Gender inequality highlights superannuation’s epic failure

The faux outrage over women’s lower superannuation savings in retirement has hit fever pitch, with range of commentators demanding action.

For example, South Australia’s Equal Opportunity Commissioner claims the superannuation system is failing women:

Superannuation, or rather the lack of it, is a huge problem for women.

The super system works pretty well if you stay in it continuously, working each year to accumulate funds and increase the size of your pay packet, largely through ongoing promotions and establishing a well-paid career. If you are a low-income earner, or take time out from working to care for others, it’s bad news…

Women start out behind the eight-ball due to persistent gender pay gaps ($241 less than men each week), unpaid parenting breaks, and a prevalence toward lower paid and part-time or casual work offering few career prospects.

Although women might start out with a similar super balance to men, once they reach their 30s and 40s, it reduces significantly, leaving women to retire with around half the superannuation of men, despite the fact they live longer.

According to the SBS, the superannuation system is failing migrant women, in particular:

Many migrant women in Australia are disadvantaged as they approach retirement after working in part-time, lower-paid jobs, says a leading finance expert…

“The Australian superannuation system fails women dramatically. Women are retiring with around half the superannuation balance of a male,” Ms Venkatesan said.

The median superannuation balance of Australian women at retirement is $119,000, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures – that’s around 65 per cent of the median superannuation balance for men.

The latest figures from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey reveal 66 per cent of overseas-born women from non-English speaking backgrounds aged 55 to 59, have a super balance of zero or less than $50,000.

Whereas Kirstin Hunter, the managing director at Future Super, claims we have a lot of work to do to create equity in superannuation between men and women:

For many women in Australia, superannuation is a really, really tragic time in their lives and it shouldn’t be that way. But the way the system has been set up, currently, means that for the average Australian woman, she’s retiring with around 47% less super than the average Australian man. That is linked to the gender pay gap, but it’s kind of the long term effect of a gender pay gap over a woman’s lifetime combined with other societal factors like women being more likely to take time out of the workforce to look after children or ageing parents. When they do return to work, they’re more likely to work part time. And then the fact that women make up a lower proportion of the senior leadership roles and companies so they’re more likely to be in lower-paid roles. Over the course of woman’s lifetime, that really, really adds up and results in women in Australia retiring with so much less super than men…

Because Australians contribute 9.5% of their salary into their superannuation each year, that means that if you’re working full time, if you’re in a higher-paid position, you’re going to accumulate more super. And particularly, with the effect of compound interest, having time out of the workforce in your, sort of, earlier working years, really adds up over time as well to a big reduction in the super that you retire with…

100% it’s structural inequality, absolutely. The system really was designed with the very traditional nuclear family in mind. So you’d have one partner who works full time their entire life, the other partner who might come in and out of the workforce, but the family’s retirement income is the combination of both contributions. But in our world that we live in today, where there’s increasingly separation, there’s increasingly people living in non-traditional domestic arrangements, living by themselves, then that system starts to break down. And so when you have a structural inequality that relates to working in the way that women tend to be disadvantaged in Australia, because of those things that you mentioned like taking time out for caring, working part time, that really does impact on the equality within the superannuation system.

The reason why women accumulate less superannuation than men is straightforward.

The whole system has been set up so that the longer one works, and the more one gets paid, the bigger the superannuation balances they retire with:

This set up obviously leads to men accumulating bigger superannuation balances, despite not living for as long.

The solution to this purported retirement inequity is not to pour more taxpayer resources into superannuation, for example by lifting the superannuation guarantee to 12%.

Rather, scarce taxpayer money should instead to channeled into lifting the Aged Pension, which is Australia’s true retirement pillar.

Think about it logically. The Aged Pension does not discriminate by gender. It does not discriminate on how long someone spends in paid work or how much they earn. And via means testing, it is generally targeted towards those that need it most (with the exception of properly accounting for home ownership).

As noted by Dr Cameron Murray, the pension system is also far more efficient from a resource allocation perspective than the superannuation system:

The superannuation system employs 55,000 people at a cost of $36 billion per year, to provide $40 billion in benefits. This is nearly as many people as the enlisted Australian Defence Force (58,000) with a similar total cost ($34 billion).

Australia’s complete welfare system, including administering the age pension, disability, unemployment benefits, and Medicare, costs just $6 billion per year and employs 33,000 people while providing $45 billion in pension benefits.

Because superannuation concessions cost the Budget $43 billion a year and are very poorly targeted to high income earners, this necessarily means there are less funds available in the Budget to lift the Aged Pension, which penalises lower income earners (especially women).

Ultimately, it is the high cost of superannuation concessions that is preventing the pension from being lifted and penalising women.

