Executive salaries

[Big Dave]

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

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

[Mully]

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]

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?

[Mully]

Pic

Shit - I'm stuffed then.

[mashman]

>>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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'll have a double.

[Skyryder]

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

[onearmedbandit]

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]

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]

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.