Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Bosses' Pay Up 16% ... As Workers Get 1%

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306629/Bosses-pay-16---workers-1-rise-Growing-gulf-staff-revealed-average-chief-executive-earning-nearly-300-000.html

Bosses' pay up 16% ... as workers get 1% rise: Growing gulf between staff is revealed with average chief executive now earning nearly £300,000

Average chief executive received rise of nearly 16 per cent to £300,000

Workers meanwhile have seen pay go up by just 1.1 per cent to £26,500

Report surveyed more than 40,000 employees across 180 companies

At least the important peoples pay is going up. Shrikers don't get pay raises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the invisible hand in all this????

The idea is that businesses with bosses taking too much cash out will be displaced by those running businesses which don’t withdraw excessive funds for questionable talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bosses of what?

A lot of bosses are getting much bigger rises. I got more than 1000% over two years (from £3k to £35k) as my one-man business finally started making some money. A few of those push the average percentage right up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's relatively cheap to give a CEO a 16% pay rise vs 1000+ employees getting a 5 - 10% pay rise. You can also doc the CEO's pay by 50% one year they may walk, but you can get another puppet in fairly sharp-ish with the right skills. Docking employees 1 - 2 % to keep a business viable would be nigh on impossible - it certainly wouldn't help morale!

I am not saying it is right by any means, but it is always a lot harder to take something away once it is given (and they want more the next year on top) and you don't know where the business is going. Plus with the 'economic climate' people are less likely to jump ship, as they want the security of employment which makes it even easier to get away with.

CEO do (and should) get fired all the time especially when things aren't going great but it is a little perverse. Compare the CEO's position to random Joe in the office on his final warning. He isn't getting a pay rise for his job being at risk due to bad performance, but the CEO is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is basically stealing from the shareholders. The same clique of people sit on the remuneration committees as those on the board of directors, and what a surprise... they award themselves huge payrises. Shareholders should be allowed to have more say in reducing directors pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the invisible hand in all this????

The idea is that businesses with bosses taking too much cash out will be displaced by those running businesses which don’t withdraw excessive funds for questionable talent.

..eventually.

A simpler mechanism is that with open competition for executive positions, shareholders (or their representatives on renumeration committees) would simply veto pay rises unless they thought it would be difficult to replace the CEO with some equally good for the same money.

Unless, of course, these committees tended to be composed of other CEOs and hence completely corrupt..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shareholders should be allowed to have more say in reducing directors pay.

Will never happen. Ever.

My favourite one along these lines is Olympus in Japan.

Pretty much the entire board of directors, except for one (british) person, was caught with their hand in the till. They stole BILLIONS. It wasn't just "a fiddle" it was straight theft.

The whole board, bar the british guy, went to Jail. They did, however, keep their jobs.

The only people with authority to vote a board member off of the board are... the board.

And since they were all in on it, they wont be voting themselves off.

They continue to hold their board positions while in jail and will continue their roles while there.

The shareholders were none too pleased, since the board near enough pushed the company into bankruptcy, but there is nothing they can do. Any "special" meetings about the board can only be called with the co-operation of the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

prolly down to the ENTITLEMENT of a differential over a lower paid worker.

a low rise at the bottom will require, by right of differential due to reduction in spending power due to taxation and inflation, will lead to much bigger rises at the top.

You see, a 1% rise at the bottom might buy and extra lunch a week....for the 100K man, after tax and everything else, that extra lunch costs so much more gross. And the lunch for the rich man costs muchmore anyway...cant have a takeway subway in the Boardroom, crumbs and wrappers all over the table.

Its only fair.

Edited by Bloo Loo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is not your business. it is the share holder business and responsibility to manage it, not yours ...

How much does it cost to buy a share?

Are the bosses worth what they are being paid?........are they paying themselves higher pay increases by creaming the spoils from the workers.......fine if the business is doing well share the gains fairly amongst all....nobody is indispensable everybody can be replaced, I think jobs should be advertised withholding the remuneration and the post given to the best person for the job, not the greediest those that are motivated by money and by power. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will never happen. Ever.

My favourite one along these lines is Olympus in Japan.

Pretty much the entire board of directors, except for one (british) person, was caught with their hand in the till. They stole BILLIONS. It wasn't just "a fiddle" it was straight theft.

The whole board, bar the british guy, went to Jail. They did, however, keep their jobs.

The only people with authority to vote a board member off of the board are... the board.

And since they were all in on it, they wont be voting themselves off.

They continue to hold their board positions while in jail and will continue their roles while there.

The shareholders were none too pleased, since the board near enough pushed the company into bankruptcy, but there is nothing they can do. Any "special" meetings about the board can only be called with the co-operation of the board.

