they wish to spend, the nature of the responsibility and preparedness and availability to go the extra mile where it may be valuable and this can include the personal contracts involved.

    Surely after about 50 years of detailed reflection on this and double that in powerful political momentum nobody should still think that there should be any reason to deal with someone differently due to their sex, sexuality, religion or even their disabilities, it is the value of the capability brought to bare which should be the only measure.

    I don't decry a bit of past reverse discrimination, it moved things along a bit and after all it is in the past but there is also no place for that. It may not be an easy thing to find your feet in this nannied society but if you regard the strength of our society as important it is necessary that you do find them. You are an individual, it is for you to know and express your value and contract appropriately. Managers worth their salt take up the baton when they feel the surge of confident, measured and appropriate attitude which can be trusted. The action and the potential outshines the colour of your skin, your sex and all the rest.

    It may be easy to find instances where the wrong things are taken into account but it remains your responsibility to prove value and expect an appropriate piece of the action.
    JAID
    13th Mar 2019
    11:57am
    "Equality" is the problem here.

    There is no worthwhile universal definition.

    If you limit it to "Equal Pay for Equal Commercially measured Output" who can disagree. There are other things at play though. One concerns the economy of a family unit and agreements made therein. Another, any inherent differences and propensities there may be in some or all fields between men and women. Another though this may usually be associated with the last, the notion of the contract individuals seek, that includes the time they wish to spend, the nature of the responsibility and preparedness and availability to go the extra mile where it may be valuable and this can include the personal contracts involved.

    Surely after about 50 years of detailed reflection on this and double that in powerful political momentum nobody should still think that there should be any reason to deal with someone differently due to their sex, sexuality, religion or even their disabilities, it is the value of the capability brought to bare which should be the only measure.

    I don't decry a bit of past reverse discrimination, it moved things along a bit and after all it is in the past but there is also no place for that. It may not be an easy thing to find your feet in this nannied society but if you regard the strength of our society as important it is necessary that you do find them. You are an individual, it is for you to know and express your value and contract appropriately. Managers worth their salt take up the baton when they feel the surge of confident, measured and appropriate attitude which can be trusted. The action and the potential outshines the colour of your skin, your sex and all the rest.

    It may be easy to find instances where the wrong things are taken into account but it remains your responsibility to prove value and expect an appropriate piece of the action.
    MD
    13th Mar 2019
    5:02pm
    Yeh, thanks for the input JAID, more than a tad above the usual bleat. Whether it helps to pull the wool off others eyes will, I guess, be a matter for individual's that choose to stand outside the flock.
    Hoohoo
    13th Mar 2019
    12:35pm
    The only way to fairly redress this imbalance is to have fair representation in positions of power. When you have 50% of politicians, Board members & school principals (for example) in decision making positions, only then will they be truly representative of all the people.

    It is clearly silly to expect 50:50 in every job, & I don't think anyone is asking for that. But we will have a much fairer society when the decision-makers in power are representative of the populace.
    Adrianus
    13th Mar 2019
    1:03pm
    Golly Hoohoo, I never thought of it that way? So, you're saying that only a woman can correctly legislate policy for other women because of her womanhood? Does that same logic apply in reverse? Let's suppose for a moment that 52% of school principals are female. Should we have a male quota to get it to a 50/50 ratio?
    Lets suppose that 78% of all teachers are female? Your theory would suggest that the boys aren't getting taught as well as the girls? Is that the case?
    Hoohoo
    14th Mar 2019
    2:43pm
    I said in leadership positions, Adrianus, where decision-making is a major part of the job. If 52% of Principals were female that would be very close to fair, as that is about the ratio of females to males.
    Teachers, nurses, labourers, etc., are not in major decision-making roles. But their leaders who govern over them should be representative & reflect their ranks. It's called diversity.

    You're putting words in my mouth - I never said anything about women can only legislate for women, or that men can only legislate for men, only that a fair ratio is representative for everyone. This includes having male & female people of non-Anglo backgrounds included, to reflect the populace.
    Adrianus
    15th Mar 2019
    11:22am
    Hoohoo, where do you suppose the principals will come from? If 78% of teachers are female then it follows, does it not, that in sequence a higher proportion of principals will be female. If this does not happen over time then the question should arise why don't we have 78%, or a more proportionate number of female principals? And how on earth do you suppose an anti Anglo quota would work? I'm sorry, but the racism and sexism coming from the left and its blind followers is nothing more than sickening gutter politics.
    Adrianus
    15th Mar 2019
    11:22am
    Hoohoo, where do you suppose the principals will come from? If 78% of teachers are female then it follows, does it not, that in sequence a higher proportion of principals will be female. If this does not happen over time then the question should arise why don't we have 78%, or a more proportionate number of female principals? And how on earth do you suppose an anti Anglo quota would work? I'm sorry, but the racism and sexism coming from the left and its blind followers is nothing more than sickening gutter politics.
    Hoohoo
    19th Mar 2019
    7:12pm
    Your logic is poor, Adrianus. You're not even making sense. And the sad news is that males are disproportionately in higher positions than women as far as being Principal or even Subject Master.

    And are you now suggesting it is racist to have people in decision-making positions that reflect the numbers in the populace? It sounds like you think anything diverse is racist & sexist because it waves in the face of white, male privilege.

    14th Mar 2019
    9:16am
    This is a demand for equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. That is the Marxist ideology that has failed everywhere it has been tried.

    But if the argument is to be about equality of outcome, what about cohort analysis which is the appropriate way to compare?

    It is apparent by way of example, that women do better out of family law, where they far more often take the residential home and they have a right to half or more of the assets and any superannuation held.

    However, the educated middle-class feminists who are behind the lie of equality of outcome are out for themselves and are trying to ensure that they get plum jobs on the boards of private companies and senior government appointments.

    If the feminist elite were actually interested in women there are many other priorities that ought to be put first, with better, more family oriented city design being one of them.
    ardnher
    14th Mar 2019
    3:48pm
    Best idea is for women not to get married/or shack up with anyone, don't have children and educate yourself re financial matters. Then you will be fine!
    Hoohoo
    19th Mar 2019
    7:15pm
    The bearing of children is the only real game-changer. The rest is easy to negotiate, as long as you choose a grown-up partner who is capable of looking after himself.