CEO pay is obscene but it's not the real issue

Sydney Morning Herald
October 4 2017

Yes the pay is obscene, but don't be distracted.

According to some estimates, US chief executives earn somewhere around 400 times the salary of the average worker in their companies. Four hundred times.   :(

Few people would begrudge successful business people a little extra for the hard work and effort to get to – and stay at – the top. But that's more than just a little extra.

By comparison, the average Japanese chief executive earns around 50 times the average worker's pay, and the British 180 times. The ABC recently reported that among an Australian sample, chief executives received between 15 times and 100 times the average employee's pay packet.   :(

It's a brave person who argues that any chief executive could objectively be worth up to 400 times what they pay their employees, no matter who that manager is.

And that's the problem – these things aren't objective. There's a very nice little self-reinforcing process that sees compensation consultants paid for giving advice to boards as to how much executives should be paid.

They do it by comparing the salaries of similar chief executives – whose pay was set by comparing them to similar chief executives … and so on.

It's the corporate version of keeping up with the Joneses – and shareholders are footing the bill.

Those numbers blow out even further, though, when you add short and long-term bonuses to the mix – which often dwarf a corporate boss' regular salary.

It's obscene, and should be changed. But, it's a sideshow, and here's why.

Yes, those at the top of the tree are paid a comparative fortune. And they often receive bonuses on top of that for cutting costs, including laying off staff.   :(

But on a per share basis, those salaries are almost always close to a rounding error. That is, when amortised across the company's owners, even if pay was cut in half, shareholder returns wouldn't improve by any noticeable amount.

For example, CBA's outgoing boss, Ian Narev​, earned $5.5 million in the last financial year, down from $12.3 million in 2016.

That's a fraction of 1 percent of the company's $130 billion market capitalisation. And it's still a fraction of 1 percent, compared with the company's recently announced $10 billion profit.

Narev could have worked for $1, and shareholder returns wouldn't have improved perceptibly.

The problem, then, isn't that being paid too much impacts shareholder returns in the year the salary is paid. Ideological concerns aside, paying Narev (or most other ASX-listed company chief executives) less won't move the dial.

Instead, we should look to incentives. While Narev's $5.5 million doesn't mean anything financially to CBA shareholders, you can bet the fall from $12.3 million the year before was keenly felt by Narev. The reverse, for chief executives who did receive big bonuses, is almost certainly true.

There are a couple of nice aphorisms that, together, highlight the real problem: "Whose bread I eat, his song I sing" and "What gets measured, gets done" summarise the challenge neatly.

When you offer a corporate executive a lotto-winning-equivalent amount of money for achieving certain objectives, you'd better believe it focuses the mind, and drives certain behaviour (and if any chief executive tells you it doesn't, then suggest they give the bonus back. I'll bet they don't).

But bonuses are paid on notoriously short-term results – usually a single year's performance, sometimes three. And the metrics used? Company profits and share price gains.

So let me give you an analogy. If I'm being remunerated on managing your car's financial performance over the short term, it's easy to manage. I won't bother getting it serviced. I won't replace the tyres, even though the tread is getting low, and I'll put cheap fuel in it. Then, I'll show you how much money I "saved" on car maintenance and you'll give me a bonus.

Then, I'll sell it for you, being a little economical with the truth when talking to the buyer, and showing him how little it costs to run. Impressed, he'll pay me more, sending the car's price up. Bingo, a higher sale price, and another bonus for me.

Of course, the costs aren't sustainable, and the car was overpriced … but I don't care: I've received my bonus and I'm off to greener pastures. The car is someone else's problem now.

Chief executives are objectively paid too much money. There is a real issue of social equality at play.

But even when it comes to a purely financial transaction, the system is broken. The simplest fix – though chief executives the world over would complain bitterly – is to pay bonuses to chief executives based on the company results over the following five years.

That way, they're incentivised to set a company up for long-term success – not just put lipstick on a pig.

Because they get to make the rules for themselves, and those rules surrounding business have not materially changed since their introduction several centuries ago, when the economic divides were truly massive chasms..... and economies ran very differently and along different lines.

Those rules were designed to benefit those with money and to cement their place at the top of the pyramid, and to ensure that their capital was protected, as opposed to being a system of benefit to a society as a whole*, with each contributor receiving and giving a fair proportion based on input and earnings.

As I've said many times - business/company laws have not kept pace with even the twentieth century, but remain rooted in the dark ages of the Industrial Revolution, and just because it's always been that way is no reason to allow it to continue.

* where politicians go dreadfully wrong in their handling of economic issues is their adherence to  one or the other relative extreme of either perpetuating the 'status quo' of the Industrial Revolution or pushing for a greater share for those at the bottom (in theory anyway).**  NEITHER of these positions is the correct one for any governing party to adopt, since all such parties have an allegiance to the nation first and foremost, and must seek the best solutions for the nation first and foremost, and not for their 'constituencies' as perceived.

For example, you cannot persuade me that there are sufficient business people who actually benefit in Australia to elect a Liberal government, nor that there are sufficient people of the knowledgeable 'left' who actually agree with the more rabid Labor policies who would elect Labor as it currently stands.

Maybe elections are rigged....... maybe it's all lies........ if most people in Tony's seat work for a living, how is it a 'safe Liberal seat'?  Are those people all delusional or is it a complete lie?  Same applies to some of those 'safe Labor seats' which never materially prosper regardless of which 'party' is in 'power' in the house, but which instead continue to remain the same shrek holes they always were.   8-)   8-)

** Labor, for example, theoretically stand up for the workers, but their primary policy base and thrust is more in line with just another elitist/neo-Communist 'equality (of their own selected ones) by numbers and force' - and nowhere in such an equation is there any genuine adherence to truly equal treatment for all - just preferential treatment ad infinitum - an approach not helped in anyway by the way their branches have been 'stacked' by special interest groups.  You all know who I mean - women, ethnic groups in ghetto seats, even  "Labor HO" adheres to the policies of equalisation for force- which really equate to policies of exclusion and not  inclusion.

For Labor (Sidewalk Cafe` Labor as it now stands), considerations of improving the conditions of the 'working class' and the best benefit for the nation now take a very distant second to their social programs to benefit special interest groups.  That is why Labor is not currently romping home in elections and instead people are clinging to the wreck of the Ellen P as she goes under, or are seeking refuge from the economic Dunkirk of Australia in the 'small boats' of the minor parties and Independents.

Why is union corruption so obscene ?

Why are the Labor pollies such incompetent imbeciles ?

Is it because they are the best union brown nosers ?

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 27^th, 2017 at 10:39am:

Because they get to make the rules for themselves, and those rules surrounding business have not materially changed since their introduction several centuries ago, when the economic divides were truly massive chasms..... and economies ran very differently and along different lines. Those rules were designed to benefit those with money and to cement their place at the top of the pyramid, and to ensure that their capital was protected, as opposed to being a system of benefit to a society as a whole*, with each contributor receiving and giving a fair proportion based on input and earnings. As I've said many times - business/company laws have not kept pace with even the twentieth century, but remain rooted in the dark ages of the Industrial Revolution, and just because it's always been that way is no reason to allow it to continue. * where politicians go dreadfully wrong in their handling of economic issues is their adherence to either one or the other relative extreme of either perpetuating the 'status quo' of the Industrial Revolution or pushing for a greater share for those at the bottom (in theory anyway).  NEITHER of these positions is the correct one for any governing party to adopt, since all such parties have an allegiance to the nation first and foremost, and must seek the best solutions for the nation first and foremost, and not for their 'constituencies' as perceived. For example, you cannot persuade me that there are sufficient business people who actually benefit in Australia to elect a Liberal government, nor that there are sufficient people of the knowledgeable 'left' who actually agree with the more rabid Labor policies who would elect Labor as it currently stands. Maybe elections are rigged....... maybe it's all lies........ if most people in Tony's seat work for a living, how is it a 'safe Liberal seat'?  Are those people all delusional or is it a complete lie?  Same applies to some of those 'safe Labor seats' which never materially prosper regardless of which 'party' is in 'power' in the house, but which instead continue to remain the same shrek holes they always were.   8-)   8-)

wrong,

capitalism as practised in the west has provided you with the very best of technology.
you will probably live to be 80 and the patriachy and the "system" you attack is working tirelessly to get you to live longer.
you have power at the flick of a switch, movies streamed to your lounge room, amazing technology in transportation...all thanks to capitalism and the sacrifices of the patriachy.

and the marxists call for revolution.

by 1922, the russians were driven to cannibalism. thats how fast things would get really ugly if you did away with the current power structures. those power structures are keeping you safe and keeping you fed.

FFS , we have an obesity epidemic, thats how successful the patriachy is at pandering to the needs of every citizen.

and you want to tinker with that.

most people cant even tinker with their car without screwing it.

would you tinker with a jumbo jet?

well, the modern capitalist system is orders of magnitude more complex then a jumbo jet.

so dont tinker with it.
just fall to your knees and be grateful for it

The side benefits do not justify the perpetuation of the status quo as described.  As usual, you mistake what has been a genuine mix of capitalism and socialism for pure capitalism.  If pure capitalism had been permitted to reign, you can pretty much guarantee that many of the social and health issues pertaining today would not exist.

For example, without universal healthcare, with its inputs of cash to health professionals and such, how much real forward movement would there have been in health research and treatments?  Without the 'free tertiary education' that came into play,  how much real forward movement would there have been in those same arenas?

