Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Salaries For Top Executives Are Rocketing 'out Of Control'

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/exclusive-salaries-for-top-executives-are-rocketing-out-of-control-2284397.html

Britain's bosses are pocketing an increasing portion of the nation's income, according to a report from the High Pay Commission to be published tomorrow. As the majority of people in the country face the largest drop in household income for three decades, a tiny minority at the top are awarding themselves a growing slice of the UK's wealth.

The top one thousandth of the British working population currently receives 5 per cent of the country's earnings, a ratio equivalent to that in the 1940s, the report says. If these trends continue, income for the highest paid will account for 14 per cent of the country's total by 2030 – the same proportion as in 1900.

The independent commission was set up in November to scrutinise the rising pay of those at the top. Its first report concludes that during the decade Labour was in power, income at the top grew by 64.2 per cent, while that of an average earner increased by 7.2 per cent over the same period.

Well at the top they are the wealth generators are they not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since these salaries are decided by the market then it seems we must have a rapidly contracting pool of suitable candidates for these positions. How can this be? :rolleyes:

From the article -

Increases in executive pay have drawn criticism from all parties. Before the election last year the Tory MP Kenneth Clarke said he was "astonished" that the British were "so quiet about the massive gulf that's opened between the very rich and the ordinarily paid over the past 12 years".

That damn Red Ken.

Love the myths and realities bit.

Edited by shipbuilder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep telling you, shutup, keep working and keep paying, oh yes, due to the world wide economic difficulties, your pay rise will be on hold.

If you don't like it you can piss off.

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since these salaries are decided by the market then it seems we must have a rapidly contracting pool of suitable candidates for these positions. How can this be? :rolleyes:

I've never understood why majority shareholders don't (appear to) question these high salaries. It's money that comes out of their own back pockets after all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never understood why majority shareholders don't (appear to) question these high salaries. It's money that comes out of their own back pockets after all!

Not something I necessarily agree or have analysed/checked or are an expert in but I know that Thomas Sowell has claimed that the salaries of corporate executives with lots of minor shareholders have lower salaries than corporations with a few/1 major shareholders. I don't know but it does seem to be more up to the shareholders than anyone else. The explanation is apparently that even these large salaries are negligible compared to the profits that are on the line. Again, don't rip my head off...I'd like to see some evidence either way too.

Edited by cica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never understood why majority shareholders don't (appear to) question these high salaries. It's money that comes out of their own back pockets after all!

Wasn't Diamond Bob going to be 'roasted' by Barclay's shareholders, then nothing happened? Aren't majority shareholders generally pension funds, run by mates of the CEOs in question?

To me it's the same as at the top of the public sector - a closed group looking after each other's interests. I've never understood why anyone thinks that the private sector would be any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never understood why majority shareholders don't (appear to) question these high salaries. It's money that comes out of their own back pockets after all!

Deep down, everyone knows the whole thing is a giant ponzi. So no-one rocks the boat, for the fear of being knocked overboard themselves.

No banksters are on trial because governments know it would be curtains for the sovereign debt ponzi. Shareholders keep schtum about corporate troughing because they fear for their dividends and capital. 'Homeowners' don't protest about the bailouts and ZIRP because they know their 'pension' will go up in smoke, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not something I necessarily agree or have analysed/checked or are an expert in but I know that Thomas Sowell has claimed that the salaries of corporate executives with lots of minor shareholders have lower salaries than corporations with a few/1 major shareholders. I don't know but it does seem to be more up to the shareholders than anyone else. The explanation is apparently that even these large salaries are negligible compared to the profits that are on the line. Again, don't rip my head off...I'd like to see some evidence either way too.

I'm sure that's true.. I would love to have a coffee with a major shareholder in one of these large companies and find out what really happens.

Whether they just throw money at the "best" directors because they don't really know what's going on and it's a safe bet.. that is one of my theories. The old, "no-one ever lost their job for buying IBM". If you pay the highest price for the "best" person, you can always arse cover defend your position because you got the best in the market and paid top dollar. If they do well they probably make enough money that nobody notices the director polishing his new Ferrari.

That might tie in with your theory. Small shareholders probably don't have to report to anyone (no need to **** cover), are probably more in touch with the actual mechanics of the business and have a higher appreciation for the value of money. Maybe...

