London about to kick off again?

[aidanjt]

There will be reasons they are paid that much. My guess is they make a bucket load of money for the company, handle huge amounts of responsibility and do a job very few people could do.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty sure I could handle spinning around in an exec chair all day long. All CEOs do is issue edicts and perform top end bureaucracy. It's the employees who do the actual work which generates the actual wealth, and in most cases where workers are given a free hand in the decision making process, they're far more capable of optimising both wealth generation and work efficiency, because they're at that level where those things are actually taking place, so they understand how it works far better than a CEO. And you don't really have any real responsibility if you still get a golden parachute for when you fail. See.. people make all kinds of these apologetic excuses for the massive pay disparity, but when it comes down to it, it's just protectionism for the positions they themselves covet.

[TheAnimus]

Well I for one do not like that income disparity, I would like to see equitable worldwide wealth distribution. My lifestyle is already taking a big hit, might as well make it count for something.

Already cut mine this year, by quite a lot.... So yes, Lets see what you're doing if we want this game? (I have also been personally investing in people in third world economic situations were the traditional models aren't been applied, but this is outside of the thread, pm me if you want to know more about what I'm currently doing, thou my next project I hope to be as much fun for me, as I'm able to raise )

The thing is I don't need to reflect on my charitable deeds to know how the world is, I'm OK to admit that I am not willing to sacrifice my luxuries to save someone else. I don't see why its so hard for others to say so.

how do you feel about it mate? I know you earn about 4 times what I do. If I feel guilty about this kind of thing when I live on the average wage (not nearly as easy as it should be!), it must keep you awake at night unless you are actively giving already?

What percentage of your income do you assign for charitable actions? I'm currently keeping about 30% of my gross earnings. But you know what, feel free to say its not enough, but then its easy, for me to give more, I've no depends apart from a fish tank, and I certianly can't say I've any need for the iPad now, I should sell it really.....

[format]

The principle stands though, someone will be paid what they deserve. If someone does a job that creates £100 million for a company, so what if he gets paid £10 million for doing it? He deserves it, and I imagine has worked hard to get to that position. If that company cuts his salary to £1 million then he'll take his skill & abilities to another company...who will then make the £100 million from him.

In case you missed it, that graph for was the average wage, not the lowest wage.

Furthermore, regarding whether or not CEOs 'deserve' it - you do realise that more often than not, these CEOs are brought in with the aim of cutting costs, which generally is achieved by cutting salaries and laying people off. When they achieve this, they are given obscene bonuses.

CEOs brought in>company needs to save money> CEO lays off hundreds of workers> CEO is given $$$.

Can you see why people are pissed off about this sort of thing?

[TheAnimus]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty sure I could handle spinning around in an exec chair all day long. All CEOs do is issue edicts and perform top end bureaucracy. It's the employees who do the actual work which generates the actual wealth, and in most cases where workers are given a free hand in the decision making process, they're far more capable of optimising both wealth generation and work efficiency, because they're at that level where those things are actually taking place, so they understand how it works far better than a CEO. And you don't really have any real responsibility if you still get a golden parachute for when you fail. See.. people make all kinds of these apologetic excuses for the massive pay disparity, but when it comes down to it, it's just protectionism for the positions they themselves covet.

Ok, so justify the likes of steve jobs?

Then lets look at the other end, look at the balmer, who clearly has been peter principled a stage too far....

You can't say they have no effect!

By your logic of "It's the employees who do the actual work which generates the actual wealth" it can't be all can it? Is it just the ones on the assembly lines, or the ones in the shop who sell the iPhones? Or is it those who ship it, without those who ship it nothing would happen, or the lawyers that ensure they are behaving in a legal manner, they don't generate any wealth (stupid patents asside), obviously without them they could loose everything, but no, oh HR, they don't, the cleaners don't, the plant waterers don't........................

Now as I've said before and again I think we're in a situation where people are too short termist in their comp, but ultimately how do you get someone who you by their track record think is going to be great for the job to come to you?

[G4Z]

Hahaha.......

So your saying that given the same renumeration i'd go back to KP'ing? Ok granted the amount of OJ we used to drink was probably worth about half as much as I was been paid, so that benefit would go, but seriously it was the easiest lowest stress job I've ever had. What other job can you get nicely high without anyone giving a damn.

Running technology for a multibillion business, oh yeah, so easy. You know as soon as I left the kitchen I mean office I could just switch off completely, its not like I was constantly having to do things, make decisions.....
I suggest you don't know what a stressful job is then!