Capital, rather than seeking advances and thus profit from such advances, would have been content to remain in industry and mining etc, where the returns were guaranteed and the cash grabs are quick.  In fact, you see a lot of that going on right now, with the Flight of the Mild Geese to the 'cheap labour nations' -  which is, as I've outlined before, a short term fix and a move that contains within itself the seeds of its own demise.*

*As those nations 'rise' in economic activity, and the Abandoned Western Nations slowly subside into the same mire as currently occupied by those Cheap Labour Nations as a result of lack of production and of genuine opportunity and prosperity, trade will inevitably come to a standstill.... and once that happens........ that short-term fix will die.  Without an adequate return on labour and an opportunity for genuine national and personal prosperity HERE, and a continued disparity between earnings in one nation or another, meaning that the 'richer' will continue to buy produced goods - that is the inevitable result of this Flight of The Mild Geese.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 27^th, 2017 at 11:05am:

The side benefits do not justify the perpetuation of the status quo as described.  As usual, you mistake what has been a genuine mix of capitalism and socialism for pure capitalism.  If pure capitalism had been permitted to reign, you can pretty much guarantee that many of the social and health issues pertaining today would not exist. For example, without universal healthcare, with its inputs of cash to health professionals and such, how much real forward movement would there have been in health research and treatments?  Without the 'free tertiary education' that came into play,  how much real forward movement would there have been in those same arenas? Capital, rather than seeking advances and thus profit from such advances, would have been content to remain in industry and mining etc, where the returns were guaranteed and the cash grabs are quick.  In fact, you see a lot of that going on right now, with the Flight of the Mild Geese to the 'cheap labour nations' -  which is, as I've outlined before, a short term fix and a move that contains within itself the seeds of its own demise.* *As those nations 'rise' in economic activity, and the Abandoned Western Nations slowly subside into the same mire as currently occupied by those Cheap Labour Nations as a result of lack of production and of genuine opportunity and prosperity, trade will inevitably come to a standstill.... and once that happens........ that short-term fix will die.  Without an adequate return on labour and an opportunity for genuine national and personal prosperity HERE, and a continued disparity between earnings in one nation or another, meaning that the 'richer' will continue to buy produced goods - that is the inevitable result of this Flight of The Mild Geese.

the UN, in 2000, set the goal of lifting 1 billion people out of poverty by 2015.
they got it wrong.
it was achieved by 2008.
and isnt it a good thing that these
"cheap labor nations" are lifted out of poverty.
this allows us to trade with them.

fat steve and fat janeen just wanted a job for life so they could stay in the durrrr state.
and those days are gone and thank god.
because if you are in a durr state, there is no growth and you might as well be dead.

now, thanks to the competition from these "low wage countries" steve and janeen have to bloody well improve.
please explain to me why that is a bad thing ?

As for 'power structures' it sounds like you are again mistaking some mythical 'right' of a self-appointed 'better class' to dictate terms for a genuine balance of power within a society.

Narrow-based power groups, such as 'business' people, have been proven over and over again to be far too often a bunch of total bugger-ups, who are capable of making the most monumental mistakes costing billions and showing talent only in escaping with the pot of gold hidden within the company framework. 

Any unconstrained 'power structure' is a disaster waiting to happen, and it is appalling that such as one as you would even consider that kind of Hitlerist/Stalinist structure to be a socially  and economically valid one.

When there is a fair balance of rights for all, including Unions, this nation functioned much better.

I think at times you, aquascoot, mistake elitism for some kind of divine right.

Footnote:-  What this country lacks is a good management massacre by a disgruntled ex employee - that would change the face of 'industrial relations' here for at least another century.

They are paid at the market rate. End of story.

Again you are mistaken -  trading with those nations has no value to Australia when Australia is unable to sustain a level of prosperity for all, and the end result will be that this 'cheaper' output will rust on the wharves.

The majority of people in those nations have not risen out of poverty, but are enduring the evils of the rise of a comparatively 'wealthy' industrial working class, which necessitates a rise in the costs of everything else, thus ensuring that the real 'status quo' remains the same = poverty. 

It is of no value for a a Thaimbodian to be able to buy a fish and a bag of rice one day for $1 and the next for $2.  If it were true that poverty was being abolished, why then do the rates of infant mortality etc not change for the better?  Why would those companies go there in the first place if it were not for the opportunity to exploit CHEAP labor.

At the same time, the abandoned 'high labour cost' countries are suffering a rise in poverty and a decline in real earnings, and thus are steadily becoming less and less able to buy finished products.

Impoverishing one nation to marginally raise living standards in another is doomed to failure as an economic strategy.  All you end up with is two poverty-ridden economies, and your production staggers to a halt, since neither the exploited peoples can buy your high-priced cars nor the people of the nation you have abandoned.

crocodile wrote on Dec 27^th, 2017 at 11:18am:

They are paid at the market rate. End of story.

Oh?  And what ' market rate' is that?  Oh - I forgot - there is an international and binding law that says all who work in a specific industry world-wide must be paid the same rate....... silly me..... doesn't a 'global economy' function by having everybody 'equal' with all factors equal in a truly global economy and not just an opportunity for crass exploitation?

What are the benefits to this nation of the 'global economy' as it now stands?

There is no 'market rate' - there is exploitation and abandonment.  The ONLY 'market rate' that keeps pace is the selling price...... everything else falls behind, including taxation that is supposed to run nations.

Fair trade would fail when everyone goes "market price".

The human race is competitive.

The weak get trampled underfoot. It is a jungle out there.

As Australia is the next Asia just have a look at how competitive things are over there.

Why in China, they even put sick people down to harvest their organs!!!!

The good times are over.

But the Welfare Dependent Lefties should realize that the high cost of their non productive Welfare can be more easily afforded if Australia is a booming export led thriving economy which is what Mal is building and Shorten is just itching to tear down as he RESTARTS the BOATS!!!

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 27^th, 2017 at 11:29am:

crocodile wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 11:18am: They are paid at the market rate. End of story. Oh?  And what ' market rate' is that?  Oh - I forgot - there is an international and binding law that says all who work in a specific industry world-wide must be paid the same rate....... silly me..... doesn't a 'global economy' function by having everybody 'equal' with all factors equal in a truly global economy and not just an opportunity for crass exploitation? What are the benefits to this nation of the 'global economy' as it now stands? There is no 'market rate' - there is exploitation and abandonment.  The ONLY 'market rate' that keeps pace is the selling price...... everything else falls behind, including taxation that is supposed to run nations.

Sorry Grapples but you haven't thought that one out. If there is a selling price then automatically there must be a buying price. Somebody saw value at that price and bought it. That my dear Grapples is a market.

crocodile wrote on Dec 27^th, 2017 at 11:50am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 11:29am: crocodile wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 11:18am: They are paid at the market rate. End of story. Oh?  And what ' market rate' is that?  Oh - I forgot - there is an international and binding law that says all who work in a specific industry world-wide must be paid the same rate....... silly me..... doesn't a 'global economy' function by having everybody 'equal' with all factors equal in a truly global economy and not just an opportunity for crass exploitation? What are the benefits to this nation of the 'global economy' as it now stands? There is no 'market rate' - there is exploitation and abandonment.  The ONLY 'market rate' that keeps pace is the selling price...... everything else falls behind, including taxation that is supposed to run nations. Sorry Grapples but you haven't thought that one out. If there is a selling price then automatically there must be a buying price. Somebody saw value at that price and bought it. That my dear Grapples is a market.

Very short-term planning then.... smash and grab economics ....

Were you discussing CEO remuneration? 

Man - Ol' Rastus 'd just laaarv to set his own price fo' workin' dat cotton fiel' dere in dat hot sun ... votes me a job in dat big house dere, mint julip on dat front porch, lord of all 'e can see, ride in dat big car an' get dat guv'ment ta pay fer it... yes, Lord.. dat da life.... Ol' Rastus 'd sure love dat big job dere..... ah thinks Ah's gotta talk wit' dat Union man dere..... he got da answer.......

juliar wrote on Dec 27^th, 2017 at 11:45am:

The human race is competitive. The weak get trampled underfoot. It is a jungle out there. As Australia is the next Asia just have a look at how competitive things are over there. Why in China, they even put sick people down to harvest their organs!!!! The good times are over. But the Welfare Dependent Lefties should realize that the high cost of their non productive Welfare can be more easily afforded if Australia is a booming export led thriving economy which is what Mal is building and Shorten is just itching to tear down as he RESTARTS the BOATS!!!

Now those are the kinds of social and human standards we need here... we all need to be as desperate as an Asian and all need to live at the bottom of the pile so as to make those at the top feel good.... everyone should be an absolute serf to the Stalinist state and be totally owned in every way by that State, so as to benefit its Emperor and Mandarins with billions of dollars.

And we all need to learn to be knock-down, drag-em-out without any notice psychopathic thugs in life - rip into people without warning and stomp on them like some gang of raiding Vikings setting upon a peaceful village - apply the same standards as the one-hit thugs in the streets, go back to the days of the apes, lest we be swamped by decent human beings.

crocodile wrote on Dec 27^th, 2017 at 11:18am:

They are paid at the market rate. End of story.

A CEO has not been paid at a rate relevant to any market in many decades.

It is very much a corrupt you scratch my back I'll scratch your back process.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 27^th, 2017 at 6:44pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 11:18am: They are paid at the market rate. End of story. A CEO has not been paid at a rate relevant to any market in many decades. It is very much a corrupt you scratch my back I'll scratch your back process.

