Executive salaries [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

Winston001

8th April 2010, 00:01

Fatt Max

8th April 2010, 02:58

Does make for a nasty taste in the mouth mate,

They are all a pack of bastards to be honest,

Dave Lobster

8th April 2010, 05:37

Liabour have been running the place for some while now.. what chance another term?

davereid

8th April 2010, 07:48

We've previously chewed over Telecom's Paul Reynolds pay of $5 million but the poor guy is a minnow. The chief executive of British Gas Frank Chapman has an annual package of £28 million.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/04/bg-frank-chapman-pay

What I find interesting is executive pay levels in the year 2000 were 47 times the average worker but are 81 times today. :blink: And yes - this is after a world wide recession.

I'm no commie but something stinks about all this.

IMHO Shareholders are not getting good value from these guys. Telecom limps along, badly overmanaged and under performing. It spent millions building XT, only for it to crash, while 2degrees built its network for a fraction of the price, and it has operated trouble free.

No-one resents paying for special skills or ability. But few of these chiefs demonstrate anything more than average management ability, certainly none are exceptional. The biggest decision made by Telecoms 200 executives in the last few years seems to have been to move the call center to bangladesh. The upgrade to 3G wasnt really a management decision, it was just unavoidable natural progression.

I wonder what they actually do in their offices every day ? Same as Wellington City Council I expect, nosh there way through a quater million dollars worth of food and booze a year.

Sentox

8th April 2010, 08:03

Usarka

8th April 2010, 08:26

2% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth.

The other 98% are lazy fuckers who should just try harder (evidently).

Mully

8th April 2010, 08:45

It spent millions building XT, only for it to crash, while 2degrees built its network for a fraction of the price, and it has operated trouble free.

XT was a disaster. I have no idea how Reynolds kept his job after that.

I thought 2 degrees just piggybacked on Vodafone's network? Did they build an entire network themselves? If so, can we have the big cheese of 2 Degrees in charge of Telecom please.

bogan

8th April 2010, 09:03

XT was a disaster. I have no idea how Reynolds kept his job after that.

I thought 2 degrees just piggybacked on Vodafone's network? Did they build an entire network themselves? If so, can we have the big cheese of 2 Degrees in charge of Telecom please.

He kept his job cos he managed to convince everyone he was the only one who could fix the mess, dunno how the fuck he managed to avoid a massive pay cut though. Think 2degrees piggybacks on vodafone for the majority of the country, but have thier own cell towers in some major cities.

onearmedbandit

8th April 2010, 09:19

Yeah they built their own network, but still don't have 3g, so hardly fair to compare to the useage involved with 3g. Anyway, I'm with vodafone who supply me all the reliable 3g service I could ever need.

And as far as executive salaries? If someone is prepared to pay someone that sort of coin then no skin off my nose. Remember the national outcry about Judy Bailies $800k salary and the backlash against her? She didn't award herself that figure, she may have pushed for it, but someone else said yes to paying it to her.

Goblin

8th April 2010, 09:28

Remember the national outcry about Judy Bailies $800k salary and the backlash against her? She didn't award herself that figure, she may have pushed for it, but someone else said yes to paying it to her.I remember it well...now we get Miriama Kamo:sick:. Dunno what they pay her but Judy was well worth the moolah.

rainman

8th April 2010, 09:37

Liabour have been running the place for some while now.. what chance another term?

LOL! You think that if (ok, when) the tories get in, corporate salaries will go down?

IMHO Shareholders are not getting good value from these guys. Telecom limps along, badly overmanaged and under performing.

So true. I've seen them make a succession of stoopid mistakes over the years, and the rate and magnitude of these does not seem to a) diminish, or b) be related to who's at the top, or what they're paid.

2% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth.

The other 98% are lazy fuckers who should just try harder (evidently).

What are those stats again? Top 400 US families own 50% of the wealth, the richest 10% of NZers own 52% of the wealth, there's 1000 billionaires in the world and 5 billion people on less than $10 a day...

But unfettered capitalism is all good, right? We need fewer regulations, not more, right? Trickle down works? If we all just try a bit harder, we too can attain the {American, Kiwi, ...} dream? Pfft.

jim.cox

8th April 2010, 10:10

Trickle down works?

"Trickle Down"

Isn't that just another way of saying "being pissed on from a height" ?

spacemonkey

8th April 2010, 10:25

"Trickle Down"

Isn't that just another way of saying "being pissed on from a height" ?

:laugh::laugh:
Pretty much sums that economic theory up. :yes:

Tank

8th April 2010, 10:25

CookMySock

8th April 2010, 10:46

I'm no commie but something stinks about all this.No, it's a hugely difficult job managing a business in a recession. Ask general motors how hard it is to stay afloat.

Steve

mashman

8th April 2010, 10:56

No-one resents paying for special skills or ability.

I do... and as corny as it sounds, it takes a team to run a country or a business... every job is important... it's how we value that job that differs... and that difference is alllllllll in the $$$$$$... great for the greedy, not so good for the run of the mill employee...

Should a Bin Man get paid less than a Dr? yes because the doctor trains for 7 years and works hard etc... yeah, the Bin Man doesn't work hard at all... in which case let the rubbish sit and let's see what happens... disease will run riot to start with... vehicle crashes caused by bin bags strewn everywhere etc... Who should get paid more again? I'd say the Bin Men as they're actually doing a job that services the whole community... not just those that are in need of medical attention... and if you don't understand that you're "social conditioning" is now complete...

Should the Telecom CEO get paid more than the guy who actually fixed the problem? or the guys that do the work? WHY? What skills does he have that are sooooo special, sooooooo important that noone else can do that job?

Mully

8th April 2010, 10:57

I remember it well...now we get Miriama Kamo:sick:. Dunno what they pay her but Judy was well worth the moolah.

Or Sam Hayes..... Om nom nom nom.

Coldrider

8th April 2010, 10:58

No, it's a hugely difficult job managing a business in a recession. Ask general motors how hard it is to stay afloat.

SteveGM was in the shit before the recession, they continually made dinosaur gas gusling vehicles that few people wanted to buy, and were subsidised by the US government to be manufactured and stored in a parking lot.

mashman

8th April 2010, 11:00

BTW - Doctors get paid well also - but if you are having heart surgery - would you prefer the guy on 300k or the guy on 25k?