Leith van Onselen
Latest posts by Leith van Onselen (see all)

Comments

  1. Also, I think Super balances can’t be touched as part of a divorce settlement. So the working spouse (mostly males) has little incentive to split his own super contributions with the non-working spouse.

  2. DominicMEMBER

    Every time these people whinge and whine about things like this they are implicitly saying to the Govt 2 key things:
    1. We don’t care why things look unequal
    2. All we want is for you to shake the taxpayer down and give us a handout to make this ‘right’

  3. bskerr2MEMBER

    I don’t know how Oz measures the so called income gap but take a lot how Stats NZ measure it and you can see it’s just a load of rubbish. From there words directly “””http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/Income/gender-pay-gap.aspx””” “”””In an ideal world, we would also match males and females on characteristics that influence pay, and see if there is any remaining difference. For example, we expect occupation and qualifications to affect pay. So we would compare the difference in pay for males and females within the same occupations, and holding the same qualifications””””

    As you can see, so many variables including very important ones that aren’t even included. I have lost all respect for woman, I find they are needy, wanting lazy and manipulate facts so much. Doesn’t help with the anti white male media.

    • Pay gap!

      But who cares that more men commit suicide or die in their jobs. Pansies!

      And these gender pay studies rarely undertake an ‘apple versus apple’ approach – that being taking a childless woman and a childless man, of the same age and years experience, doing exactly the same job. But that would mean doing proper ‘research’ which gender studies aren’t required to do.

      • “…taking a childless woman and a childless man, of the same age and years experience, doing exactly the same job.”
        Someone has done that. If I remember correctly the childless women in the study averaged 16% higher pay that the childless men by the time they reached retirement.

  4. Gee that Kirsten Stewart is full of hot air …

    “it’s kind of the long term effect of a gender pay gap over a woman’s lifetime combined with other societal factors like women being more likely to take time out of the workforce to look after children or ageing parents. ”

    1. We all know that when you normalise for industry, age, experience and ability there is no gender pay gap. Otherwise companies would hire women exclusively to exploit the arbitrage. It is illegal after all. [Conclusion – no issue]
    2. Taking time out to look after children. Well, it takes 2 to tango. Single women who don’t have kids won’t have this problem. For families it will be a joint decision, and a superannuation is a property asset that the family court will take into account in a divorce. [Conclusion – no issue]
    3. Looking after elderly folks. This one I’m not so sure about. Are people still looking after elderly folks? Is that a thing? I thought we whacked them into nursing homes. In any case, this is something that should be discussed as a family, presumably the carer also gets a slug of inheritance to offset that care, otherwise as an economically rational being you’d not do it. [Conclusion – neutral, need to look at it further]

  5. Totes BeWokeMEMBER

    It’s not a gender pay gap.

    It’s an hours, days, weeks, months and years worked gap.

  6. They want to encourage women to have less children and work more for corporate Australia. It’s very effective.
    Young girls growing up with this daily propaganda will choose corporate Australia over a family, rather then rely on shared family resources to get by.
    Orwell’s rpdecitions are coming true, there can be no other loyalty than loyalty to the party. People will be cut from their family until the idea of a family can’t be conceptualised any longer.

    • This. Telling young women they must go to university, must compete with men in the workplace, must all strive to be a CEO, APS department head, high flying lawyer etc. Placing enormous stress on them; and indoctrinating them that to choose to marry, have a family and be a mother is something from the 1950s or misogynistic is simply doing them a disservice.

      We are now seeing the results of this with disastrous rates of depression among women after they reach their mid to late 30s. They no longer have the beauty or physical attractiveness from their youth, they cannot find a husband, they were sold a lie, dedicated their lives to competing in the workplace, burned out, and are childless and the reality that they may indeed have missed the opportunity for children and also to find a suitable partner sets in.

      And for what? To support property prices by forcing households to all have dual incomes? To increase the all important GDP and consumer consumption? To increase tax revenue? “Feminism” does a great disservice to women.

  7. If my super is looking like it’s on track to be lower than the average male, am I entitled to help too?

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      No. You don’t have Labor, Greens, media elites and the real estate lobby pushing your barrow.

  8. Poor migrant women! Who would have thought coming here in middle age would put them behind!

  9. The complete cognitive dissonance and lack of basic mathematical or statistical insight that surrounds this issue is truly staggering…. truly

    Super disadvantages women who take time out of the workforce to raise children as….. wait for it……. “you’d have one partner who works full time their entire life, the other partner who might come in and out of the workforce, but the family’s retirement income is the combination of both contributions”….. yeah Kristen, a family court enforced POOLED retirement asset. literally details the solution in her problem statement!

    lower super balances for women = lower contributions top super (either being in lower paid jobs, working part time hours or some form of gender pay gap) + a demonstrated propensity to investment more conservatively. A 1st year actuary can outline that very easily but a gaggle of self serving morons cannot.