Could you show us your source for this please. Would love to read and analyse it.

crocodile wrote on Dec 27^th, 2017 at 10:50pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 6:44pm: crocodile wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 11:18am: They are paid at the market rate. End of story. A CEO has not been paid at a rate relevant to any market in many decades. It is very much a corrupt you scratch my back I'll scratch your back process. Could you show us your source for this please. Would love to read and analyse it.

You want a source for what is generally known?

Better still - demand a full survey.... then let us see the results......

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 28^th, 2017 at 1:16am:

crocodile wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 10:50pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 6:44pm: crocodile wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 11:18am: They are paid at the market rate. End of story. A CEO has not been paid at a rate relevant to any market in many decades. It is very much a corrupt you scratch my back I'll scratch your back process. Could you show us your source for this please. Would love to read and analyse it. You want a source for what is generally known? Better still - demand a full survey.... then let us see the results......

What's generally known. The fact that a handful of CEOs are well paid or that there is some corruption involved.

Sorry Grapples but I don't know of any corruption. If there is, it needs exposure.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 27^th, 2017 at 6:44pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 11:18am: They are paid at the market rate. End of story. A CEO has not been paid at a rate relevant to any market in many decades. It is very much a corrupt you scratch my back I'll scratch your back process.

some of these CEO's are managing many lawsuits for their companies , they are responsible for teams doing diverse things, they have to provide direction to the organisation, they have to travel extensively, they have to maintain relationships in multiple countries, they have to keep on top of the technology, they have competitors whose sole function in life is to take them down.

they are

off the chart in conscientousness
off the chart in IQ
off the chart in resistance to stress.

when we can pay an elite athlete millions of dollars, i have NO problem with a CEO being paid millions of dollars.

aquascoot wrote on Dec 28^th, 2017 at 7:18am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 6:44pm: crocodile wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 11:18am: They are paid at the market rate. End of story. A CEO has not been paid at a rate relevant to any market in many decades. It is very much a corrupt you scratch my back I'll scratch your back process. some of these CEO's are managing many lawsuits for their companies , they are responsible for teams doing diverse things, they have to provide direction to the organisation, they have to travel extensively, they have to maintain relationships in multiple countries, they have to keep on top of the technology, they have competitors whose sole function in life is to take them down. they are off the chart in conscientousness off the chart in IQ off the chart in resistance to stress. when we can pay an elite athlete millions of dollars, i have NO problem with a CEO being paid millions of dollars.

And they laugh all the way to the bank.

Even if they send their company broke they still get a golden handshake for $millions.
Nice work if you can get it.

Australian CEOs continue receiving fat bonuses, ACSI asks what they've done to deserve it

ABC News
Posted 24 Aug 2017, 11:33am


Some of Australia's top chief executives might be receiving bonuses they don't necessarily deserve.   :(
Key points:

    86 per cent of ASX 100 chief executives collected a fat bonus
    Only 18 per cent of CEOs received less than half of their potential bonus
    Report also confirmed the dominance of male chief executives in the ASX 100

A survey by the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) shows that, on average, CEO fixed pay has not changed substantially since the global financial crisis, mainly due to shareholder pressure.

But the study of 2016 remuneration showed 86 per cent of ASX 100 chief executives collected a fat bonus, raising questions about whether bosses were jumping a high enough bar to boost their base pay.   :(

ACSI chief executive Louise Davidson questioned why only 18 per cent of CEOs received less than half of their potential bonus, given dissatisfaction about some corporate performances.

"Investors reasonably assume that bonuses will only be awarded for exceptional performance over and above normal expectations," Ms Davidson said.

    "But we're seeing it's pretty hard to miss out on a bonus if you're a CEO.

"The prevalence of CEO bonuses at consistently high levels raises serious questions about the way performance hurdles are being designed and applied."

While Ms Davidson welcomed the move by a small number of boards to reduce CEO bonuses, she pointed to the lacklustre performance of some companies.

"We can't help wondering why these executives would have qualified for any payments in the first place,   :(

As others have pointed out, it all comes down to value - what service you're providing, what income the company makes and what your employer is willing to pay. In terms of CEOs reported in the media, the "obscene" wages" of CEOs in question are mostly in reference to Top 100 ASX companies, which have more workers and entail a greater level of responsibilty in the decisions the CEO makes. If you looked at the wages CEOs were earning in the Top 1000 or 10000 companies in Australia, you'd probably find as you went further down the list that their wages would be below $1,000,000 PA, to the point that they were earning about $100-200 K above the next senior manager. Given what must one scarifice to be the CEO of a company, I think that the level of compensation they receive is fair. Listen to the NPR podcast "How I built this" to get a better idea of what a CEO does to get to where they are.

But if a CEOs wage is obscene, why is it not obscene for a cleaner in Australia to earn $20 an hour, while a cleaner in Bangladesh earns $1-2 dollars a day?

whiteknight wrote on Dec 28^th, 2017 at 7:58am:

Australian CEOs continue receiving fat bonuses, ACSI asks what they've done to deserve it ABC News Posted 24 Aug 2017, 11:33am Some of Australia's top chief executives might be receiving bonuses they don't necessarily deserve.   :( Key points:     86 per cent of ASX 100 chief executives collected a fat bonus     Only 18 per cent of CEOs received less than half of their potential bonus     Report also confirmed the dominance of male chief executives in the ASX 100 A survey by the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) shows that, on average, CEO fixed pay has not changed substantially since the global financial crisis, mainly due to shareholder pressure. But the study of 2016 remuneration showed 86 per cent of ASX 100 chief executives collected a fat bonus, raising questions about whether bosses were jumping a high enough bar to boost their base pay.   :( ACSI chief executive Louise Davidson questioned why only 18 per cent of CEOs received less than half of their potential bonus, given dissatisfaction about some corporate performances. "Investors reasonably assume that bonuses will only be awarded for exceptional performance over and above normal expectations," Ms Davidson said.     "But we're seeing it's pretty hard to miss out on a bonus if you're a CEO. "The prevalence of CEO bonuses at consistently high levels raises serious questions about the way performance hurdles are being designed and applied." While Ms Davidson welcomed the move by a small number of boards to reduce CEO bonuses, she pointed to the lacklustre performance of some companies. "We can't help wondering why these executives would have qualified for any payments in the first place,   :(

So Whitey, are you suggesting that the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors ( ACSI ) is the body that decides what payment others deserve. What do they base this assumption upon. Do you see just a tad of vested interest in such an arrangement.

minarchist wrote on Dec 28^th, 2017 at 9:36am:

As others have pointed out, it all comes down to value - what service you're providing, what income the company makes and what your employer is willing to pay. In terms of CEOs reported in the media, the "obscene" wages" of CEOs in question are mostly in reference to Top 100 ASX companies, which have more workers and entail a greater level of responsibilty in the decisions the CEO makes. If you looked at the wages CEOs were earning in the Top 1000 or 10000 companies in Australia, you'd probably find as you went further down the list that their wages would be below $1,000,000 PA, to the point that they were earning about $100-200 K above the next senior manager. Given what must one scarifice to be the CEO of a company, I think that the level of compensation they receive is fair. Listen to the NPR podcast "How I built this" to get a better idea of what a CEO does to get to where they are. But if a CEOs wage is obscene, why is it not obscene for a cleaner in Australia to earn $20 an hour, while a cleaner in Bangladesh earns $1-2 dollars a day?

We don't live in Bangladesh with its lowest of the low living costs alongside its wages.. there is no discussion here in any way... reduce living costs here and you might be able to reduce NEEDED wages. 

How much are YOU prepared to work for here?????

How do YOU justify Bangladeshi company owners being mega-millionaires while exploiting their workers to the tune of $1-2 a day wages?  Some kind of divine right of company owners?

What exactly does one 'sacrifice' to be a CEO of a company, may one ask?  That's like saying politicians work hard etc and sacrifice so much.... so much that they need to be handed an income for life so they can 'spend more time with their family' while being handed some nice little earner out of the government pocket - maybe they need to try that one for real some time...  I, for one, spent not a single Christmas Eve or NYE etc with my family - where's my massive income for life?

How is it that companies can 'make a loss' on paper, still pay out nice dividends, and then be able to pay their executives massive bonuses?   ::)

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 29^th, 2017 at 7:07am:

minarchist wrote on Dec 28th, 2017 at 9:36am: As others have pointed out, it all comes down to value - what service you're providing, what income the company makes and what your employer is willing to pay. In terms of CEOs reported in the media, the "obscene" wages" of CEOs in question are mostly in reference to Top 100 ASX companies, which have more workers and entail a greater level of responsibilty in the decisions the CEO makes. If you looked at the wages CEOs were earning in the Top 1000 or 10000 companies in Australia, you'd probably find as you went further down the list that their wages would be below $1,000,000 PA, to the point that they were earning about $100-200 K above the next senior manager. Given what must one scarifice to be the CEO of a company, I think that the level of compensation they receive is fair. Listen to the NPR podcast "How I built this" to get a better idea of what a CEO does to get to where they are. But if a CEOs wage is obscene, why is it not obscene for a cleaner in Australia to earn $20 an hour, while a cleaner in Bangladesh earns $1-2 dollars a day? We don't live in Bangladesh with its lowest of the low living costs alongside its wages.. there is no discussion here in any way... reduce living costs here and you might be able to reduce NEEDED wages.  How much are YOU prepared to work for here????? How do YOU justify Bangladeshi company owners being mega-millionaires while exploiting their workers to the tune of $1-2 a day wages?  Some kind of divine right of company owners? What exactly does one 'sacrifice' to be a CEO of a company, may one ask?  That's like saying politicians work hard etc and sacrifice so much.... so much that they need to be handed an income for life so they can 'spend more time with their family' while being handed some nice little earner out of the government pocket - maybe they need to try that one for real some time...  I, for one, spent not a single Christmas Eve or NYE etc with my family - where's my massive income for life? How is it that companies can 'make a loss' on paper, still pay out nice dividends, and then be able to pay their executives massive bonuses?   ::)

Your average CEO is probably bordering on insane.
insanely ambitous, insanely conscientous, insanely resistant to stress.