I'd rather have the guy who has the experience thanks... I don't care how much he's on as financial remuneration doesn't dictate competence in this day and age...

No, it's a hugely difficult job managing a business in a recession. Ask general motors how hard it is to stay afloat.

Steve

It's not hard to manage a business when you get free money to keep you going... you can spend what you like on who you like and to hell with everyone else... get out of the game with your retirement $$$ and think happy happy thoughts as you down pina colladas whilst having your nappy changed by your tuesday lady boy...

Tank

8th April 2010, 11:04

Should a Bin Man get paid less than a Dr? yes because the doctor trains for 7 years and works hard etc... yeah, the Bin Man doesn't work hard at all... in which case let the rubbish sit and let's see what happens... disease will run riot to start with... vehicle crashes caused by bin bags strewn everywhere etc... Who should get paid more again? I'd say the Bin Men as they're actually doing a job that services the whole community... not just those that are in need of medical attention... and if you don't understand that you're "social conditioning" is now complete...

So - are you saying that they should be paid the same - or close to it?

If so - How do you make that work?

If all jobs are getting paid the same - then I want to be paid for doing a job that I enjoy and gives me as most free time to spend with my family (as would most) - why put in all the additional effort if Im not getting rewarded for it.

Im curious to see how you would make it work?

Tank

8th April 2010, 11:08

Re the guy doing heart surgery on you
I'd rather have the guy who has the experience thanks... I don't care how much he's on as financial remuneration doesn't dictate competence in this day and age...

Actually - more $ comes with more experience (as a general rule) - as people generally get better with exp and are 'worth more' - or do you think there should be a set job and someone starting out should never get pat rises as jobs have a 'set rate' regardless of exp?

I dont know what you do for a living? But do you beleive that you are worth any more than someone who has been doing your job for a week?

onearmedbandit

8th April 2010, 11:24

I do... and as corny as it sounds, it takes a team to run a country or a business... every job is important... it's how we value that job that differs... and that difference is alllllllll in the $$$$$$... great for the greedy, not so good for the run of the mill employee...

Should a Bin Man get paid less than a Dr? yes because the doctor trains for 7 years and works hard etc... yeah, the Bin Man doesn't work hard at all... in which case let the rubbish sit and let's see what happens... disease will run riot to start with... vehicle crashes caused by bin bags strewn everywhere etc... Who should get paid more again? I'd say the Bin Men as they're actually doing a job that services the whole community... not just those that are in need of medical attention... and if you don't understand that you're "social conditioning" is now complete...

Should the Telecom CEO get paid more than the guy who actually fixed the problem? or the guys that do the work? WHY? What skills does he have that are sooooo special, sooooooo important that noone else can do that job?

Sooo, bin-man does no training but gets paid 'more' (do you mean more than he does now or more than the doctor?) than a doctor who does 7+yrs training. I don't see anyone paying a bin-man 300k a year, so are you arguing that Dr'sincome should be pulled back to that of a bin-man, or even less? If so, who the fuck is going to spend 7yrs training to be a lowly paid doctor?

Like Tank, I'm really interested to see how you reckon we can pull this off.

onearmedbandit

8th April 2010, 11:31

A while ago there was a protest about pay rates at a Pak 'n Sav supermarket a friend of mine owns. Shelf packers were complainig about how they were getting roughly $400 per week while their boss was earning $4000 a week. Let me ask you this Mr Shelf Packer. Did you invest all your money and time setting up a business, an extremely risky affair? Did you spend hours and hours making contacts, negotiating deals with suppliers, signing contracts? Do you go home worrying about the state of the economy, market infuences, supply and demand rates, staff issues, tax issues, etc etc? Or did you just front up one day, have an interview, get a job (only there because someone else risked it all) and go home at the end of the day with none of the above issues? Do you have the skills to run such a business? No? Then shut the fuck up, be happy someone else does so you can have an income, or better yourself, realise your potential, and do it yourself. There is nothing stopping you. Except you.

mashman

8th April 2010, 11:50

So - are you saying that they should be paid the same - or close to it?

Yes they should all be "paid" the same.

If so - How do you make that work?

Remove the financial system. Do what you enjoy doing... all you would have to do in return is be "something"... a full-time parent, bin man, educator, doctor, nurse, scientist, emergency service representatives, food processors, cannery workers etc... we all have "other" things we'd like to be doing... After that it's all down to logistics of resource management... nothing more, nothing less... something our current masters are unable to do judging by OUR (human beings) current progress... and all because we revere the $$$ so much... it's the only thing we really value, because MONEY values EVERYTHING for you...

If all jobs are getting paid the same - then I want to be paid for doing a job that I enjoy and gives me as most free time to spend with my family (as would most) - why put in all the additional effort if Im not getting rewarded for it.

The reward eh. Ok, would you consider, as a reward, crime becoming virtually non existent? Hunger and Poverty being removed from society over night? not to mention the fact that the lawyers and accountants can now train as Dr's, educators etc... everyone out for everyone?

Tank

8th April 2010, 11:57

Remove the financial system. .....

ahhh - so where does the government get the tax to build roads and hospitals?

How does the country survive when we need to get anything from overseas - like drugs, medical equipment; books for schools?

Sadly we need money for this.

Any why we are at it - If all jobs are being paid the same - who is going to to do the hard, hard physical work when rubbing suntan into hot chicks at the beach pays the same?

mashman

8th April 2010, 12:02

I dont know what you do for a living? But do you beleive that you are worth any more than someone who has been doing your job for a week?

15 years doing everything from pre-sales to the full SDLC (I'm generally a one man shop, I DETEST the corporate environment)... Before that (but not in any real order), bouncer, fisherman, laborer, shop assistant, dish washer, shelf stacker and likely many more including a brief stint in Kosovo for an aid organisation...

For a week, ha ha ha... but yes. Why not? The person could have been a CEO at Telecom or could have been a rocket scientist, could have been on the dole and read a book... but just because someone has less experience than me, in my field) does not preclude the fact that they could be "better" than me in any given area of my job... we all have something to offer...