That's incredible, do you have any links? I guess it's just another facet of state-capitalism. Japan's incestuous political class has been responsible for an endless succession of slush-fund embarassments and kick-back resignations over the years, it really shouldn't surprise us that its corporate types operate to the same agenda. Without the discipline of a market economy what's to keep them honest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's incredible, do you have any links? I guess it's just another facet of state-capitalism. Japan's incestuous political class has been responsible for an endless succession of slush-fund embarassments and kick-back resignations over the years, it really shouldn't surprise us that its corporate types operate to the same agenda. Without the discipline of a market economy what's to keep them honest?

A culture bred in the good times, now turning on its own economy in the bad.

I said when the bankers were bailed out there would be a lot of executives at other companies suddenly feeling that they themselves were far more worthy of such entitlements and this would spur on a rash of elevated pay rises and bonuses through the top ranks of many/all other large companies. Moral hazard.

As for it not being our business - go and chek your pension plans and the pool of index linked funds / trackers etc and you will have a very certain interst in where the money goes within these companies. That those may be doing well thanks to QE alone will mean that without that sugar rush then profitability levels will suffer accordingly in the leaner times.

Edited by OnlyMe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

That's incredible, do you have any links? I guess it's just another facet of state-capitalism. Japan's incestuous political class has been responsible for an endless succession of slush-fund embarassments and kick-back resignations over the years, it really shouldn't surprise us that its corporate types operate to the same agenda. Without the discipline of a market economy what's to keep them honest?

Are these really the same people who would ritually gut themselves before facing any slight on their honour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

prolly down to the ENTITLEMENT of a differential over a lower paid worker.

a low rise at the bottom will require, by right of differential due to reduction in spending power due to taxation and inflation, will lead to much bigger rises at the top.

You see, a 1% rise at the bottom might buy and extra lunch a week....for the 100K man, after tax and everything else, that extra lunch costs so much more gross. And the lunch for the rich man costs muchmore anyway...cant have a takeway subway in the Boardroom, crumbs and wrappers all over the table.

Its only fair.

And if as a consequence the worker can now no longer afford to purchase the fruits of his own endeavour?

Henry Ford had the right idea, and that was 100 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if as a consequence the worker can now no longer afford to purchase the fruits of his own endeavour?

Henry Ford had the right idea, and that was 100 years ago.

B E N E F I T S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail...ly-300-000.html

At least the important peoples pay is going up. Shrikers don't get pay raises.

Shows the real inflation rate + annual wealth reduction caused by QE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

prolly down to the ENTITLEMENT of a differential over a lower paid worker.

a low rise at the bottom will require, by right of differential due to reduction in spending power due to taxation and inflation, will lead to much bigger rises at the top.

You see, a 1% rise at the bottom might buy and extra lunch a week....for the 100K man, after tax and everything else, that extra lunch costs so much more gross. And the lunch for the rich man costs muchmore anyway...cant have a takeway subway in the Boardroom, crumbs and wrappers all over the table.

Its only fair.

Remember the boardroom "biscuitgate" story about RBS 'shredder'

Used to insist on the cheapest biscuit multichoice packs being brought in with coffee for execs meetings

Then used to blow his top if they served up any 'pink wafer' "Rogue Biscuits"

- cos he thought his staff were taking the piss

Take your choice

Google > UK + fred the shred + pink wafer biscuits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the boardroom "biscuitgate" story about RBS 'shredder'

Used to insist on the cheapest biscuit multichoice packs being brought in with coffee for execs meetings

Then used to blow his top if they served up any 'pink wafer' "Rogue Biscuits"

- cos he thought his staff were taking the piss

Take your choice

Google > UK + fred the shred + pink wafer biscuits

im sure it was a front. having a biccy at a meeting isnt a lunch for dear old Fred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the boardroom "biscuitgate" story about RBS 'shredder'

Used to insist on the cheapest biscuit multichoice packs being brought in with coffee for execs meetings

Then used to blow his top if they served up any 'pink wafer' "Rogue Biscuits"

- cos he thought his staff were taking the piss

Take your choice

Google > UK + fred the shred + pink wafer biscuits

I'd prefer a CEO who saved £20 billion by not blowing their bank up over one who saved 20p on biscuits.

Actually, assuming I had the power, I'd immediately sack the CEO of a FTSE 100 company who gave a damm about the cost of biscuits, on the grounds that he/she has more important things to do. And is clearly a moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, this kind of statistic appears to be misleading twice over.

  1. "Bosses" include one-man bands or startups where the director takes just a few quid in the first years, so the boss's pay has to rise 100% or more to reach national minimum wage, and rises 100% a couple more times as the company reaches a comfortable level.
  2. Not comparing like with like. 1% for workers tracks the role and ignores promotions or public-sector increments, where as boss's pay tracks the individual and includes promotions.

Correct me if any of those assumptions are wrong!

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 246 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.