Thats why i laugh when i hear about the "glass ceiling".
the more appropriate question is "why are there any MEN at all who are willing to work so dammed hard.

To get woken at 3 am on a sunday morning and spend hours in brutal concentration to fix a problem that has to be fixed "right now".

see you think its about the $$$$.

its not.

thats just a way of keeping score.

these guys take competition to a new level.

they dont care about the cash matey.
they just care that their pay cheque is bigger then the CEO from the skyscraper next door.

does this matter?

of course not. the ammount they get is chickenfeed in comparison to the wealth they create for the business and the shareholders.

the guy who resuscitated disney when it was nearly in the red.

they paid him 50 million (this was years ago) and there was a huge uproar.

he has probably created 1000x that in terms of disney profits since his plan came to fruition.

these guys are worth every cent of it.

the decisions made by the guy at the top of amazon or facebook or google or apple result in trillions of dollars flowing into the pockets of the company owners.(the shareholders)

The rise of CEO salaries was kicked off with the implementation and rise of Milton Friedman’s neo-liberalism policies in the late 1960’s early 1970’s, this was the beginning of the switch from the Keynesian economic model to what we have today.

This switch which would eventually lead to a corporatocracy also triggered the decline of salary and wages for the average person, up until the late sixties salaries and wages kept up with the cost of living.

After Friedman’s policies were introduced and being adopted, CEO’s went from half a million dollars per annum which was still a fair bit back then to the crazy we have today and at the same time salaries and wages started to stagnate.

Friedman’s system was designed to place all the wealth in the hands of the few, it’s a hoarding system where by a hand full of individuals get rich while the majority are for ever falling behind.


CEO comparison to average worker.
Late 1960’s                                       Today
CEO $500,000 per annum                  $15,000,000 per annum
Average worker $15,000 pe annum    $50,000 per annum
500000/15000 = 33.33                     15000000/50000 = 300

Poor aqua defending the indefensible.

stunspore wrote on Dec 29^th, 2017 at 8:04am:

Poor aqua defending the indefensible.

grateful aqua celebrating contribution .
when aqua looks at his super balance, he weeps tears of joy for the dedication of these "superior men".

aqua is tempted to send the CEO of some of these companies a bottle of moet as a way of thanking them for their service

aquascoot wrote on Dec 29^th, 2017 at 8:09am:

stunspore wrote on Dec 29th, 2017 at 8:04am: Poor aqua defending the indefensible. grateful aqua celebrating contribution . when aqua looks at his super balance, he weeps tears of joy for the dedication of these "superior men". aqua is tempted to send the CEO of some of these companies a bottle of moet as a way of thanking them for their service

Don't be too gracious it could be wiped off overnight, for your sake I hope its not.

Ajax wrote on Dec 29^th, 2017 at 8:18am:

aquascoot wrote on Dec 29th, 2017 at 8:09am: stunspore wrote on Dec 29th, 2017 at 8:04am: Poor aqua defending the indefensible. grateful aqua celebrating contribution . when aqua looks at his super balance, he weeps tears of joy for the dedication of these "superior men". aqua is tempted to send the CEO of some of these companies a bottle of moet as a way of thanking them for their service Don't be too gracious it could be wiped off overnight, for your sake I hope its not.

if it is, then thats fine.
it will just be part of the journey.

i refuse to buy into the idea of "the golden years of retirement" and "relaxing and pleasuring myself".
a crash might be a good thing because it will then be easier to stay engaged and in momentum.

i have seen too many colleagues who quit and even a champion can become "fat steve' very very quickly if he gets sucked into the prevailing cultural hypnosis

the cash will be a legacy for the kids but ONLY if they are acting as superior men and women.

if i detect a hint of entitlement, it will be directed elsewhere.

the alpha horse chomps on the best grass and disdains the imprecations of the common herd for a piece of that action.... that herd unable to be the alpha can find its own cake to eat and must make itself worthy of eating from the same pasture by the individuals in it upgrading their benefit to the herd .... the alpha simply flicks away their concerns with his tail and grows fat on the proceeds of the grass.....his entitlement is absolute...... the foals can simply die unless the herd accedes to his wishes.....

If I were a leader like that, I'd have been sleeping with a grenade every night of the week......

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/They_horses.jpg

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 30^th, 2017 at 12:52am:

the alpha horse chomps on the best grass and disdains the imprecations of the common herd for a piece of that action.... that herd unable to be the alpha can find its own cake to eat and must make itself worthy of eating from the same pasture by the individuals in it upgrading their benefit to the herd .... the alpha simply flicks away their concerns with his tail and grows fat on the proceeds of the grass.....his entitlement is absolute...... the foals can simply die unless the herd accedes to his wishes..... If I were a leader like that, I'd have been sleeping with a grenade every night of the week...... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/They_horses.jpg

 

wrong.

the alpha horse isnt in a power struggle.
men dont struggle for power.
men get together and elect the most competant and conscientous to lead them.
no one is stomping on anyones head bro.

an alpha MUST look after those in the tribe who follow him.
even back in chimpanzee colonies, if an alpha didnt provide benevolent leadership , then 3 betas could form an alliance and take him out.

we are social animals.
an alpha gets some perks for sure.
no one minds that their boss has a bigger pay packet and a bigger office then them .
but the alpha only gets these perks if he takes on the responsibilities of being the leader.
he has to be first thru the door in times of danger
he has to sacrifice himself, his sleep, his peace of mind, he has to be courageous .
if he doesnt act alpha, then he will be taken down.
and part of being alpha is a benevolent attitude to all who have given you this priveledged position.

in leftist states (russia, maos china, cuba, north korea, cambodia), then the socialists showed their true colours as totalitarian butchers.
but an alpha leader of a western corporation must lead for the benefit of everyone , all the way down to the cleaners or he will be gone.

thats why capitalism is such a great system
and why we need to recognise that "hierachies of power" are actually "hierachies of competance" and they are benefiting you and keeping you safe.

now go and enjoy your capitalist internet, your capitalist smart phone, your capitalist automobile, your capitalist medical technology, your capitalist food supply, your capitalist holiday, your capitalist air con and be very greatful you dont live in a socialist utopia like north korea or venezaula

crocodile wrote on Dec 28^th, 2017 at 10:43am:

whiteknight wrote on Dec 28th, 2017 at 7:58am: Australian CEOs continue receiving fat bonuses, ACSI asks what they've done to deserve it ABC News Posted 24 Aug 2017, 11:33am Some of Australia's top chief executives might be receiving bonuses they don't necessarily deserve.   :( Key points:     86 per cent of ASX 100 chief executives collected a fat bonus     Only 18 per cent of CEOs received less than half of their potential bonus     Report also confirmed the dominance of male chief executives in the ASX 100 A survey by the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) shows that, on average, CEO fixed pay has not changed substantially since the global financial crisis, mainly due to shareholder pressure. But the study of 2016 remuneration showed 86 per cent of ASX 100 chief executives collected a fat bonus, raising questions about whether bosses were jumping a high enough bar to boost their base pay.   :( ACSI chief executive Louise Davidson questioned why only 18 per cent of CEOs received less than half of their potential bonus, given dissatisfaction about some corporate performances. "Investors reasonably assume that bonuses will only be awarded for exceptional performance over and above normal expectations," Ms Davidson said.     "But we're seeing it's pretty hard to miss out on a bonus if you're a CEO. "The prevalence of CEO bonuses at consistently high levels raises serious questions about the way performance hurdles are being designed and applied." While Ms Davidson welcomed the move by a small number of boards to reduce CEO bonuses, she pointed to the lacklustre performance of some companies. "We can't help wondering why these executives would have qualified for any payments in the first place,   :( So Whitey, are you suggesting that the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors ( ACSI ) is the body that decides what payment others deserve. What do they base this assumption upon. Do you see just a tad of vested interest in such an arrangement.