Call bullshit all ya like... come and talk to the guys on the helpdesk here... we have this discussion every now and then... according the the helpdesk manager (earns just over half of what I do) and my boss (not much more than me than you would have thought), i'm worth every penny... Whereas, I realise that I do a job and that that job affects others... if one of us stops, then in all likelyhood, I have to stop doing what I'm doing... the knock on affects of that could have far reaching consequences for the "aged" we provide services for... that's all theory, but more than likely a true representative of what will happen and i'm not prepared to teswt that theory.

rainman

8th April 2010, 12:02

The thing is that most people who dont earn the exec salary - have no idea what the exec does or the skills that person needs. They can add (or lose) millions for a company. They can be the one that creates jobs - or ends up ruining a company putting 000's out of work.

Too true, but it is clearly not only about skills but also about who you know and how much bullshit you can spin. And there is not a lot of accountability for poor performance, in reality, despite what is claimed.

1 - only left wing nuts keep calling them Tories

My apologies, didn't think the term would cause offence. Conservatives, then.

2 - Im hoping that they will continue to improve the economy that was fucked under labours watch - as such businesses will continue to do better and be able to pay everyone more. So - nope.

Its not so bad if you are in that 10% - but then I've worked hard for it and do not think its something to be ashamed of.

No argument from me that Labour in the UK has made a right muck of things (and probably richly deserve the out-kicking that they will likely get come May), but that whooshing sound you hear is my point passing you at altitude.

Capitalism as she is practised today (so, not some ideal, ultimate laissez-faire version) tends to increase inequity in society. This is backed up by pretty solid data, as is the fact that greater inequity leads to poorer social outcomes (higher crime, etc). You may have seen the Dom cartoon the other day:

203272

Quite nicely put, I thought.

In short, the rising tide does not lift all boats, and certainly not equally. The western dream is unsustainable, and definitely can't be scaled across geography and time. The claim that more market liberalisation will address this (that we need less regulation) remains to be proven, and indications are that it's a load of unmitigated bullcrap.

My view is that we've evolved a social and economic system that selects for sociopaths, and it will keep on entrenching the status quo until there is an external dislocation (environmental/resource), or a violent revolution (less likely because of dietary, entertainment, and disempowerment factors).

So - are you saying that they should be paid the same - or close to it?

If so - How do you make that work?

Cuba has a society that works fairly closely to this approach, and they have very good social outcomes (health, etc). Some rather obvious downsides to their approach, of course.

mashman

8th April 2010, 12:02

mashman

8th April 2010, 12:11

ahhh - so where does the government get the tax to build roads and hospitals?

you don't need money. You have engineers and teams of builders that do these things as their job, who knows, maybe they can rotate shifts with bin men for variation.

How does the country survive when we need to get anything from overseas - like drugs, medical equipment; books for schools?

Sadly we need money for this.

You only need money if your imports - exports don't balance and you can't generate what you need locally.

Any why we are at it - If all jobs are being paid the same - who is going to to do the hard, hard physical work when rubbing suntan into hot chicks at the beach pays the same?

There is no pay. No financial system remember. Ahhhh, that job is mine... but in the interest of being fair, there will be a rota.......... some people

Tank

8th April 2010, 12:21

You only need money if your imports - exports don't balance and you can't generate what you need locally.

yes - but NZ cannot survive self sufficient - there is a whole world of things out there that people need - that are not made nor could be made in NZ.

Medicines, equipment etc - or do you expect us to go back to the dark ages?

Even the steel for the bridges for the roads has to come from someplace. Make it in NZ you say? Where do we get the equipment from to do so?

Your argument is so flawed its ridiculous - It worries me that people like you are allowed to vote.

mashman

8th April 2010, 12:28

rainman

8th April 2010, 12:29

yes - but NZ cannot survive self sufficient

Mr Mashman's argument may be at the extreme end of the spectrum, but the status quo ain't gonna keep working either.

What is NZ's future if we continue to blindly follow the "comparative advantage" approach, plus allow more overseas ownership (dairy, mining, ...), with minimal trade tariffs? How do we find our way back to prosperity? (Hell, a positive trade balance would do). We gonna get rich seling each other haircuts and hamburgers? Or just turn into tenants in our own country?

And people think the NWO is a left-wing wet dream.

slowpoke

8th April 2010, 12:36

Your argument is so flawed its ridiculous - It worries me that people like you are allowed to vote.

Nice to see that brainstorming and alternative thinking is encouraged at your workplace.....must be a bundle of laughs........

mashman

8th April 2010, 12:43

yes - but NZ cannot survive self sufficient - there is a whole world of things out there that people need - that are not made nor could be made in NZ.

How did people ever get along without trade... but they did. As long as you have the bare necessities (of life will come to you, they'll come to me, they'll come to you... ahhhh) what more do you really need. Anything after that is a step up no? a bonus for society, not just for those who said "it's my idea, i'm taking the lions share" because that's what this world is about... and they feed it to us day in day out...

Medicines, equipment etc - or do you expect us to go back to the dark ages?

Even the steel for the bridges for the roads has to come from someplace. Make it in NZ you say? Where do we get the equipment from to do so?

True, file it in the too hard basket... how the hell could we possibly cope in a financial world... it could be the end of life as we know it... who can live without money these days... especially when you can educate yourself and strive to be a more productive member of society...

Your argument is so flawed its ridiculous - It worries me that people like you are allowed to vote.

From your perspective perhaps... your only argument is that we need money... to me, money is a flawed system... one that's been proven not to work for thousands of years... Am sure the Maori really needed money, whew, lucky for them that the west appeared... coulda been a disaster... Luckily though, again, someone can punch a few numbers on a keyboard when you have a child and a fresh injection of capital is assigned to your government coffers... otherwise where does the money come from?

Don't worry, I don't vote... never have, never will.

mashman

8th April 2010, 12:44

Nice to see that brainstorming and alternative thinking is encouraged at your workplace.....must be a bundle of laughs........

ha ha ha... it's ok... someone else is doing the thinking for him :yes:

mashman

8th April 2010, 12:46

Mr Mashman's argument may be at the extreme end of the spectrum, but the status quo ain't gonna keep working either.

Damn, I need me a movement...

What is NZ's future if we continue to blindly follow the "comparative advantage" approach, plus allow more overseas ownership (dairy, mining, ...), with minimal trade tariffs? How do we find our way back to prosperity? (Hell, a positive trade balance would do). We gonna get rich seling each other haircuts and hamburgers? Or just turn into tenants in our own country?

