Opinion Breakaway Discussion - Discrimination & Political Correctness

Remove this Banner Ad

TheCoach16 said:
True equality, genuine equality between the sexes is vitally important, or so MrsCoach16 keeps telling me... But is it a realistic ambition?

I was present when my ex wife gave birth to our son. During Thirteen hours in labour I saw her do things that I couldn't do if you gave me ten million dollars. She later described it as a natural part of her life... I changed a handle on a door at home and didn't stop talking about it for two months. I will never be equal to any woman!

On the other hand, as much as women absolutely deserve equal pay for equal work, rather than the 84c of the male dollar they receive , I can't help but think there's a tax to be paid, given if I'm on a ship with MrsCoach16 and we hit an iceberg, she gets to go home on a comfy life boat and I have to sink to the bottom of the ocean while the "band plays on"...

Tongue in cheek, trying to lighten the mood, don't smash me, please !
Click to expand...
I assume you are joking about women being paid at 84c to the dollar for the same roles.

I certainly have not heard of this before.
 
AceAndy said:
I assume you are joking about women being paid at 84c to the dollar for the same roles.

I certainly have not heard of this before.
Click to expand...
It's a statistic I heard very recently, I'm sorry I can't remember exactly where, but it is a genuine stat, wouldn't take much to find its origin. But no, no joking, that part was, to the best of my knowledge, accurate.
 
TheCoach16 said:
It's a statistic I heard very recently, I'm sorry I can't remember exactly where, but it is a genuine stat, wouldn't take much to find its origin. But no, no joking, that part was, to the best of my knowledge, accurate.
Click to expand...
I would be very surprised if that was the case for the same roles in Australia.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

AceAndy said:
I would be very surprised if that was the case for the same roles in Australia.
Click to expand...
I'm seriously no expert on these matters, my post was a lighthearted one, but I'm fairly sure it's a genuine statistic from Australia. I heard it very recently and was as surprised as you are
 
AceAndy said:
I thought equal pay for the same role was the issue.

Not sure anyone could sensibly argue that unskilled roles should attract the same renumeration as roles that require tertiary quals & entensive training.

Having worked in private industry for a stint if they could get away with paying woman less for the same role they would and they would exclusively fill these roles with women. There is no evidence that either of these is occurring.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm saying
 
TheCoach16 said:
Thank you MEB, that's what I was reading... Now I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure that confirms what I was saying, there's about a 16 to 18 percent gender pay gap.
Click to expand...
Have you read all of the data? I'm reading it now.

People assume that the pay gap is people being paid differently for the same role in the same capacity--e.g. 2 full time retail managers, one being paid $1000 and the other $900. It isn't, it's compared across industry, and takes into consideration type of contract, hours worked per week, how many managerial roles are held by women, etc. It's interesting reading.
 
MEB_ said:
Have you read all of the data? I'm reading it now.

People assume that the pay gap is people being paid differently for the same role in the same capacity--e.g. 2 full time retail managers, one being paid $1000 and the other $900. It isn't, it's compared across industry, and takes into consideration type of contract, hours worked per week, how many managerial roles are held by women, etc. It's interesting reading.
Click to expand...
Can't say I read the entire document, I read way too much for my work, so I tend to skim outside of that... I do understand what you're saying though, but over all, once all the considerations are given, does it not average out to a pay gap? I understand it's a little apples and oranges but the bottom line is, there is a gender pay gap, yes?

For me, the fact that a document/report like this is even required or exists, supports the theory that there is an issue.
 
TheCoach16 said:
Can't say I read the entire document, I read way too much for my work, so I tend to skim outside of that... I do understand what you're saying though, but over all, once all the considerations are given, does it not average out to a pay gap? I understand it's a little apples and oranges but the bottom line is, there is a gender pay gap, yes?

For me, the fact that a document/report like this is even required or exists, supports the theory that there is an issue.
Click to expand...
The issue is more than the pay gap, which in itself is way more complicated than a simple yes or no.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Well this definitely not my field of expertise, so I will certainly bow to your knowledge on such matters.... Truth is I was originally trying to post something a little lighthearted and threw in a stat I overheard and didn't pay a lot of attention to. it was just a figure I heard. I would be more than relieved to know it's not accurate
 
TheCoach16 said:
Thank you MEB, that's what I was reading... Now I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure that confirms what I was saying, there's about a 16 to 18 percent gender pay gap.
Click to expand...
I have read the attached document and what they refer to as a pay gap is a reflection of men and woman in different roles within an industry and part_time workers get paid less than fulltime equivalents.

May as well refer to it as an unskilled pay gap. Doesnt strike me as a great conspiracy that the 'gender equality police' would like you to believe.
 
thylacine60 said:
You're gonna make it after all. Just don't seek equal pay, a place in a Liberal Cabinet or a healthy superannuation.
Click to expand...
A healthy superannuation ? I am intrigued by this statement. Would you care to elaborate what the issue is.
 