Edited by libspero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of it is what happened with University charges- everyone want's to claim they charge the most 'cause they are the best.

But take a look at any high street- retail is dying of cash starvation as more and more cash is funnelled to the top- QE just accelerates the process.

The cunning plan of inflating via money printing is failing because the wealth distribution mechanism is now skewed to enrich mostly the top 5% or so- none of that lovely printed money even gets into the hands of the masses, who might have then gone out and spent it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IN comparison to the amounts of money that their companies make - most CEOs are not paid very much. In comparison to what the average person is paid it is simply too large for the mind to understand.

Coupled to the fact that pbulicly owned companies (ie those mostly owned by pension funds) actually pay CEOs more than the average. The fact is that from the pension fund's point of view paying a CEO £50m per year is peanuts when the same person can make them billions.

wierd but true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never understood why majority shareholders don't (appear to) question these high salaries. It's money that comes out of their own back pockets after all!

The majority shareholders are big institutions, like Barclays or Goldman Sachs or aviva. They control the shares, but are not the beneficial owners. The true owners of these shares would never vote for these pay packages. The big shareholders have stolen the votes!

The law needs to be changed so that only the individuals who are the beneficial owners if the shares can vote. Unless that happens, the robbers will vote each other bigger and bigger pay rises each year with other peoples shares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top one thousandth of the British working population currently receives 5 per cent of the country's earnings, a ratio equivalent to that in the 1940s, the report says. If these trends continue, income for the highest paid will account for 14 per cent of the country's total by 2030 – the same proportion as in 1900.

Maths Fail.

The headline writer got it backwards.

The figures show that the ratio of earnings has been static for 70 years and declining in the longer term.

Obviously, if these trends continue, then the poor will do better over time. More evidence of the unparalleled generosity of today's high earners....

... but are you grateful? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not something I necessarily agree or have analysed/checked or are an expert in but I know that Thomas Sowell has claimed that the salaries of corporate executives with lots of minor shareholders have lower salaries than corporations with a few/1 major shareholders. I don't know but it does seem to be more up to the shareholders than anyone else. The explanation is apparently that even these large salaries are negligible compared to the profits that are on the line. Again, don't rip my head off...I'd like to see some evidence either way too.

But they are not. Consider the bonuses given to the senior banksters at barclays (several billion) with the shareholder dividend of four hundred million. Or the payout to the reckitt-benckiser CEO two years ago. It amounted to 5% of all pay at the company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IN comparison to the amounts of money that their companies make - most CEOs are not paid very much. In comparison to what the average person is paid it is simply too large for the mind to understand.

Coupled to the fact that pbulicly owned companies (ie those mostly owned by pension funds) actually pay CEOs more than the average. The fact is that from the pension fund's point of view paying a CEO £50m per year is peanuts when the same person can make them billions.

wierd but true.

Is it the CEO who is personally making them billions, or the workforce that make up the company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maths Fail.

The headline writer got it backwards.

The figures show that the ratio of earnings has been static for 70 years and declining in the longer term.

Obviously, if these trends continue, then the poor will do better over time. More evidence of the unparalleled generosity of today's high earners....

... but are you grateful? :D

Where do you get this crap from?? made it up i suppose....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never understood why majority shareholders don't (appear to) question these high salaries. It's money that comes out of their own back pockets after all!

Because the majority shareholders are large pension funds, investment companies etc. whose CEOs also want eye-watering salaries. Don't poo in your own front yard etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any evidence whatsoever that these people really are good at what they're doing and that very few people could do the same, or would you get similar performance with monkeys at the top? I'm totally unconvinced that it isn't simply a position that doesn't need lots of people, which is why there aren't that many, rather than one that requires a genius. What it probably does require is knowing all of the other parasites but that just goes to show how iffy it is. It would be interesting to see how they'd get on if they were in charge of a small business, where their name wouldn't mean anything to anyone that they had to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any evidence whatsoever that these people really are good at what they're doing and that very few people could do the same, or would you get similar performance with monkeys at the top? I'm totally unconvinced that it isn't simply a position that doesn't need lots of people, which is why there aren't that many, rather than one that requires a genius. What it probably does require is knowing all of the other parasites but that just goes to show how iffy it is. It would be interesting to see how they'd get on if they were in charge of a small business, where their name wouldn't mean anything to anyone that they had to deal with.