And people think the NWO is a left-wing wet dream.

tenants in our own country I think.

Mully

8th April 2010, 12:49

Well, I for one am disappointed in this thread.

I had hoped it would become a discussion about Samantha Hayes and all things thereof.

MisterD

8th April 2010, 12:59

He kept his job cos he managed to convince everyone he was the only one who could fix the mess, dunno how the fuck he managed to avoid a massive pay cut though. Think 2degrees piggybacks on vodafone for the majority of the country, but have thier own cell towers in some major cities.

Reynolds was brought in because of his experience at BT when they were forced to un-bundle by the UK government...the bloke who was/is in charge of XT, Paul Hamburger, Director of Mobile is leaving when his contract's up in July.

Tank

8th April 2010, 13:43

Nice to see that brainstorming and alternative thinking is encouraged at your workplace.....must be a bundle of laughs........

The amusing thing it is - its just that we try to keep things within the bounds of reasonableness. There is thinking out of the box, and thinking out of your mind.

spajohn

8th April 2010, 13:47

Don't worry, I don't vote... never have, never will.

Must admit I don't understand that Mashman? What's the point in complaining on here, but not voting? It's a bit like watching porn but never actually getting a shag?!! :-)

MaxB

8th April 2010, 13:48

Reynolds was brought in because of his experience at BT when they were forced to un-bundle by the UK government...the bloke who was/is in charge of XT, Paul Hamburger, Director of Mobile is leaving when his contract's up in July.

Did you see the XT press conference? Heaps of man love but essentially ' You're my good mate Hamburger but you stuffed up now fuck off'. First class spin. Talk about fall guy.

He seems to forget that he was in charge and as such should fall on his sword. That was one of the worst corporate stuff ups in NZ history and yet he still keeps his job. Remember the Jetstream fiasco and the overcharging rort? All done under Reynolds watch.

Now Telecom have revised their profit forecast downwards, what's the betting that next year when this has all died down he gets a bonus?

rainman

8th April 2010, 14:22

Did you see the XT press conference? Heaps of man love but essentially ' You're my good mate Hamburger but you stuffed up now fuck off'. First class spin. Talk about fall guy.

He seems to forget that he was in charge and as such should fall on his sword.

Accountability for top execs is largely a myth. For one thing, they have better lawyers and can negotiate better exit clauses in their contracts. For another they can always just fire some of the next level down and look like they're fixing things.

One company I worked for, the CEO between various mergers etc was only in place for a bit short of two years, but in that time signed them up to stoopid contracts that destroyed the long term prospects of the business - essentially set up a JV that passed out the profits and pulled in the costs. Was he publicly sanctioned? Fired? Sued? Not so much, they paid him $3m to ferk off.

I would happily be incompetent for a few years if someone would pay me $3m to go away again. But I don't have the right contacts for that...

mashman

8th April 2010, 14:33

Must admit I don't understand that Mashman? What's the point in complaining on here, but not voting? It's a bit like watching porn but never actually getting a shag?!! :-)

ha ha ha... that's the main point of porn isn't it? :shifty:

I'm not complaining... ok maybe a little... I'd rather complain here than vote there :shifty:... No party on this planet (apart from at the Heff mansion) is worthy of my vote... they offer me nothing... all they do is spend my tax money (and perpetuate that outdated concept) for me and more often than not, end up doing more harm than good through their frivolities and lack of concern for the man on the street... No thanks... I'd prefer that the driver stop the world at the next stop to let me off...

mashman

8th April 2010, 14:37

The amusing thing it is - its just that we try to keep things within the bounds of reasonableness. There is thinking out of the box, and thinking out of your mind.

How about... there is no box! your real limit is as far as you can think...

There is nothing stopping you. Except you.

doc

8th April 2010, 14:40

This is the sort of stuff those on executive salaries thrive on.

<embed width="600" height="361" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullscreen="true" allowNetworking="all" wmode="transparent" src="http://static.photobucket.com/player.swf?file=http://vid671.photobucket.com/albums/vv79/all4chaos/turbo1.flv">

spajohn

8th April 2010, 14:43

Not so much, they paid him $3m to ferk off.

Isn't the plan to promote them to the competition so they screw their business too?! LOL

rainman

8th April 2010, 15:01

Isn't the plan to promote them to the competition so they screw their business too?! LOL

You might be on to something there...

Dave Lobster

8th April 2010, 15:12

Did you see the XT press conference? Heaps of man love but essentially ' You're my good mate Hamburger but you stuffed up now fuck off'. First class spin. Talk about fall guy.

He was on a fixed contract. Contract finished.. leave.

Possibly the biggest feck up was employing a french company to roll out a network. I bet Mr Nokia is rubbing his hands together.

MisterD

8th April 2010, 15:21

Possibly the biggest feck up was employing a french company to roll out a network. I bet Mr Huawei is rubbing his hands together.

Fixed for you ;)

davereid

8th April 2010, 15:59

How did people ever get along without trade... but they did. As long as you have the bare necessities

I don't think human beings have ever managed without trade, it was there the first moment a caveman had a bit more meat than he could manage, and a pretty cave girl had a bit less.

Trade has allowed us to expand as a species way beyond what we could manage as individuals, with division of labour allowing us to what we enjoy, or are best at, while still contributing to society.

If it were not for trade, I would have to milk my own cow, kill my own chickens, make my own medicine, and I'd be walking everywhere because I'm not a good enough engineer to make a Kawasaki. (Actually, I'm not even good enough to make a honda - but thats a different subject.)

mashman

8th April 2010, 16:25

I don't think human beings have ever managed without trade, it was there the first moment a caveman had a bit more meat than he could manage, and a pretty cave girl had a bit less.

Trade has allowed us to expand as a species way beyond what we could manage as individuals, with division of labour allowing us to what we enjoy, or are best at, while still contributing to society.

If it were not for trade, I would have to milk my own cow, kill my own chickens, make my own medicine, and I'd be walking everywhere because I'm not a good enough engineer to make a Kawasaki. (Actually, I'm not even good enough to make a honda - but thats a different subject.)

Fair enough... trade was the wrong word to use... or maybe I should have stipulated the type of trade... i.e. financial trade...