Dude, I have a massive amount of resposabillity in my work on a multi million pound contract. I have been at it 3 years now and I can do it more or less in my sleep (okay, an exaggeration but I don't find it hard) the same went for sales as well to be honest. After a while any job becomes pretty routine, weather that is meeting new clients or building systems. You seem to think these poeple and yourself have some sort of super special talent and I am sorry you are wrong.

Anybody with a bit of intelligence can learn, therefore anybody prepared to learn can learn what you know. Wouldn't you agree?

I know a lot of things, but I wouldn't be so arrogant to think nobody else could learn them and that I am irreplaceable. Same goes for CEO's, in my company I have seen crap CEO's come and fail and get rewarded as they swan off. I could do that. easy.

[TheAnimus]

CEOs brought in>company needs to save money> CEO lays off hundreds of workers> CEO is given $$$.

Can you see why people are pissed off about this sort of thing?

CEOs brought in>company needs to save money> CEO lays off hundreds of the wrong workers>Company pulls out of area>Company goes bust>Everyone looses, including all the staff who weren't layed off....

Can you see why people would be more pissed off about that sort of thing?

[Andeh13]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty sure I could handle spinning around in an exec chair all day long. All CEOs do is issue edicts and perform top end bureaucracy. It's the employees who do the actual work which generates the actual wealth, and in most cases where workers are given a free hand in the decision making process, they're far more capable of optimising both wealth generation and work efficiency, because they're at that level where those things are actually taking place, so they understand how it works far better than a CEO. And you don't really have any real responsibility if you still get a golden parachute for when you fail. See.. people make all kinds of these apologetic excuses for the massive pay disparity, but when it comes down to it, it's just protectionism for the positions they themselves covet.

Im not defending the CEOs in the news currently, but the principles behind them & their rewards. ill keep going as I am very bored at work though. What about the Captain of a ship, or the pilot of an aircraft? Neither do as much hard work as the people cleaning the ship, serving the drinks. Same with a pilot, he turns on the auto pilot and relaxes the entire journey (landing/take off aside.. or does he delegate that to the co-pilot?) whilst the stewards serve the drinks, get shouted at by the customers and are on their feet the entire flight.... yet how would you change it?

A CEO stands in front of the board of directors, the share holders, the press and gives the company direction and objections. If the company does well, he does well. If the company does badly, he resigns or is sacked. Do the employees have to work under so much pressure, or have such a public facing job? Do they care if the stock market tumbles, or if the Government changes the regulations that hampers your company?

People don't become CEOs because they got lucky or tripped over the job role...nor do they get their jobs & earn that money because they are lazy, ignorant numpties.

I would still like to hear about how many of these CEOs earn 350x the national average? (genuine question)

[TheAnimus]

Dude, I have a massive amount of resposabillity in my work on a multi million pound contract. I have been at it 3 years now and I can do it more or less in my sleep (okay, an exaggeration but I don't find it hard) the same went for sales as well to be honest. After a while any job becomes pretty routine, weather that is meeting new clients or building systems. You seem to think these poeple and yourself have some sort of super special talent and I am sorry you are wrong.

When I left, they searched for 6 months for my replacement, they ended up having to pay him more than £200kpa more than I was on. I'm not remotely unique, but my skills are in demand. And there is no way on earn I could have ever done that job in my sleep. Not by a long shot.

Anybody with a bit of intelligence can learn, therefore anybody prepared to learn can learn what you know. Wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely, but they don't and they aren't. Thats all that matters, I got that job, despite been expelled from school, getting god awful exam results etc. There is no prejudice no old boys network, there is nothing stopping someone going for that. (Obviously you'd have to prove yourself before you could do something like that, in much lower paid roles, to get a track record people are willing to trust).

I know a lot of things, but I wouldn't be so arrogant to think nobody else could learn them and that I am irreplaceable. Same goes for CEO's, in my company I have seen crap CEO's come and fail and get rewarded as they swan off. I could do that. easy.

I'm not saying all CEOs are brilliant, just that people end up paying that because of a lack of supply.

[G4Z]

Well, if I were doing the hiring at your particular company I would have probably found myself some genius wonderkid and had him trained up to do the role. 6 months and 300k is certainly enough time and budget for that and I would have had a full time staff member at the end of it with a contract rather than a contractor that can leave on a whim.