The article is about a survey, data collected and the conclusions drawn from it. Not about who decides anything

You don't think it is a problem that 82 % of CEO's including many unsuccessful ones collect 100% of their bonus every year whether they deserve it or not ?

aquascoot wrote on Dec 30^th, 2017 at 8:08am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 30th, 2017 at 12:52am: the alpha horse chomps on the best grass and disdains the imprecations of the common herd for a piece of that action.... that herd unable to be the alpha can find its own cake to eat and must make itself worthy of eating from the same pasture by the individuals in it upgrading their benefit to the herd .... the alpha simply flicks away their concerns with his tail and grows fat on the proceeds of the grass.....his entitlement is absolute...... the foals can simply die unless the herd accedes to his wishes..... If I were a leader like that, I'd have been sleeping with a grenade every night of the week...... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/They_horses.jpg   wrong. the alpha horse isnt in a power struggle. men dont struggle for power. men get together and elect the most competant and conscientous to lead them. no one is stomping on anyones head bro. an alpha MUST look after those in the tribe who follow him. even back in chimpanzee colonies, if an alpha didnt provide benevolent leadership , then 3 betas could form an alliance and take him out. we are social animals. an alpha gets some perks for sure. no one minds that their boss has a bigger pay packet and a bigger office then them . but the alpha only gets these perks if he takes on the responsibilities of being the leader. he has to be first thru the door in times of danger he has to sacrifice himself, his sleep, his peace of mind, he has to be courageous . if he doesnt act alpha, then he will be taken down. and part of being alpha is a benevolent attitude to all who have given you this priveledged position. in leftist states (russia, maos china, cuba, north korea, cambodia), then the socialists showed their true colours as totalitarian butchers. but an alpha leader of a western corporation must lead for the benefit of everyone , all the way down to the cleaners or he will be gone. thats why capitalism is such a great system and why we need to recognise that "hierachies of power" are actually "hierachies of competance" and they are benefiting you and keeping you safe. now go and enjoy your capitalist internet, your capitalist smart phone, your capitalist automobile, your capitalist medical technology, your capitalist food supply, your capitalist holiday, your capitalist air con and be very greatful you dont live in a socialist utopia like north korea or venezaula

Quote:

men dont struggle for power. men get together and elect the most competant and conscientous to lead them. no one is stomping on anyones head bro.

Mostly the leader is the one who kicked everyone else off of the ladder on the way up, the best leaders are the ones who's victums didn't even notice that they were stabbed in the back 72 times.

Shareholders decide CEO salaries. The money comes out of their pockets, no the pockets of employees.

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 7:54am:

Shareholders decide CEO salaries. The money comes out of their pockets, no the pockets of employees.

There is some truth in what you say -maybe 5%.

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 7:54am:

Shareholders decide CEO salaries. The money comes out of their pockets, no the pockets of employees.

.... and the majority of shares are held by an inner group who generally include the ceos, board members etc, so it's a closed shop and Ma and Pa Sharecropper don't really get a say.

Do keep up...

From the US but an interesting article on the topic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/how-companies-decide-ceo-pay/530127/


Quote:

It depends on where the company is benchmarked within this group. And every board I have ever sat on or researched benchmarked itself at the 50th, 75th, or 90th percentile, therefore targeting CEO pay at similarly exalted levels. Benchmarking below the 50th percentile says, We are a lousy company and don’t even aspire to be better. So in this sense all CEOs are above average: To be benchmarked at or above the 50th percentile, they need not do anything other than report to a board that considers its own company exceptional.

And another one of the doom and gloom BlackDay's parroted anti Australian propaganda waste of times is banished to the back room.

Becoming an automatic trend.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 8:10am:

freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 7:54am: Shareholders decide CEO salaries. The money comes out of their pockets, no the pockets of employees. There is some truth in what you say -maybe 5%.

If the shareholders decided the CEO should have his salary halved, what do you think they would do with the difference? Give everyone a raise? Donate it to charity? Or pocket it?

Also, the reason American CEO salaries are out of step with other countries is because their companies tend to be bigger. There are fewer CEOs per employee. And they really are worth that much. If each wrong decision can cost 10000 or 100000 or 1000000 people their job, paying them the salary of 400 people doesn't seem so silly.

It's an interesting contrast with politicians. They make decisions worth a lot more money, more jobs, and a lot of lives, yet their salary is only commensurate with someone in middle management doing the boring paperwork and dealing with petty staff issues.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 10:06am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 8:10am: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 7:54am: Shareholders decide CEO salaries. The money comes out of their pockets, no the pockets of employees. There is some truth in what you say -maybe 5%. If the shareholders decided the CEO should have his salary halved, what do you think they would do with the difference? Give everyone a raise? Donate it to charity? Or pocket it? Also, the reason American CEO salaries are out of step with other countries is because their companies tend to be bigger. There are fewer CEOs per employee. And they really are worth that much. If each wrong decision can cost 10000 or 100000 or 1000000 people their job, paying them the salary of 400 people doesn't seem so silly. It's an interesting contrast with politicians. They make decisions worth a lot more money, more jobs, and a lot of lives, yet their salary is only commensurate with someone in middle management doing the boring paperwork and dealing with petty staff issues. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

And their decisions can be devastating for countless more people.... and usually are since they have no real idea or relevant experience.

Even after doubling their salaries and ensuring that the base politician receives around $2.3M on top for 'sustenance' etc.. we still attract ideological monkeys with no idea outside their narrow little worlds, and all we get for our more peanuts is more peanut sh1t.

Halve politician salaries and attract only the genuine...... see how many front up for election when the going rate is $75k plus proven costs, with a total ban on all inside trading for self, family and friends and a Federal ICAC will total powers looking over their shoulders.

You don't seriously believe people go into politics to serve this nation and its people, do you? Some may - at the start - but most go in as a reward for serving their party, which they happily continue to do since is is good remunerative business.

How else do you think we get government by absurd dogmas and ideologies, with so many blatantly stupid ideas being pushed through, accompanied by an incredible insolence of office?

Quote:

Halve politician salaries and attract only the genuine

Government by well-intentioned morons.

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 10:20am:

Quote: Halve politician salaries and attract only the genuine Government by well-intentioned morons.

Already got that - time to try for a change.

My rule of thumb is - if we had a popularly elected president, which one would you vote for?

At this time, I'd vote for none.

Why would lower paid people, who enter only because they want to do the job on behalf of the people and were prepared to take a pay drop to do so, be 'morons'?

juliar wrote on Dec 27^th, 2017 at 10:43am:

Why is union corruption so obscene ? Why are the Labor pollies such incompetent imbeciles ? Is it because they are the best union brown nosers ?

Weak as p1ss response.

Corrupt Union Officials wouldn't even rate on the scale of the number of corrupt business people, companies, CEO's & corporate executives ....

& guess who in the main they support or are associated with?

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 27^th, 2017 at 11:16am:

As for 'power structures' it sounds like you are again mistaking some mythical 'right' of a self-appointed 'better class' to dictate terms for a genuine balance of power within a society. Narrow-based power groups, such as 'business' people, have been proven over and over again to be far too often a bunch of total bugger-ups, who are capable of making the most monumental mistakes costing billions and showing talent only in escaping with the pot of gold hidden within the company framework.  Any unconstrained 'power structure' is a disaster waiting to happen, and it is appalling that such as one as you would even consider that kind of Hitlerist/Stalinist structure to be a socially  and economically valid one. When there is a fair balance of rights for all, including Unions, this nation functioned much better. I think at times you, aquascoot, mistake elitism for some kind of divine right. Footnote:-  What this country lacks is a good management massacre by a disgruntled ex employee - that would change the face of 'industrial relations' here for at least another century.

Never truer words typed Grappler.

Ask our Tradies/subbies how well big business pays ... & what happens when they don't .... & that is happening all the time. And they get away with it the scumbags.

crocodile wrote on Dec 27^th, 2017 at 10:50pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 6:44pm: crocodile wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 11:18am: They are paid at the market rate. End of story. A CEO has not been paid at a rate relevant to any market in many decades. It is very much a corrupt you scratch my back I'll scratch your back process. Could you show us your source for this please. Would love to read and analyse it.

What sources do you need?

CEO's salaries are oft in the print media or shown on TV .......

they are obscene & they are governed by no market rate.

They are governed by self interest, greed & what they can get away with.

It's like a cliquey club

They get bonuses even when they fail & have to leave a company (remember Sol Trudjillo?).....

next thing you know they turn up at another company to do the same thing or end up with directorships at several other companies.

Our CEO got the arze from Rio Tinto then lobs with us.

The company is now in the process of being totally dismantled from a multi-modal freight company .. to a specialist coal/ore only carrier.

The infrastructure which they run on they inherited for next to nothing was paid for by the taxpayer for over 150 years.

aquascoot wrote on Dec 28^th, 2017 at 7:18am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 6:44pm: crocodile wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 11:18am: They are paid at the market rate. End of story. A CEO has not been paid at a rate relevant to any market in many decades. It is very much a corrupt you scratch my back I'll scratch your back process. some of these CEO's are managing many lawsuits for their companies , they are responsible for teams doing diverse things, they have to provide direction to the organisation, they have to travel extensively, they have to maintain relationships in multiple countries, they have to keep on top of the technology, they have competitors whose sole function in life is to take them down. they are off the chart in conscientousness off the chart in IQ off the chart in resistance to stress. when we can pay an elite athlete millions of dollars, i have NO problem with a CEO being paid millions of dollars.