I wouldn't mind (too much) if the Telecom guy had fucked up and he was only "trading" on his skills... but he's not... he's earning vast sums of money (paid for by us) to avoid fuckups... and from what I've been told, it was cost saving measures that led to XT having problems (there was no provision for failover)... utter incompetency and all to save a buck...

"with division of labour allowing us to what we enjoy, or are best at, while still contributing to society."... i fear that, right person, right job, will never exist in a financial economy... just take a look at the politicians ha ha...

pete376403

8th April 2010, 16:44

See the XT network broke again today - who is reynolds going to ask to leave this time?

rainman

8th April 2010, 16:48

I don't think human beings have ever managed without trade, it was there the first moment a caveman had a bit more meat than he could manage, and a pretty cave girl had a bit less.

Although there has been trade since forever, it's increased since the onset of organised agriculture, and was of necessity far more local until very recently. In the paraphrased words of Richard Manning (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Against-the-Grain/Richard-Manning/e/9780865477131): "Agriculture gave us surplus, surplus gave us wealth, and wealth gave us hierarchies that necessarily created an underclass."

Trade has allowed us to expand as a species way beyond what we could manage as individuals, with division of labour allowing us to what we enjoy, or are best at, while still contributing to society.

If it were not for trade, I would have to milk my own cow, kill my own chickens, make my own medicine, and I'd be walking everywhere because I'm not a good enough engineer to make a Kawasaki. (Actually, I'm not even good enough to make a honda - but thats a different subject.)

I think you fail to consider the concepts of "community", "tribe", etc. The idea that we are all individual economic units is a very recent one indeed. Most historic communities provided most of their local needs locally, distant trade was for luxury items or specific durable goods. Although milking your own cows, killing your own chickens, growing your own herbs, and walking everywhere (unless you had a horse) is pretty much how things worked. Not everyone in ancient times was a blacksmith or a tailor, but almost everyone would have been able to milk, butcher, and walk.

Specialisation has made us dumb. Globalisation has made us vulnerable.

rainman

8th April 2010, 16:49

he's earning vast sums of money (paid for by us)

Not by me, I moved all my services from that company a while ago.

davereid

8th April 2010, 17:42

The idea that we are all individual economic units is a very recent one indeed. Most historic communities provided most of their local needs locally, distant trade was for luxury items or specific durable goods. Although milking your own cows, killing your own chickens, growing your own herbs, and walking everywhere (unless you had a horse) is pretty much how things worked. Not everyone in ancient times was a blacksmith or a tailor, but almost everyone would have been able to milk, butcher, and walk. Specialisation has made us dumb. Globalisation has made us vulnerable.

I could still milk, butcher, grow my own veges, and walk everywhere if I wished. At least as long as I am fit. Its called subsistence existence, and its still very much in vogue in the third world. Its heavily associated with high rates of infant mortality, disease, misery and early death.

We have progressed to the point where the poorest New Zealander can expect a lifespan longer than any of the third world medians. The poorest 5% of New Zealanders live longer, more comfortable lives, than the Kings of bygone centuries.

Our specialisation, skills and foreign investment made this possible. In particular the foreign investment made in NZ by the British, who took a stone age, subsistence level country from as poor as any in the world, to as rich as many, in only a hundred years.

mashman

8th April 2010, 18:32

Globalisation has made us vulnerable. to whom though? Are we that affordable?

In particular the foreign investment made in NZ by the British, who took a stone age, subsistence level country from as poor as any in the world, to as rich as many, in only a hundred years.

If this is what has happened in a hundred years... we may well see ourselves indoctrinated into the official global employeedom within our lifetime. Should be fun to watch.

slowpoke

8th April 2010, 18:58

I could still milk, butcher, grow my own veges, and walk everywhere if I wished. At least as long as I am fit. Its called subsistence existence, and its still very much in vogue in the third world. Its heavily associated with high rates of infant mortality, disease, misery and early death.

Sorry, I think you are incorrectly assuming one begets the other, why does self sufficiency have to equal a subsistence existence? The minimal living conditions you describe are usually associated with civil/tribal wars, prolonged droughts and/or disasters etc. None of these conditions exist in New Zealand which has a benign climate (short term localised conditions not withstanding) and a relatively harmonious population.

I'm not saying self sufficiency is the way to go, but I can see there is a huge difference between having a hand to mouth existence in a crippled drought/war torn country forced upon you and having a country with agricultural mineral and resource wealth deciding to fend for itself.

mashman

8th April 2010, 19:56

Sorry, I think you are incorrectly assuming one begets the other, why does self sufficiency have to equal a subsistence existence? The minimal living conditions you describe are usually associated with civil/tribal wars, prolonged droughts and/or disasters etc. None of these conditions exist in New Zealand which has a benign climate (short term localised conditions not withstanding) and a relatively harmonious population.

I'm not saying self sufficiency is the way to go, but I can see there is a huge difference between having a hand to mouth existence in a crippled drought/war torn country forced upon you and having a country with agricultural mineral and resource wealth deciding to fend for itself.

What a way to live... and all of those mod cons too...

davereid

9th April 2010, 08:27

Fair enough... trade was the wrong word to use... or maybe I should have stipulated the type of trade... i.e. financial trade...

I dont have an issue at all with trade using money if thats what you mean - beats carrying a pig or a couple of chickens to the gas station.
But I get pissed off with non-productive money trading, that creates millions of dollars for some from others misfortune.

I'm talking about things like trading shares, not because you are interested in investing in the company who's shares you are purchasing, but because you are gambling that the value of the share will rise.

I also hate our weak wristed approach to poor investment companies. It should simply be impossible to take an old ladies money, invest it in dodgy apartments in Fiji, lose all the money, and drive home to your mansion in your Mercedes, while the old lady shivers under a blanket cos the gas is cut off.

mashman

9th April 2010, 09:54

I dont have an issue at all with trade using money if thats what you mean - beats carrying a pig or a couple of chickens to the gas station.
But I get pissed off with non-productive money trading, that creates millions of dollars for some from others misfortune.

I'm talking about things like trading shares, not because you are interested in investing in the company who's shares you are purchasing, but because you are gambling that the value of the share will rise.

I suppose the piece of paper, cash, replaced gold... maybe it too was too heavy/precious to carry too...

