The Government has fired the starter's gun on cutting the legislated increase of the super guarantee. Now we're going to hear a bunch of bullshit about how increasing super is going to lower wages or cost jobs.

Lets bust some myths (long thread):

Wages v Super. The biggest proponents that superannuation comes at the expense of wages are Grattan who are anti-super, and gleefully supported by the Liberals who want it gone. They claim an increase of super lowers wages.

So what happens if they cancel the rise?

The 40% of workers who are on enterprise agreements will suffer. 5,399 enterprise agreements have been signed covering at least the first legislated rise scheduled for 1 July 2021.

There is no mechanism trade off here. A cut to super will just be a cut to super.

Examples of workers who would be unilaterally worse off in the event of a repeal are those employed at:
•Woolworths,
•Coles,
•Chubb Security,
•The Red Cross, and
•All NSW Government-employed nurses.

Child-care workers, including:
•Bellbowrie Kindergarten and Pre-school Association,
•Saint Francis Community Child Care Centre, and,
•Modbury Community Children’s Centre.

Aged care workers, including
•Huon Regional Care Limited, and
•Southern Cross Care Broken Hill.

These workers lose out and these workers are just some of the essential workers who carried us through the pandemic.

These are the workers who need an increase to super to retire with dignity and independence.

What about those on awards, making up about 20 per cent of workers?

Well it's very likely that it won't make a difference to them either. In the last freeze, the FWC refused to increase wages by an amount commensurate to the cut.

In fact, as the wonderful @JimboStanford found there is no correlation between FWC minimum wage decisions and increases in superannuation guarantee.

Well, then won't it cost jobs?
An additional 0.5 per cent for a retail worker is $4.16 per week. An amount which makes no material difference to either the employer or the worker, however the ongoing contribution of that to superannuation.
Which as @unionsaustralia shows:

What about housing, surely that's important?

Yes! Owning a home is critical to retirement but they want workers to choose between owning a home and retiring with dignity. That's a choice they don't make and no one should have to make.

Home ownership has been declining since the 60s (30y before super). The cause of this is rapidly growing house prices and investor tax concessions the Government fought tooth and nail to protect in 2019 (Neg. Gearing).

It's another smashed avo excuse. An extra $4 a week doesn't address the advantage property investors have. It doesn't address the lack of housing.

And cutting super doesn't affect the ridiculous increases in rent over the last 20 years which truly limits workers' ability to buy a house.

So what's the go?

This Government cut penalty rates, they have presided over the longest period wage stagnation ever, they cut the pension. They have attacked unions and workers fighting for a better deal.

They have always supported big business over workers.

They oppose this because their mates in big business oppose this.

They are going to try and use the cover of the pandemic to rob workers of the legislated increase to super.

They oppose this because they oppose superannuation as a concept.

They want to go back to a time where retiring with savings was an option open only to the wealthy, or a perk of employment for a few.