Bullshyte

you mean they are heartless sociopaths ... as for high IQs that's debatable ......

especially with the ones on the CEO Club circuit who go from company to company .... failing & still making a fortune.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2017 at 8:24am:

aquascoot wrote on Dec 30th, 2017 at 8:08am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 30th, 2017 at 12:52am: the alpha horse chomps on the best grass and disdains the imprecations of the common herd for a piece of that action.... that herd unable to be the alpha can find its own cake to eat and must make itself worthy of eating from the same pasture by the individuals in it upgrading their benefit to the herd .... the alpha simply flicks away their concerns with his tail and grows fat on the proceeds of the grass.....his entitlement is absolute...... the foals can simply die unless the herd accedes to his wishes..... If I were a leader like that, I'd have been sleeping with a grenade every night of the week...... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/They_horses.jpg   wrong. the alpha horse isnt in a power struggle. men dont struggle for power. men get together and elect the most competant and conscientous to lead them. no one is stomping on anyones head bro. an alpha MUST look after those in the tribe who follow him. even back in chimpanzee colonies, if an alpha didnt provide benevolent leadership , then 3 betas could form an alliance and take him out. we are social animals. an alpha gets some perks for sure. no one minds that their boss has a bigger pay packet and a bigger office then them . but the alpha only gets these perks if he takes on the responsibilities of being the leader. he has to be first thru the door in times of danger he has to sacrifice himself, his sleep, his peace of mind, he has to be courageous . if he doesnt act alpha, then he will be taken down. and part of being alpha is a benevolent attitude to all who have given you this priveledged position. in leftist states (russia, maos china, cuba, north korea, cambodia), then the socialists showed their true colours as totalitarian butchers. but an alpha leader of a western corporation must lead for the benefit of everyone , all the way down to the cleaners or he will be gone. thats why capitalism is such a great system and why we need to recognise that "hierachies of power" are actually "hierachies of competance" and they are benefiting you and keeping you safe. now go and enjoy your capitalist internet, your capitalist smart phone, your capitalist automobile, your capitalist medical technology, your capitalist food supply, your capitalist holiday, your capitalist air con and be very greatful you dont live in a socialist utopia like north korea or venezaula Quote: men dont struggle for power. men get together and elect the most competant and conscientous to lead them. no one is stomping on anyones head bro. Mostly the leader is the one who kicked everyone else off of the ladder on the way up, the best leaders are the ones who's victums didn't even notice that they were stabbed in the back 72 times.

Spot on  [smiley=thumbup.gif]

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 7:54am:

Shareholders decide CEO salaries. The money comes out of their pockets, no the pockets of employees.

Shareholders vote on remuneration packages, overseen by the board.

Those with the most shares actually have all the say ... so the executive & the CEO would be large holders as well.

Our company had a 3 strike rule for CEO's ... yet the last one that left still walked with all his bonuses & share portfolio which nearly amounted to $11 million.

He also had a habit of selling share blocks as close to 12 hrs before a blackout period.

Not that he would have had any inside info like  ::)

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 10:06am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 8:10am: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2017 at 7:54am: Shareholders decide CEO salaries. The money comes out of their pockets, no the pockets of employees. There is some truth in what you say -maybe 5%. If the shareholders decided the CEO should have his salary halved, what do you think they would do with the difference? Give everyone a raise? Donate it to charity? Or pocket it? Also, the reason American CEO salaries are out of step with other countries is because their companies tend to be bigger. There are fewer CEOs per employee. And they really are worth that much. If each wrong decision can cost 10000 or 100000 or 1000000 people their job, paying them the salary of 400 people doesn't seem so silly. It's an interesting contrast with politicians. They make decisions worth a lot more money, more jobs, and a lot of lives, yet their salary is only commensurate with someone in middle management doing the boring paperwork and dealing with petty staff issues. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

That is the biggest load of bollocks saying ever used to justify greed.

You pay more than peanuts and you still get monkeys

slightly smarter monkeys but monkeys still the same.

CEO's do make wrong decisions ...

and they make decisions that deliberately cost 1,000's of people their jobs ......

and they get paid productivity bonuses for those decisions.

You too FD defend the indefensible.

As for that gem .. "there are fewer CEO'S than employees"  ;D ;D ;D

Most all companies only have 1 CEO ..... so that is irrelevant.

What's relevant is they are paid obscene salaries along with their bonuses & gift share portfolios.

Gnads wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 11:14am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 11:16am: As for 'power structures' it sounds like you are again mistaking some mythical 'right' of a self-appointed 'better class' to dictate terms for a genuine balance of power within a society. Narrow-based power groups, such as 'business' people, have been proven over and over again to be far too often a bunch of total bugger-ups, who are capable of making the most monumental mistakes costing billions and showing talent only in escaping with the pot of gold hidden within the company framework.  Any unconstrained 'power structure' is a disaster waiting to happen, and it is appalling that such as one as you would even consider that kind of Hitlerist/Stalinist structure to be a socially  and economically valid one. When there is a fair balance of rights for all, including Unions, this nation functioned much better. I think at times you, aquascoot, mistake elitism for some kind of divine right. Footnote:-  What this country lacks is a good management massacre by a disgruntled ex employee - that would change the face of 'industrial relations' here for at least another century. Never truer words typed Grappler. Ask our Tradies/subbies how well big business pays ... & what happens when they don't .... & that is happening all the time. And they get away with it the scumbags.

Tradies in family - building tradies - have been ripped off more than once for their work and materials.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 10:45am:

freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 10:20am: Quote: Halve politician salaries and attract only the genuine Government by well-intentioned morons. Already got that - time to try for a change. My rule of thumb is - if we had a popularly elected president, which one would you vote for? At this time, I'd vote for none. Why would lower paid people, who enter only because they want to do the job on behalf of the people and were prepared to take a pay drop to do so, be 'morons'?

So just keep reducing the salary until we attract quality candidates?

Isn't that like saying the beatings will continue until morale improves?

If you want to attract the best people you have to pay for it.
In a global market people will be able to pick and choose the right role for them, if you don’t pay a going rate then you’ll get v ordinary candidates!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 12:21pm:

If you want to attract the best people you have to pay for it. In a global market people will be able to pick and choose the right role for them, if you don’t pay a going rate then you’ll get v ordinary candidates!

Yet there is a thread about complaining childcare educators and workers over a payrise.

Because CEOs are an obscene self-serving group of losers and failures?

If they weren't - why do so many companies and even major corporations go broke?

a.  bad management

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 12:21pm:

If you want to attract the best people you have to pay for it. In a global market people will be able to pick and choose the right role for them, if you don’t pay a going rate then you’ll get v ordinary candidates!

Does that all apply to the common worker.. or just to the elitist class?

"In a global market workers will be able to pick and choose the right role for them,  if you don’t pay a going rate then you’ll get v ordinary candidates" ... how will that go down?  Companies lining up for that deal, are they?  Or are they just seeking the lowest possible rate of pay per worker?

You're still a dreamer, Andrei..... you should go into politics since you have simply no idea........ you could explain with the best of them how they are all better off under your global economy as they eat their lard sandwiches and join the dole queue......

Oh - but the overall national prosperity is on the rise.....   ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 10:54pm:

Because CEOs are an obscene self-serving group of losers and failures? If they weren't - why do so many companies and even major corporations go broke? a.  bad management

OK, so you admit that an entire company can go broke (and all the employees lose their jobs) because of bad management. And you think the appropriate response is to offer an even lower salary next time you are trying to recruit a CEO?

"Hey look everyone, we are paying peanuts and getting monkeys, and we will all be out of a job if we keep this up, so what should we do? Try paying even less?"

That is literally what a lot of people think should happen with politicians. But when shareholders have their own investment on the line, suddenly common sense kicks in.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 10:54pm:

Because CEOs are an obscene self-serving group of losers and failures? If they weren't - why do so many companies and even major corporations go broke? a.  bad management

what about the likes of Clive Palmer..

he is still roaming the world spending his workers redundancy money... ::) ::)

cods wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2018 at 7:38am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 10:54pm: Because CEOs are an obscene self-serving group of losers and failures? If they weren't - why do so many companies and even major corporations go broke? a.  bad management what about the likes of Clive Palmer.. he is still roaming the world spending his workers redundancy money... ::) ::)

Clive only got into politics to get out of paying his tax bill. If you don't pay politicians enough you end up with well intentioned idiots or the corrupt.

Hang ten a week until the rest get the message.  That kind are ruining this global economy.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2018 at 7:51am:

cods wrote on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 7:38am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 10:54pm: Because CEOs are an obscene self-serving group of losers and failures? If they weren't - why do so many companies and even major corporations go broke? a.  bad management what about the likes of Clive Palmer.. he is still roaming the world spending his workers redundancy money... ::) ::) Clive only got into politics to get out of paying his tax bill. If you don't pay politicians enough you end up with well intentioned idiots or the corrupt.

Are you suggesting that genuine people are all idiots because they don't belong to parties etc?  Are you suggesting that our current lot are squeaky clean and not total idiots about many things?  Look at the state of the nation and the economy... and the future for both.

$50k salaries and refunded/controlled funding watched by a federal ICAC - no corruption there and only genuine people.  Why are you assuming that people who would work for a real salary for doing public service would be either corrupt or stupid?

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2018 at 7:20am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 10:54pm: Because CEOs are an obscene self-serving group of losers and failures? If they weren't - why do so many companies and even major corporations go broke? a.  bad management OK, so you admit that an entire company can go broke (and all the employees lose their jobs) because of bad management. And you think the appropriate response is to offer an even lower salary next time you are trying to recruit a CEO? "Hey look everyone, we are paying peanuts and getting monkeys, and we will all be out of a job if we keep this up, so what should we do? Try paying even less?" That is literally what a lot of people think should happen with politicians. But when shareholders have their own investment on the line, suddenly common sense kicks in.

What's this 'even lower salary' - nothing 'low' about it.

Show me the positive results to date of these wonderful CEOs...... most advanced economies - unlike say that of China with its semi-state control by its ruling elite - are struggling at this time and that will get worse..... the current mode is not working due to poor management and short term thinking, showing that most 'ceos' are not worth their money.