For me trading in cash or shares is the same thing... you still need cash to buy shares... and the element of gambling applies to both... both have markets that fluctuate when Obama sneezes and follows through... but you still need money to buy the shares (even share schemes at work are offered instead of/as well as cash)...

I also hate our weak wristed approach to poor investment companies. It should simply be impossible to take an old ladies money, invest it in dodgy apartments in Fiji, lose all the money, and drive home to your mansion in your Mercedes, while the old lady shivers under a blanket cos the gas is cut off.

Aye! but that's the problem with financial investment... unfortunately though we're told/encouraged to make our money work for us... and when people do and get fucked over... I say tough shit, you lose, game over, your own fault... same as me losing a fiver down the back of the couch... The govt then use tax payer money to bail out the failing companies/banks/businesses and then expect the company to do the honourable thing and pay it's investors... Naive is the only word that springs to mind... sure, give the gamblers a shitload more cash to lose...

What can ya do? other than throw the bastards in jail and take every single asset they own.

The only way it'll work is for people to offer their surplus for free, their skills for free, their time for free... and when I say free, i mean, i don't want it, if you can haul it, it's yours... if you need my skills i'm not busy and i'm free (ooo John Inman)... trading implies value... and as "strange" as it sounds, we should be trading on human kindness... you need, i have, it's yours, take it.

Big Dave

9th April 2010, 10:40

>>I will make a concious effort not to be there.<<

Wherever you are - I think you should back off the medication.

Mully

9th April 2010, 11:51

We can't get rid of money; how can you prove you're better than other people if you don't have more money than them?

Tank

9th April 2010, 11:53

We can't get rid of money; how can you prove you're better than other people if you don't have more money than them?

http://www.male-impotence-penis-enlargement.com/images/penis-chart.gif

Mully

9th April 2010, 12:03

Pic

Shit - I'm stuffed then.

mashman

9th April 2010, 12:33

>>I will make a concious effort not to be there.<<

Wherever you are - I think you should back off the medication.

Personally I think whoever you're talking to should up the doseage...

We can't get rid of money; how can you prove you're better than other people if you don't have more money than them?

You could always use them for target practice... if they live they win :)

Winston001

9th April 2010, 14:02

Generally I'm a believer in laissez-faire. If that's what the market will pay, fine. However, this increasingly centralized system of multil-national corporations is a long way from the ideal of capitalism.

Agreed. I'm a social democrat in that I believe in a taxpayer funded safety-net for the less fortunate within a capitalist economic system. Still, the excesses of capitalism we've seen in the past 10 years are not acceptable to me.

There is a shareholder revolt against executive salaries in the USA and Europe but its taking a while to bite. Shareholders don't get any say in the packages of senior management and only learn the details much too late to cancel the contracts.

I agree with other posters - its impossible to imagine one person, or a team of managers, each being worth 40 - 50 times the salary of the average worker. That fundamental relationship has swung badly out of balance.

However the public might accept it if these people bore an equally large responsibility to repay or make up losses under their watch. No chance. Its mind-numbing to see the exit packages and indeed continued employment of managers who oversaw catastrophic business failures.

Anyone got ideas of how to change this?

Coldrider

9th April 2010, 14:12

Winston, you have explained exactly why the average NZer invests in his house and not the share market to invest in industry and increased productivity.

SPman

9th April 2010, 14:23

Shareholders don't get any say in the packages of senior management and only learn the details much too late to cancel the contracts. which, as the shareholders actually own the company, is seriously wrong! Time for shareholders to take more notice of whats actually going on in the companies they "own", perhaps....or..do most of them not give a shit as long as they get a dividend or sell for a profit.
I have no beef if a CEO is payed big money and actually delivers - the trouble is most of these fucks are good at getting massive salaries and payouts, while at the same time, running the companies into the ground. Or playing the entrepenurial bandit and then screaming to the taxpayer to bail them out when it all turns to shit! - ie - privatisation of profits, but socialisation of losses.....the taxpayer subsidising their massive salaries!
The only reason governments bail out these pricks, is because, if they let the companies fold and throw everyone out of work, they'd have armed uprisings in the street before long......maybe we should just let it happen...let them take their liberal capitalism to it's logical conclusion...the edict they all spout about, those that can't "make it" should be allowed to fail .......

mashman

9th April 2010, 14:35

let them take their liberal capitalism to it's logical conclusion... the edict they all spout about, those that can't "make it" should be allowed to fail .......

"the edict they all spout about, those that can't "make it" should be allowed to fail"...

Anyone got ideas of how to change this?

I'd like to avoid the logical conclusion... as you may have gathered :)... broken record time... if there are no finances involved, would these "social problems" go away?

MisterD

9th April 2010, 15:09

Shareholders don't get any say in the packages of senior management and only learn the details much too late to cancel the contracts.

Not strictly true - the big institutional investors get a say, small-fry not so much...

Big Dave

9th April 2010, 15:29

I'll have a double.

Skyryder

9th April 2010, 18:40

onearmedbandit

9th April 2010, 18:53

Excecs could not give a toss about the people that work for them. Their bottomline is their own bonus, shareholder, returns, stock value etc.

If at all their thoughts ever get down to those that either produce the product or perform a service it's how to screw them further. The concept that it's those that produce or provide the service that gives them their salaries simply does not occur to them.

Skyryder

From my experience this is almost applicable to any form of hierarchy. People generally alwys shit on those below them, no matter the height.

There is a lot of ranting here about overpaid execs failing at their jobs and receiving huge payouts etc, which I agree is disturbing especially when it's the investors paying the price. But it's easy to forget, especially with the media spin, of the thousands of other major business/organisations/corporations that have survived the economic doom, never been in danger, didn't stupidly risk investors money. These are the execs that are worth the money.

Winston001

9th April 2010, 20:37

which, as the shareholders actually own the company, is seriously wrong! Time for shareholders to take more notice of whats actually going on in the companies they "own".......

The only reason governments bail out these pricks, is because, if they let the companies fold and throw everyone out of work, they'd have armed uprisings in the street before long......maybe we should just let it happen...

To be fair in NZ the govt hasn't bailed out any companies during this recession. They did however guarantee the surviving finance companies (for a fee) and that has worked. The principle of a govt propping up businesses in a recession is drawn from Keynesian economics and it does save people from desperation. This did not happen during the Great Depression and the echoes of that time still resound today.