AceAndy said:
A healthy superannuation ? I am intrigued by this statement. Would you care to elaborate what the issue is.
Click to expand...
Super doesn't accrue when women take parental leave, and accruals are reduced if they return to work in a part time capacity. I can't remember the stat off the top of my head but women with children have significantly lower amounts of super at retirement age.
 
MEB_ said:
Super doesn't accrue when women take parental leave, and accruals are reduced if they return to work in a part time capacity. I can't remember the stat off the top of my head but women with children have significantly lower amounts of super at retirement age.
Click to expand...

Two points MEB.
Super doesn't accrue when PARENTS take parental leave. More and more fathers are prime carers and the same story applies. Why is it an issue worth pursuing?
Superannuation is accrued as a percentage of earnings, if you work less or no hours you accrue lesser or no superannuation. Be you parent, injured, disabled, unemployed etc etc.

At the risk of your mate's poor me line.
I have not been able to work in mainstream for six years, "society" will not give me a job that I am capable of doing for a variety of reasons(largely geographical). My burden to the Government amounts to $80 per month for my partial disability payment offset against my wife's 30 hours or shop assistants wages.
My miracle baby (at 55 and banged up) is due in June, I will be prime carer and will not get super from anywhere, why would that be an issue to society, worthy of discussion etc, Answer it is not, just the cards dealt. Will be offset by the joy of spending time with my little one (as it is for the mothers/parents you allude to).
Government/society pretty much demands both parents work, or seek work.
Another anecdote (sorry) an 18 yo girl(not woman) and her partner at my wife's work recently had an unplanned child. Given government subsidies they decided to avail themselves of childcare, even though they could have manipulated shifts to avoid it. A few weeks ago she had a call at work to say that her 4 month old son had been dropped on his head at day care. It was an accident little ***** pre school age girl helps us out with the little ones all of the time. The young mother no longer works, and the wait continues to find any long term defects after a period of hospitalisation.

My take on life is that a parent should be on hand to raise and educate their child. I have no preference if that be Mum or Dad. that is for the individuals, although nature suggests the woman is usually best suited. The "astronomical" subsidies for child care and tax breaks for certain circumstances simply erode family , and contribute to delinquency and/or respect issues.
 
Coona Blues said:
Two points MEB.
Super doesn't accrue when PARENTS take parental leave. More and more fathers are prime carers and the same story applies. Why is it an issue worth pursuing?
Superannuation is accrued as a percentage of earnings, if you work less or no hours you accrue lesser or no superannuation. Be you parent, injured, disabled, unemployed etc etc.

At the risk of your mate's poor me line.
I have not been able to work in mainstream for six years, "society" will not give me a job that I am capable of doing for a variety of reasons(largely geographical). My burden to the Government amounts to $80 per month for my partial disability payment offset against my wife's 30 hours or shop assistants wages.
My miracle baby (at 55 and banged up) is due in June, I will be prime carer and will not get super from anywhere, why would that be an issue to society, worthy of discussion etc, Answer it is not, just the cards dealt. Will be offset by the joy of spending time with my little one (as it is for the mothers/parents you allude to).
Government/society pretty much demands both parents work, or seek work.
Another anecdote (sorry) an 18 yo girl(not woman) and her partner at my wife's work recently had an unplanned child. Given government subsidies they decided to avail themselves of childcare, even though they could have manipulated shifts to avoid it. A few weeks ago she had a call at work to say that her 4 month old son had been dropped on his head at day care. It was an accident little ***** pre school age girl helps us out with the little ones all of the time. The young mother no longer works, and the wait continues to find any long term defects after a period of hospitalisation.

My take on life is that a parent should be on hand to raise and educate their child. I have no preference if that be Mum or Dad. that is for the individuals, although nature suggests the woman is usually best suited. The "astronomical" subsidies for child care and tax breaks for certain circumstances simply erode family , and contribute to delinquency and/or respect issues.
Click to expand...
I answered a question. Please spare me the "your mate" digs.

Forgive me, I don't give much credibility to anecdotal evidence. However, the Australian Human Rights Commission does believe that the superannuation gap is a real issue:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/gender-gap-retirement-savings

There is a large gap between the superannuation savings of Australian men and women. Because the current superannuation system is linked to paid work, it overwhelmingly disadvantages women who are more likely to move in and out of paid work to care for family members.
Women continue to earn less than men and are more likely to be engaged in casual and part-time work, which are also contributing factors to the gender gap in retirement savings.