The history of the past forty years has been about bringing in some over-priced hot-shot to 'fix' all the 'problems' with a company, 'rationalising' and sacking a bunch of much lower paid coal face workers, and then the company begins an inevitable slide downwards.  All the whiz kids haven't saved Ford or GM etc, despite their move to Asia to chop worker incomes, all they've done is postpone the inevitable ... The $12m man who altered Australia Post left a declining business.... and a lot of unhappy ex-post office people, some of whom are suing, his successor didn't do much of anything... the QANTAS poof has ridden high on the delusion that QANTAS is now terrific after a massive re-tooling with new aircraft etc (it's all in the bookwork - ask Andrei- they won't REALLY 'break even' until all this is paid for), and has out-sourced much work thus again placing burdens on tax that has to come from somewhere while expecting this fool government to cut company taxes ... and more unemployment that needs to be soaked up by taxes from somewhere......

When these short-sighted and self-centred fools collapse an economy, they injure BILLIONS - not just their shareholders - and they are often placed into these positions through their 'old mates network'- not on their ability.

But stoopid is as stoopid does...

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 12:10pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 10:45am: freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 10:20am: Quote: Halve politician salaries and attract only the genuine Government by well-intentioned morons. Already got that - time to try for a change. My rule of thumb is - if we had a popularly elected president, which one would you vote for? At this time, I'd vote for none. Why would lower paid people, who enter only because they want to do the job on behalf of the people and were prepared to take a pay drop to do so, be 'morons'? So just keep reducing the salary until we attract quality candidates? Isn't that like saying the beatings will continue until morale improves?

Well isn't that what Politicians, especially the LNP are doing to working people?

Slashing weekend penalty rates for our lowest paid workers in retail & hospitality.

Casualising the workforce so people don't earn enough unless they have more than one casual job.

The hypocrisy is large FD.

Just what amount of money is enough?

It sure has been determined for & on behalf of many workers by these same greedy bastards who never cease trying to drive wages & conditions down ....

yet their share is ever increasing. ::)

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2018 at 7:20am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 10:54pm: Because CEOs are an obscene self-serving group of losers and failures? If they weren't - why do so many companies and even major corporations go broke? a.  bad management OK, so you admit that an entire company can go broke (and all the employees lose their jobs) because of bad management. And you think the appropriate response is to offer an even lower salary next time you are trying to recruit a CEO? "Hey look everyone, we are paying peanuts and getting monkeys, and we will all be out of a job if we keep this up, so what should we do? Try paying even less?" That is literally what a lot of people think should happen with politicians. But when shareholders have their own investment on the line, suddenly common sense kicks in.

Geesus Freediver .... still using that bs line.

There are too many of your "non monkey" CEO's on obscene salaries that have failed & are failing .... that loses workers their jobs & shareholders their investment.

And usually that happens before the shareholders or the board see common sense & give them the flick.

Trouble being that oft the board are in cahoots with the CEO & are just as bad.

But ner' mind they just go on to bigger & better things because they are thieving monkeys ..... right?

You're bloody amazing in your defense of the indefensible.

There should be a limit on what any one individual should be able to collect as a salary ... along with incentive bonuses & share portfolios.

And that should include your non monkey monkey CEO's.

Pass the bananas. ::) 

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2018 at 7:51am:

cods wrote on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 7:38am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 10:54pm: Because CEOs are an obscene self-serving group of losers and failures? If they weren't - why do so many companies and even major corporations go broke? a.  bad management what about the likes of Clive Palmer.. he is still roaming the world spending his workers redundancy money... ::) ::) Clive only got into politics to get out of paying his tax bill. If you don't pay politicians enough you end up with well intentioned idiots or the corrupt.

You're bloody joking right?

It's usually those who are the richest that are the greediest ... enough is never enough.

And corruption is usually in the hands of those people.

A thoroughly elitist, biased & incorrect point of view.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2018 at 8:18am:

freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 7:20am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 10:54pm: Because CEOs are an obscene self-serving group of losers and failures? If they weren't - why do so many companies and even major corporations go broke? a.  bad management OK, so you admit that an entire company can go broke (and all the employees lose their jobs) because of bad management. And you think the appropriate response is to offer an even lower salary next time you are trying to recruit a CEO? "Hey look everyone, we are paying peanuts and getting monkeys, and we will all be out of a job if we keep this up, so what should we do? Try paying even less?" That is literally what a lot of people think should happen with politicians. But when shareholders have their own investment on the line, suddenly common sense kicks in. What's this 'even lower salary' - nothing 'low' about it. Show me the positive results to date of these wonderful CEOs...... most advanced economies - unlike say that of China with its semi-state control by its ruling elite - are struggling at this time and that will get worse..... the current mode is not working due to poor management and short term thinking, showing that most 'ceos' are not worth their money. The history of the past forty years has been about bringing in some over-priced hot-shot to 'fix' all the 'problems' with a company, 'rationalising' and sacking a bunch of much lower paid coal face workers, and then the company begins an inevitable slide downwards.  All the whiz kids haven't saved Ford or GM etc, despite their move to Asia to chop worker incomes, all they've done is postpone the inevitable ... The $12m man who altered Australia Post left a declining business.... and a lot of unhappy ex-post office people, some of whom are suing, his successor didn't do much of anything... the QANTAS poof has ridden high on the delusion that QANTAS is now terrific after a massive re-tooling with new aircraft etc (it's all in the bookwork - ask Andrei- they won't REALLY 'break even' until all this is paid for), and has out-sourced much work thus again placing burdens on tax that has to come from somewhere while expecting this fool government to cut company taxes ... and more unemployment that needs to be soaked up by taxes from somewhere...... When these short-sighted and self-centred fools collapse an economy, they injure BILLIONS - not just their shareholders - and they are often placed into these positions through their 'old mates network'- not on their ability. But stoopid is as stoopid does...

Well said Grappler.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2018 at 8:12am:

freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 7:51am: cods wrote on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 7:38am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 10:54pm: Because CEOs are an obscene self-serving group of losers and failures? If they weren't - why do so many companies and even major corporations go broke? a.  bad management what about the likes of Clive Palmer.. he is still roaming the world spending his workers redundancy money... ::) ::) Clive only got into politics to get out of paying his tax bill. If you don't pay politicians enough you end up with well intentioned idiots or the corrupt. Are you suggesting that genuine people are all idiots because they don't belong to parties etc?  Are you suggesting that our current lot are squeaky clean and not total idiots about many things?  Look at the state of the nation and the economy... and the future for both. $50k salaries and refunded/controlled funding watched by a federal ICAC - no corruption there and only genuine people.  Why are you assuming that people who would work for a real salary for doing public service would be either corrupt or stupid?

There are plenty of genuine intelligent people earning a bucket load of money in the private sector. There is not exactly a whole lot attracting them to politics. Double the workload. 6 month job interview, and you reapply after a few years. Dealing with lunatics and people digging through your personal life. 90% pay cut. etc etc

I am suggesting that money talks, BS walks. What we pay politicians really is peanuts compared to equivalent responsibilities in the private sector, and compared to the cost of any mistakes they make.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2018 at 5:47pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 8:12am: freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 7:51am: cods wrote on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 7:38am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 10:54pm: Because CEOs are an obscene self-serving group of losers and failures? If they weren't - why do so many companies and even major corporations go broke? a.  bad management what about the likes of Clive Palmer.. he is still roaming the world spending his workers redundancy money... ::) ::) Clive only got into politics to get out of paying his tax bill. If you don't pay politicians enough you end up with well intentioned idiots or the corrupt. Are you suggesting that genuine people are all idiots because they don't belong to parties etc?  Are you suggesting that our current lot are squeaky clean and not total idiots about many things?  Look at the state of the nation and the economy... and the future for both. $50k salaries and refunded/controlled funding watched by a federal ICAC - no corruption there and only genuine people.  Why are you assuming that people who would work for a real salary for doing public service would be either corrupt or stupid? There are plenty of genuine intelligent people earning a bucket load of money in the private sector. There is not exactly a whole lot attracting them to politics. Double the workload. 6 month job interview, and you reapply after a few years. Dealing with lunatics and people digging through your personal life. 90% pay cut. etc etc I am suggesting that money talks, BS walks. What we pay politicians really is peanuts compared to equivalent responsibilities in the private sector, and compared to the cost of any mistakes they make.

Got it...... trouble at the moment is that politics is attracting the ideologically driven, who have little to no interest in anything of real value for the majority, as long as they can get their hands on that stash of gold and use it to further their own agenda.

Are you suggesting that I would not be a fine benevolent dictator if I accepted only $150k pa plus proven costs for being President?  I may not have much money - but I certainly would not dishonour myself by using an elected position to feather my own nest.

I already have history - I could have walked away from the CPS with a disability pension for life at age 32 and still continued in work, just like politicians do .... I refused it.... as a man of honour I could and would not go that route....

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2018 at 8:30pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 5:47pm: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 8:12am: freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 7:51am: cods wrote on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 7:38am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 1st, 2018 at 10:54pm: Because CEOs are an obscene self-serving group of losers and failures? If they weren't - why do so many companies and even major corporations go broke? a.  bad management what about the likes of Clive Palmer.. he is still roaming the world spending his workers redundancy money... ::) ::) Clive only got into politics to get out of paying his tax bill. If you don't pay politicians enough you end up with well intentioned idiots or the corrupt. Are you suggesting that genuine people are all idiots because they don't belong to parties etc?  Are you suggesting that our current lot are squeaky clean and not total idiots about many things?  Look at the state of the nation and the economy... and the future for both. $50k salaries and refunded/controlled funding watched by a federal ICAC - no corruption there and only genuine people.  Why are you assuming that people who would work for a real salary for doing public service would be either corrupt or stupid? There are plenty of genuine intelligent people earning a bucket load of money in the private sector. There is not exactly a whole lot attracting them to politics. Double the workload. 6 month job interview, and you reapply after a few years. Dealing with lunatics and people digging through your personal life. 90% pay cut. etc etc I am suggesting that money talks, BS walks. What we pay politicians really is peanuts compared to equivalent responsibilities in the private sector, and compared to the cost of any mistakes they make. Got it...... trouble at the moment is that politics is attracting the ideologically driven, who have little to no interest in anything of real value for the majority, as long as they can get their hands on that stash of gold and use it to further their own agenda. Are you suggesting that I would not be a fine benevolent dictator if I accepted only $150k pa plus proven costs for being President?  I may not have much money - but I certainly would not dishonour myself by using an elected position to feather my own nest. I already have history - I could have walked away from the CPS with a disability pension for life at age 32 and still continued in work, just like politicians do .... I refused it.... as a man of honour I could and would not go that route....