As for ownership, the directors employ the CEO and are responsible for his pay package. They are the people who need to be shouted at. The CEO however employs the management and shareholders are impotent with those salaries.

Not strictly true - the big institutional investors get a say, small-fry not so much...

Yes thanks for making that point. It's true that individual shareholders have very little power and need the large shareholders to shake the directors tree. In the USA many trade unions hold substantial amounts of shares and have been flexing their muscles on executive remuneration.

Toaster

9th April 2010, 20:47

Had a chat with a lady on the train today. She made a comment that if bosses at a firm she knew didn't take their bonuses then they would have been able to keep the employees they made redundant.

Nice idea, but I explained that sadly, employers do not exist to employ people. We are only there to help them achieve their goals and as things change, employee numbers change to suit those goals.

Winston001

9th April 2010, 20:56

I guess what really annoys me is the disconnect between reality and the rarefied heights that some people rise to. The CEOs of the US auto companies who all flew to Washington in private jets is a telling example.

If we just consider Paul Reynolds and Telecom, isn't it likely there are astute managers in NZ who could do his job and happily accept $1-2 million? Yes I know its a huge company etc etc but Paul Reynolds doesn't run it by himself. Heck, the Minister of Finance runs a $59.5 billion business called the NZ Government and only gets paid $243,000.

Dave Lobster

10th April 2010, 05:38

If we just consider Paul Reynolds and Telecom, isn't it likely there are astute managers in NZ who could do his job and happily accept $1-2 million?

The Vodafone COE doesn't make that much. And his phone works every day.

Tank

10th April 2010, 10:02

The Vodafone COE doesn't make that much. And his phone works every day.

actually the CEO of vodafone was and when he left he did so with a $50,000,000 goodbye. His replacement was set to make $18,000,000 in his first year. Or are you confusing the actual CEO of a 4 billion dollar company (market cap of Telecom) with the country manager / ceo of vodafone?

firefighter

10th April 2010, 10:16

Does make for a nasty taste in the mouth mate,

They are all a pack of bastards to be honest,

Actually, my brother a very nice guy, and probably does more for society than you ever will.

It's funny how those that have'nt strived to get into those positions usually have an un-educated and often an unrealised envy of those who have.

We often forget/or are unaware of the work that went into getting those postions, it was'nt a gimme, it was well earnt, and it's everyone who works hard enough for it, and in the right way for it's "oyster", should they take the risk and give it a go.

From my personal experience, iv'e done the hands on/physical jobs, where you wonder how you get paid peanuts yet your physical workload is pretty significant.......and some "shiny ass" office worker gets all the dough.

It's easier to do a physical job with less education, than an educated job with little physical work needed. I'm a fence jumper, from physical to office, and I can very confidently say, physical labour orientated jobs are far easier at the end of the day.....that's why corporates get the big bucks.

If you get jealous and sick of being a pauper, join them! Open your own oysters., or you will always be looking up with an unwarranted hate or dislike for people, just because they bothered to put the time and work in for the education to get where they are.

mashman

10th April 2010, 10:54

It's easier to do a physical job with less education, than an educated job with little physical work needed. I'm a fence jumper, from physical to office, and I can very confidently say, physical labour orientated jobs are far easier at the end of the day.....that's why corporates get the big bucks.

I don't buy that at all... So you're saying that a physical job is all braun, no need for brain and anything else is a thinking job... I think you need to broaden your horizons :yes:... What if you're in a physical job that requires lots of brain power, a marine engineer perhaps, you should be getting paid more than a CEO right?

they're not all cunts though, I agree... but "they" are called fat cats for a reason...

Tank

10th April 2010, 10:58

but "they" are called fat cats for a reason...

Only be the jealous plebs.

Tank

10th April 2010, 10:59

Actually, my brother a very nice guy, and probably does more for society than you ever will.

It's funny how those that have'nt strived to get into those positions usually have an un-educated and often an unrealised envy of those who have.

We often forget/or are unaware of the work that went into getting those postions, it was'nt a gimme, it was well earnt, and it's everyone who works hard enough for it, and in the right way for it's "oyster", should they take the risk and give it a go.

From my personal experience, iv'e done the hands on/physical jobs, where you wonder how you get paid peanuts yet your physical workload is pretty significant.......and some "shiny ass" office worker gets all the dough.

It's easier to do a physical job with less education, than an educated job with little physical work needed. I'm a fence jumper, from physical to office, and I can very confidently say, physical labour orientated jobs are far easier at the end of the day.....that's why corporates get the big bucks.

If you get jealous and sick of being a pauper, join them! Open your own oysters., or you will always be looking up with an unwarranted hate or dislike for people, just because they bothered to put the time and work in for the education to get where they are.

Brilliant post.

mashman

10th April 2010, 11:01

Only be the jealous plebs.

I'm sure jealousy has it's part to play... but not everyone is jealous of someone with money...

Tank

10th April 2010, 11:03

I'm sure jealousy has it's part to play... but not everyone is jealous of someone with money...

I wouldn't be to sure - you seem to be pretty focused on it - and come across as very envious.

firefighter

10th April 2010, 11:11

I don't buy that at all... So you're saying that a physical job is all braun, no need for brain and anything else is a thinking job...

No. I did'nt say that at all.......

Although I guess anyone is free to interpret anything the wrong way if they choose to.

think you need to broaden your horizons. What if you're in a physical job that requires lots of brain power

Like I said, i've worked both sides of the fence. Said marine engineer spends more time behind a desk than the rest of the grease monkeys. I spent 4 1/2 years in the Navy, My horizons are very up to date and broad especially in this field. Said Marine engineers on-board the ships are officers (marine engineering officers) and spend most time behind the desk, whether they admit it or not, and have the quals and the hugely larger pay packet, and it's well deserved......(remember we are talking corporate level/senior management here, if the big boss is spending that much time on the floor there's something wrong).

mashman

10th April 2010, 11:25

No. I did'nt say that at all.......

Although I guess anyone is free to interpret anything the wrong way if they choose to.

Sorry if i got the wrong end of the stick :yes:

mashman

10th April 2010, 11:36

I wouldn't be to sure - you seem to be pretty focused on it - and come across as very envious.