Right now, many women are living their final years in poverty. If we don’t act, another generation of women will face similar prospects.
  • Women have significantly less money saved for their retirement – half of all women aged 45 to 59 have $8,000 or less in their superannuation funds, compared to $31,000 for men.1
  • Currently, the average superannuation payout for women is a third of the payout for men - $37,000 compared with $110, 000.2
  • In Australia, women working full-time today earn 16 per cent less than men.3
Click to expand...

Obviously, men can take parental leave also, but the woman is the one who has to have the baby, and is therefore more likely to stay at home for a period of unpaid leave. That is undeniable. As a result,
The current 19% pay gap between women and men’s wages in Australia is translating into a yawning superannuation gap of 47%.
Click to expand...
http://www.industrysuperaustralia.c...e-with-far-less-than-men-for-decades-to-come/

Additionally, according to the WGEA:
43% Of Australian women work part-time
70% Of primary carers for parents are women
Five hours is the extra time that women spend each day caring for children compared to men
70% of the three lowest paid occupations are held by women
Click to expand...
https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/Womens-Super-Summit.pdf
 
Y'all can complain to me about Super issues when you have around $100,000 of it locked into an account you can't contribute to, nor roll into another, as a 30 year old just going to waste for the next 45 years while inflation and fees eat it up thanks to government policy ******* you over.

Super makes me mad. Real mad.
 
Regarding the gender pay gap, I think there is a genuine disparity but it isn't as large as what the stats make out (you can manipulate data to produce almost any outcome you want, and then interpret them differently again).

Women, as the majority of primary caregivers to children, are often impeded in career advancement due to the time invested into raising a family. It's a s**t situation without much that can be done about it, unless we advance science to the point where men can carry babies to term and nurse them afterwards!

Beyond this fundamental issue, there are numerous complex societal ones that see women and men (and everyone in between) typically enter different industries - some of which pay more than others. Anecdotally, it seems like this trend is reducing as more women enter traditionally male-dominated professions, but of course it will probably always exist to some degree. Is this an actual problem? Do we need to intercede through law making and policy to bring the gender balance to a 50/50 rate in all industry? Or do we just accept it for what it is, remove any impediment for women entering male dominated industry (and vice versa) and let the 'market' sort itself out through personal choice? Don't know. I probably lean to the latter. We can't make people enter industry or manipulate hiring ability without huge consequence.

There's no doubt that two people in the same role with the same experience and skill should not be paid differently because of gender. It's only fair and just that this be enforced, and I doubt that it isn't the case for the overwhelming majority of the workforce.
 
MEB_ said:
Super doesn't accrue when women take parental leave, and accruals are reduced if they return to work in a part time capacity. I can't remember the stat off the top of my head but women with children have significantly lower amounts of super at retirement age.
Click to expand...
I am aware that those who make less contribution during their working life walk away with a lesser super payout.

Howver this hardly indicates a gender bias in superannuation as was being suggested by the 'women should try asking for equal pay or a healthy superannuation' post.

There is no barriers to entry for women in regard to superannuation nor is there any difference in the treatment of their contributions.

If a man and a woman contribute the same amounts at the same time their payout is exactly the same. Cant see how anyone can argue this is an issue.
 
ShanDog said:
Y'all can complain to me about Super issues when you have around $100,000 of it locked into an account you can't contribute to, nor roll into another, as a 30 year old just going to waste for the next 45 years while inflation and fees eat it up thanks to government policy ******* you over.

Super makes me mad. Real mad.
Click to expand...
Super makes me mad as well. I don't see why we can't access it maybe just once. I get that we need it for retirement, but i'd say most people woulr like to get their hands on it before then. Afterall, it is our money.
 
HBF said:
Super makes me mad as well. I don't see why we can't access it maybe just once. I get that we need it for retirement, but i'd say most people woulr like to get their hands on it before then. Afterall, it is our money.
Click to expand...
Yeah can understand that, although I also get the reason behind it. Talking to some grandparents and people of a couple generations ago, unless they were active in planning for retirement they struggled big time. Super is a good thing - it just needs fixing in some circumstance.

Pretty sure you can access it in ways though - my financial advisor has mentioned using it to purchase investment properties etc through self-managed funds, though I believe profits need to go back into your super again. At least it gives you control I guess.
 
AceAndy said:
I am aware that those who make less contribution during their working life walk away with a lesser super payout.

Howver this hardly indicates a gender bias in superannuation as was being suggested by the 'women should try asking for equal pay or a healthy superannuation' post.

There is no barriers to entry for women in regard to superannuation nor is there any difference in the treatment of their contributions.

If a man and a woman contribute the same amounts at the same time their payout is exactly the same. Cant see how anyone can argue this is an issue.
Click to expand...
I don't know why people keep taking thylacine60 's posts and acting like I wrote them.

I posted all the info above, that's all I need to say on the matter. Like TheCoach16 said, if it wasn't an issue there probably wouldn't be government reports (and bodies, for that matter!) dedicated to changing the status quo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top