In any case, I said this scenario was inconsequential and it is. There is nothing to stop somebody getting paid more than somebody else in my view of how things should be just that the insane disparity is addressed.

I already said I would incentivise it through the tax system, so empolyers would be welcome to pay their multiples 350 times the average, so long as they are prepared to pay the additional corperation tax it would entail. I doubt shareholders would feel that doing so was getting them any value though.

[directhex]

Gah. I had a great article that I've lost, about how the "the best will move abroad" thing is bollocks. Bunch of interviews with bankers who moved to Switzerland for lower taxes - then came back to the UK because Switzerland is ****.

[TheAnimus]

I already said I would incentivise it through the tax system, so empolyers would be welcome to pay their multiples 350 times the average, so long as they are prepared to pay the additional corperation tax it would entail. I doubt shareholders would feel that doing so was getting them any value though.

How so, someone is already paying 50% income tax on everything over 15k, and NI emlpoyers to boot.

Corporation tax is MUCH less than that....

I'm not trying to say every CEO is worth Millions btw, just that I can't see a way of capping it that would be fair or make sense.

[TheAnimus]

Gah. I had a great article that I've lost, about how the "the best will move abroad" thing is bollocks. Bunch of interviews with bankers who moved to Switzerland for lower taxes - then came back to the UK because Switzerland is ****.

I personally know a fair few for whom it is now their new home, and they're fine with it!

[format]

CEOs brought in>company needs to save money> CEO lays off hundreds of the wrong workers>Company pulls out of area>Company goes bust>Everyone looses, including all the staff who weren't layed off....

Can you see why people would be more pissed off about that sort of thing?

That's not the point. Laying off a bunch of workers, then being paid an obscene amount of money for doing so is a grotesque practice, in my eyes.

[badass]

350x the minimum yearly wage(£10,300) makes it out to be around £3.5 million a year. You do have a point, that is excessive. The number of people that earn that will be in the matter of dozens/low numbers (i have no idea) though, and they will be the exceptions there are to any rule. I'd be interested in reading the source of your numbers though.

The principle stands though, someone will be paid what they deserve. If someone does a job that creates £100 million for a company, so what if he gets paid £10 million for doing it? He deserves it, and I imagine has worked hard to get to that position.
<snip>[/B]

You miss a vital point there.
It's all well and good making millions for your company, however that doesn't mean that someone lower down the food chain isn't capable of doing jsut as well in that position.
If a company pays one of its directors £10 million (who steers a company making hundreds of millions) but there are 1,000 people capable of doing as well at the same job for 1/10th of the price, then that job is worth £1 million. The problem is that at that level it's a complete old boys club and the people that get to the top are certainly not the best at the job. It's just the most ambitious, ruthless and connected that do.
For evidence of this, check out HP executive board pay and the utterly moronic way they have been behaving. How about certain directors of large failed banks that admitted that they didn't understand the products they were dealing with.
I wouldn't have a problem with the huge pay if these people actually were worth it. But they simply aren't and the only reason they are still there is because of global bailouts by taxpayers.
This isn't just banks BTW, it's car manufacturers and all of the other heavily indebted companies that were run as if cheap credit would last forever.

[badass]

No but their impact is.

Who turned round Apple? A disgusting bully? Or the Cleaner?

One of them increased the value of the firm by forty odd times.

If a cleaner does a really good job vs a half assed job, what difference does it make? Almost none, they can either just hire another cleaner, or even fire them.

The problem is that when these directors did a half assed job, they get a golden goodbye or just stay on getting paid for failure. The cleaner gets sacked and gets to work their notice.

[badass]

That's not the point. Laying off a bunch of workers, then being paid an obscene amount of money for doing so is a grotesque practice, in my eyes.

It depends.
If laying off the workers was:
A well judged fat trimming excersise
Combined with a well planned, executed and communicated strategy to improve shareholder returns, long term
Changing a very large companies fortunes around
Was a very difficult plan to furmulate and get through the numerous hurdels necessary such that the vast majority of the population would not have been capable of understanding to the level required for such a plan

Then I fully support the CEO being paid an obscene amount of money.

The CEO is doing society a favour by eliminating inefficiencies. If this process of eliminating inefficiencies is repeated, everyone actually benefits. It's just that the average person is incapable of seeing beyond their noses and would unwittingly choose doing a pointless, dangerous job over a stint of unemployment and learning some new skills.

I don't actually think capitalism is as broken as many seem to. It's just that it hasn't been practiced in any western nation for a long time.