Oh my god you're right. fuck me. All this time, I mean, wow, what the fuck just happened... at least now i'll be fine and can be let back out into the community...

There's no envy here. I have, pretty much, everything I want (although I have seen this boat), it's just the rest of the world that worries me... so I'LL be fine until my kids are let out into that world and then they're on their own. As hard as it may be for some people to believe, my motivation is my kids. I look into our world and see horrors everywhere... i'm what I would call a responsible parent and perhaps a bit of an over thinker when it comes to the future that my kids will inherit some day. I believe that i'm a pretty fuckin good analyst too. Hence the world is fucked and I blame MONEY. We can't do anything about it. I'm not thinking outside of the box Tank, because there's no such thing as a box. You can achieve anything you want to, didn't you parents teach you anything. But as you can see, i question a lot of peoples motives too. You know understand my motivation... I will die one day.

Winston001

10th April 2010, 12:52

It's funny how those that have'nt strived to get into those positions usually have an un-educated and often an unrealised envy of those who have.

We often forget/or are unaware of the work that went into getting those postions, it was'nt a gimme, it was well earnt, and it's everyone who works hard enough for it, and in the right way for it's "oyster", should they take the risk and give it a go.

Nice post. I don't think that reasonable people object to high level managers and CEOs of large companies being well-paid. The problem has become a question of what well-paid means? There are CEOs in the world who are entitled to packages exceeding $50 million per annum. I find it hard to imagine any human being worth that much. If they own the company - fine. If they are taking it from employees and investors - not fine at all.

On a local level there is an excellent article in the NZ Listener 3rd April regarding our collapsed finance companies. http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3647/features/15195/you_are_in_safe_hands.html The managers and CEOs paid themselves extremely well while in some cases using investors money to lend to their own development companies. Thus they had two bites at the cherry. Morally wrong but hard to prove in the criminal sense.

You see, some of these "managers" aren't actually any more clever than you and me. What they are good at is the gift of the gab. So I don't agree that executive salaries necessarily recognise ability. Sometimes its smoke and mirrors.

Winston001

10th April 2010, 13:00

Thinking further about this, the problem of reasonable rewards for value of work is spread right across society. 100 years ago scientists, inventors, authors and teachers were revered. These were the people looked up to in society and generally well paid. Today its sports people and TV newsreaders.

Don't get me wrong - good luck to the individuals who grab $100,000 to be on TV or play rugby. Its the people who agree to that level of payment who need their values reassessed.

The Wellington Rugby Union has just announced a $500,000 loss. How on earth could that happen in this sports mad day and age? Their response - cut player salaries.....?? Nope. Cut funding grants to local clubs which simply undermines the future of the game. Good thinking.

slowpoke

10th April 2010, 17:47

Like I said, i've worked both sides of the fence. Said marine engineer spends more time behind a desk than the rest of the grease monkeys. I spent 4 1/2 years in the Navy, My horizons are very up to date and broad especially in this field. Said Marine engineers on-board the ships are officers (marine engineering officers) and spend most time behind the desk, whether they admit it or not, and have the quals and the hugely larger pay packet, and it's well deserved......(remember we are talking corporate level/senior management here, if the big boss is spending that much time on the floor there's something wrong).

I don't think anyone has a problem with the "normal" scope of management payments in relation to a normal hierarchy. As mentioned, increased responsibiility, experience, technical nouse/skills etc should definitely be rewarded. But when someone can attend 3 board meetings and be paid 100's of thousands of dollars for the inconvenience or can be paid 10's of millions of dollars (100's of times the average salary for what seem to be a murky set of skills that no-one seems able to define and be set for several lifetimes from one years' good bad or indifferent work it's hard not feel that there's something wrong somewhere.

The ability to organise, assess, adjust, make decisions and take responsibility aren't in short supply and aren't displayed in greater proportion by those in elevated positions. They aren't working in hazardous conditions or locations, there are no lives resting on making quick correct decisions etc etc. Sure, there is a fair amount of jealousy involved but there is also a legitimate feeling of injustice at what are obscene amounts of money being paid to individuals whether they perform or not.

Same goes for sports and movie stars. To be paid that sort of money for trivial self serving endeavours is obscene.

peasea

10th April 2010, 17:56

not everyone is jealous of someone with money...

I'm not, generally speaking, and cerrtainly not of those who have earned it.

Three cases; 1) One brother who worked his way up from the shop floor to CEO, 2) Another brother who did a similar thing but isn't a CEO, he's a free agent who does very well thank you and 3) A mate who started renovating an old house with a loan from his granny and now owns many properties.

Am I jealous? Hell no. They earned every cent and I've seen much behind the scenes. Hard work, late nights, stress and parties missed etc. Now they're on the duck's back I'd rather raise my glass to them than poke the Borax.

Winston001

11th April 2010, 03:25

Whoa - check out this link from Forbes which is a business magazine and not given to easy criticism of corporate America. In 2008 the average remuneration for the CEOs of the top 500 companies was $11 million each. http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/22/executive-pay-ceo-leadership-compensation-best-boss-09-ceo_land.html

rainman

11th April 2010, 11:08

I don't think anyone has a problem with the "normal" scope of management payments in relation to a normal hierarchy. As mentioned, increased responsibiility, experience, technical nouse/skills etc should definitely be rewarded. But when someone can attend 3 board meetings and be paid 100's of thousands of dollars for the inconvenience or can be paid 10's of millions of dollars (100's of times the average salary for what seem to be a murky set of skills that no-one seems able to define and be set for several lifetimes from one years' good bad or indifferent work it's hard not feel that there's something wrong somewhere.

The ability to organise, assess, adjust, make decisions and take responsibility aren't in short supply and aren't displayed in greater proportion by those in elevated positions. They aren't working in hazardous conditions or locations, there are no lives resting on making quick correct decisions etc etc. Sure, there is a fair amount of jealousy involved but there is also a legitimate feeling of injustice at what are obscene amounts of money being paid to individuals whether they perform or not.

Same goes for sports and movie stars. To be paid that sort of money for trivial self serving endeavours is obscene.

Now that is a brilliant post.

BTW this entertaining (http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/04/10/brooks-let-them-eat-work/) (albeit somewhat American) post appeared in my reader today. Food for further thought on the topic.