Dear Anti,

Women select jobs that appeal to them, the same as men.
Talking about salary gaps -There are three men and one woman in charge of the big four banks - they're certainly
powerful. But are they rich? Most definitely. In fact, they are much
richer than they first appear and their wealth is growing faster
than company profits.

Wetpac Banking Corp chief executive Gail Kelly owns $32.9 million worth of Wespac shares. By contrast, the average Australian has
amassed only $232,000 over their lifetime, according to the ABS.
As Kelly and the others get generous annual salaries, the true
wealth gap is even wider than this. The composition and size of their
pay packets preordain this fate, providing they stay in the job
long enough.

Big bank executives are either already in or well on the way to
joining the ranks of the salaried rich. The big question is
whether they deserve the pay propelling them there?

A typical teller at a big bank earns less that 1 per cent of what
their ultimate bodd does. The people who deliver services to
customers, the people who process important documents, the
people who make sure customers can get their loans on time
before a property they want is bought by someone else, are not
being rewarded for the success they are also contributing to.

The best reason for doubting the levels of bank executive pay is that
the executives themselves appear to doubt its appropriateness.

Asked on the ABC's Q&A TV program recently to explain the gap
between her pay and that of the average teacher, Westpac's Gail
Kelly conceded, "I can't for a moment justify that gap."

"Or with nurses or policemen, similarly I simply can't.
What I can say is we do pay a lot of attention to try and make sure it's appropriately structured, that it's aligned around long-term
performance and it's aligned around an organisation - a bank doing
it's very best work to try and support communities it works in and looks after of its stakeholdeers. But it is a big number."

Lexi:"Women select jobs that appeal to them, the same as men."

Men choose jobs, on the whole, for a couple of reasons. The pay level, security of tenure and yes, possibly some "appeal" in doing something hard and worthwhile. Some women no doubt do the same, but overwhelmingly women choose jobs in just a couple of occupational classes, mostly dealing with other women. They are over-represented in retail, food services, nursing, social welfare and bureaucratic roles, even when they've done professional courses at uni. You'll note that none of these roles add to the wealth of the nation except by churning what has been produced elsewhere; hence counting as part of GDP and therefore adding to personal tax revenue. Unfortunately, however, without the mining sector there still wouldn't be enough tax to go around, largely because women's workforce participation requires so much subsidisation. Productivity thanks to female participation has increased by just 22% since 1974, according to Goldman Sachs, while welfare spending has increased by 50% since just 1983. The sums don't add up.

I'm not sure what your point is about bank executives' pay. If you want to be paid like a bank executive perhaps you should go and do a couple of economics degrees and an MBA or two and see if you can get a job with a bank?

I do agree that there is a major problem with the discrepancy between executive pay levels and that of less-senior grades, but I'm not sure what could possibly be done to affress it. The pay blew out because a couple of Australian firms (including, notably, Westpac) decided they needed overseas executives and so they had to pay based on overseas market levels of pay. It has never dropped since.

A small correction, I should have said "welfare spending as a proportion of GDP has increased by 50% since 1983".

Anti
I think I must be missing the point but I do have to pick you up on your interpretation of anything contrary to your opinion as wrapped up in an easy 'whatever you pretend about feminism' throw away line. Why are my experiences and analysis inferior to yours and worse a 'pretence' of some sort. From that shallow analysis I will assume I don't have much more to offer on this subject that would not be misinterpreted. Only to add that as a woman I have experienced sexism of various degrees over the years but much less in the last 10 thanks to movements like feminism albeit it's outcomes are not always perfect, even for women.

As for "winning then gender" war - this cand be interpreted as merely winning equal access for women. Do you really think there is a great conspiracy out there to subjugate men?

As for the press release the AG puts his name to as soon as it is approved. The press release is public policy as designed by the incumbent no matter who actually pens the words.

Pelican:"I do have to pick you up on your interpretation of anything contrary to your opinion as wrapped up in an easy 'whatever you pretend about feminism' throw away line."

It's nothing like that. I observe things and I ask "why". You might be surprised to know that I have read quite widely in feminist literature and the only constant I've been able to find is the desire to try to justify on the one hand independence from influence and on the other the provision of massive preferential treatment of women with no quid pro quo.

If you diisagree, you're very welcome to try to make your case, but I have no obligation to make it easy for you. that would be special pleading and I have little time for that.

I'm not sure why you think I'm saying your experience is a "pretence". I've never suggested that at all.

Pelican:"Do you really think there is a great conspiracy out there to subjugate men? "

Yes, in a nutshell. It is implicit and often explicit in every aspect of institutional feminism. The Emily's Listers are simply one of the more overt about their aims, since I guess they feel they are a dominant faction. Funny how we never hear from our Labor Parliamentarians about their factional alignment with Emily's list, don't you think?

"Destruction of the patriarchy" is a basic tenet of feminism from the Left, as exemplified by Emily's List. There are no female patriarchs. QED.

The A-G didn't put his name to anything at all. Instead, there was a deliberate misrepresentation of the story by putting it under a byline rather than crediting the A-G as the source.

That's dishonest.

Well journalists are not known to be even handed on most issues.

No you don't have any obligations to me - I would not ask it of you. I only hope there is some degree of honesty. I have the right of free speech to defend accusations of some sort of pretence on my part.

Feminism clearly means something different to you and that I accept as your right in a free country even if we disagree.