There is little or no downside risk for these CEO's. Not like running your own business where your risk everything. Even if they do completely screw up there is usually a massive pay off or pension entitlement. Even that doesn't stop you getting another very good job. Nick Hornby pretty much wrecked HBOS, and then walked into the top job at Alliance Boots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it the CEO who is personally making them billions, or the workforce that make up the company?

Thing is you will never know for sure, but you can have a pretty good guess.

The only CEO that I can think of who was worth paying serious money, was one who left a company in rude health, and then the company went down hill, and looked like it was going to go out of business, only for that CEO to rejoin, after which it went from strength to strength to become the World's biggest IT company (think that is right).

Steve Jobs. You would pay big money for performance like that.

Compare that with Tescos. Lots of overpaid directors there, just following a formula of buying big, paying staff low, driving competition out of business all on the back of some excellent information technology. Anyone could do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is little or no downside risk for these CEO's. Not like running your own business where your risk everything. Even if they do completely screw up there is usually a massive pay off or pension entitlement. Even that doesn't stop you getting another very good job. Nick Hornby pretty much wrecked HBOS, and then walked into the top job at Alliance Boots.

Exactly my point. The fact that they can screw up so monumentally suggests that they're no better than anyone else at it, and why I've a lot more respect for anyone keeping their own small business going (although some of them seem to have think that they're the same sort of person as the overpaid CEO).

The only CEO that I can think of who was worth paying serious money, was one who left a company in rude health, and then the company went down hill, and looked like it was going to go out of business, only for that CEO to rejoin, after which it went from strength to strength to become the World's biggest IT company (think that is right).

Steve Jobs. You would pay big money for performance like that.

Even there I'd entertain the idea that he wasn't good so much as the ones inbetween were useless, and that all too often large companies have a system in place that makes it much more likely that the worst candidates get a job.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/may/16/high-pay-commission-wage-disparity

Wage disparity between the UK's top earners and the rest of the working population will soon return to the levels of the Victorian era unless action is taken to curb executive pay, a new report by the high pay commission claims.

At the same time a new ICM poll shows that 72% of the public think high pay makes Britain a grossly unequal place to live, while 73% say they have no faith in government or business to tackle excessive pay.

The high pay commission was set up last November to scrutinise the rising pay of those at the top of the public and private sectors. Its research suggests that if current trends continue, the top 0.1% of UK earners will see their pay rise from 5% to an estimated 14% of national income by 2030, a level not previously seen in the UK since the start of the 20th century. At present, top earners in this group take as big a slice of national income as they did in the 1940s, the report says.

Deborah Hargreaves, chair of the high pay commission and a former business editor at Guardian News & Media, said that the report provided evidence that the pay gap between the corporate elite and the general public was widening beyond control. "Set against the tough spending measures and mixed company performance, we have to ask ourselves whether we are paying more and getting less," she said.

No need to worry pretty soon the proles will be living in Victorian era living conditions so it's only right their masters have the monetary reward deserving of their abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1070078/cor-blimey-guvnor-pay-gap-close-victorian-levels/

Cor blimey guv'nor: Pay gap close to Victorian levels
By Dave Waller Monday, 16 May 2011
The pay gap may soon be at its widest since the Victorian era. So it's no wonder so many people are saying: 'Please sir, I want some more'...

"They" have pulled it off withot as much as a street protest. Divide and conquer--destroy any sense of community and potential political cohesiveness through mass immigration--deregulate the banks and power companies etc to keep the prols poor and fearful of losing their jobs, crush the independence of the judges and "voila" Victorian Britainh revisited where 5% live well at the expense of the 95% who struggle.

Good here isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"voila" Victorian Britainh revisited where 5% live well at the expense of the 95% who struggle.

Good here isn't it?

1. Has there ever been a time in history when the top 5% (be they the village tribal leader or the bankers) didn't live heaps better than the other 95%?

2. Even if the top 5% are much better off than the other 95%, the other 95% today have enormously better lives and living conditions than in Victorian times.

So in summary - the pay gap was ever thus, but now the difference is between acceptable and luxury instead of between squalour and acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the VIctorians did things with style.

Having achieved their pay levels presumably the next step will be their moral values? Child labour and prostitution for the proles and elite society using the word limb because leg is just so rude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 309 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.