What would you do to the people who tried to kill you?

aquascoot wrote on Dec 27^th, 2017 at 11:13am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 27th, 2017 at 11:05am: The side benefits do not justify the perpetuation of the status quo as described.  As usual, you mistake what has been a genuine mix of capitalism and socialism for pure capitalism.  If pure capitalism had been permitted to reign, you can pretty much guarantee that many of the social and health issues pertaining today would not exist. For example, without universal healthcare, with its inputs of cash to health professionals and such, how much real forward movement would there have been in health research and treatments?  Without the 'free tertiary education' that came into play,  how much real forward movement would there have been in those same arenas? Capital, rather than seeking advances and thus profit from such advances, would have been content to remain in industry and mining etc, where the returns were guaranteed and the cash grabs are quick.  In fact, you see a lot of that going on right now, with the Flight of the Mild Geese to the 'cheap labour nations' -  which is, as I've outlined before, a short term fix and a move that contains within itself the seeds of its own demise.* *As those nations 'rise' in economic activity, and the Abandoned Western Nations slowly subside into the same mire as currently occupied by those Cheap Labour Nations as a result of lack of production and of genuine opportunity and prosperity, trade will inevitably come to a standstill.... and once that happens........ that short-term fix will die.  Without an adequate return on labour and an opportunity for genuine national and personal prosperity HERE, and a continued disparity between earnings in one nation or another, meaning that the 'richer' will continue to buy produced goods - that is the inevitable result of this Flight of The Mild Geese. the UN, in 2000, set the goal of lifting 1 billion people out of poverty by 2015. they got it wrong. it was achieved by 2008. and isnt it a good thing that these "cheap labor nations" are lifted out of poverty. this allows us to trade with them. fat steve and fat janeen just wanted a job for life so they could stay in the durrrr state. and those days are gone and thank god. because if you are in a durr state, there is no growth and you might as well be dead. now, thanks to the competition from these "low wage countries" steve and janeen have to bloody well improve. please explain to me why that is a bad thing ?

We're not competing with low wage countries, we're in a totally different part of the economy. Fat Steve and Janeen are not competing with Chinese for manufacturing jobs, for example, nor are they competing with call centre staff in India for service jobs. The global economy is specialised. This, essentially, is how capitalism works - different sectors produce different components of a product.

Think of the "triangular trade" of the so-called golden era of capitalism. Cotton was grown in America, slaves were shipped from Africa to pick it, and the cotton was shipped to Manchester to turn into material.

Australia is a service economy. The top 3 sectors in terms of employment are:

1. Health care and social assistance
2. Retail trade
3. Education and training

Fat Steve and Janeen should not be offering their labour to factories cheap. They should learn nursing, customer service or teaching and get a job in one of those sectors. It would not be profitable for them to compete with Bangladeshis to make clothes, for example. Nor would this be in Australia's interest.

If Fat Steve and Janeen want to work in manufacturing, they should get skills and apply for a work visa in Europe or Asia. Plenty of engineers and industrial designers do just this. Just as Fat Steve and Janeen need to accept that they won't get a job for life, they need to accept that the labour market is global, as is the market for goods and services.   

Just as finance and corporations are multinational, CEOs are mobile too. If Fat Steve and Janeen want to make it in the corporate world, they'll need to make sure their passports are up to date. Just as capital is global, the capitalist class is global too. The "narrow path to success" transcends borders and geographies. The very nature of capitalism is to transcend nations. The modern job of the nation state is to protect its citizens and prepare them for integration into the global economy.

Well - I guess that explains the massive unemployment level that will continue to rise here.............. and the decline in social conditions and real incomes - all those 'service' industries are becoming over-priced and the majority have no access to the pricing and revenue garnered...

Not a success story in any way...... and the only way to 'equalise' countless billions of poverty-stricken residents in poor nations is for The West to lower its own incomes.... this, of course, is a bi-partisan move, since the 'left' see it as wonderful to 'upgrade' the billions out of poverty*, and the 'right' see it as a golden opportunity to exploit despair for profit .....

* only works for a relative few in those poor nations, BTW - and does nothing for the overall improvement in conditions for the majority....... and sets in place the same race between costs of living and incomes as occurs here... until ultimately either the whole thing boils over or everyone is on the same level of income and all trade will stop between nations...

The golden age of cotton was based on crass exploitation of slaves, cotton workers and factory minions in Birmingham... terrific recommendation...................... hundreds of years of upward social movement for the many dumped in one second.....................

Sign up here for transportation to Asia for work in the rice fields at tuppence a day.....  :P

What we are actually seeing is skyrocketing incomes for the lower classes in poor nations, particularly China, while our lower and middle classes are maintaining theirs.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 29^th, 2017 at 7:07am:

minarchist wrote on Dec 28th, 2017 at 9:36am: As others have pointed out, it all comes down to value - what service you're providing, what income the company makes and what your employer is willing to pay. In terms of CEOs reported in the media, the "obscene" wages" of CEOs in question are mostly in reference to Top 100 ASX companies, which have more workers and entail a greater level of responsibilty in the decisions the CEO makes. If you looked at the wages CEOs were earning in the Top 1000 or 10000 companies in Australia, you'd probably find as you went further down the list that their wages would be below $1,000,000 PA, to the point that they were earning about $100-200 K above the next senior manager. Given what must one scarifice to be the CEO of a company, I think that the level of compensation they receive is fair. Listen to the NPR podcast "How I built this" to get a better idea of what a CEO does to get to where they are. But if a CEOs wage is obscene, why is it not obscene for a cleaner in Australia to earn $20 an hour, while a cleaner in Bangladesh earns $1-2 dollars a day? We don't live in Bangladesh with its lowest of the low living costs alongside its wages.. there is no discussion here in any way... reduce living costs here and you might be able to reduce NEEDED wages.

I'm sorry, but I thought the discussion was in relation to Wage Disparity in general and not between CEOs and workers exclusively.

If we're talking from the perspective of Western Society, what about the elite athlete who earn tens of millions of dollars without bringing their team to the finals? Or the actor/tress paid millions for a role, only to have the movie perform poorly at the Box Office?


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 29^th, 2017 at 7:07am:

How do YOU justify Bangladeshi company owners being mega-millionaires while exploiting their workers to the tune of $1-2 a day wages?  Some kind of divine right of company owners?

As low as the wages may seem from our perspective, the workers who take up such positions are doing so because the alternative, which is often farming, pays much less.

Ultimately, the company owners is justified to earn what they earn because the company belongs to them and their shareholders. In nearly all cases, they are the ones providing the tools and equipment necessary to develop the product or service the company is providing, as well as the maintenance and repairs to that equipment. What the worker earns for their labour shouldn't be based on how profitable the product or service ultimately becomes as the worker is not the one who is doing the legwork and ultimately taking the risk as to whether or not the product or service is purchased by the public. It's no different than hiring a tradesman performing $5000 in renovations, then the homeowner sells the house for a $50,000 profit.


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 29^th, 2017 at 7:07am:

What exactly does one 'sacrifice' to be a CEO of a company, may one ask?  That's like saying politicians work hard etc and sacrifice so much.... so much that they need to be handed an income for life so they can 'spend more time with their family' while being handed some nice little earner out of the government pocket - maybe they need to try that one for real some time...  I, for one, spent not a single Christmas Eve or NYE etc with my family - where's my massive income for life?

As others have pointed out, many CEOs are required to work double or more hours per week compared to their workers, as well as be on call for any crisis that may eventuate. On top of that, they have probably spent 4 - 8 years of their life in further education, and/or spent large portions of their day throughout their working life in the various positions that lead to them becoming a CEO. This will often mean that they have and continue to sacrifice leisure time, friendships, relationships with their loved ones, their health and sleep to get where they are. Granted, some CEOs manage to bullcrap their way through life to get where they are, but they will ultimately be given a ship to steer that they can't control and end up ruining their management career.

I don't know your personal circumstances to do a fair comparison, but sacrificing time by itself doesn't justify being paid a large income. It all depends what you have dedicated your time towards and how others value the skill set you can provide.


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 29^th, 2017 at 7:07am:

How is it that companies can 'make a loss' on paper, still pay out nice dividends, and then be able to pay their executives massive bonuses?   ::)

It depends on the circumstances of the company. It could be a combination of factors, such as a large turnaround in revenue that is projected to lead to a profit, capital investment/s aimed at making the company profitable, a write-off of unprofitable ventures or divisions, having a large amount of liquid cash, amongst others.

If a CEO walks away from a company with a large payout without implementing any short or long term improvements it was because they were able to draw a contract that ensured they received a payment regardless of what happened to the company. I'm not saying that is justified but the CEO would've been initially hired based on their previous performance, or the Board is run by thieves or idiots.