aquascoot wrote on Jan 14
th, 2024 at 5:26pm:
there is no pay gap, but women who leave the workforce for a few years to look after kids will have lower super balances, for obvious reasons.
investing in kids is probably a more sound investment anyway , in terms of the social capital you will need on retirement.
women with no kids should have the same pay and super as men. hope they are happy with a cat and a larger super balance. i think they have probably invested unwisely and will pay a price for their decision .
social capital is as important as finiancial capital for long term security
So will those thrown on the scrapheap at age fifty, or who are robbed of their super contributions by employers, or who have been ill or injured long term, or who are disabled, or who cop divorce and lose half their super fund and are forced to re-build a lifetime of work while still properly maintaining a family that they likely never see ..........
Women are not Robinsonya Crusoe there.... FFS... wake up, Australia...
P.S. and let us all remember - the 'super contribution scheme' hasn't had the opportunity to run a full lifetime yet - say fifty years of working life - THEN we will see the results of artificially feeding women into the cushy jobs with the big pay....
Several years back I dragged up the comparisons between men and women in retirement - one part of it was that - at that time - 72% (or something) of men would retire with pension ONLY - meaning all of the above plus fees and costs would leave them with nothing.... and women 63% (or similar) ...
It all sounds great to politicians and such on their excellent super scheme that will never fail or falter due to Howard's theft of $230Bn into an offshore account - like any banana republic president - that will ensure they are paid even if they trash this entire country.
And many a fool thinks this is a normal and reasonable thing.... try thinking instead....
Anyone with any brains here to see the reality and the problem here?