Raise a glass, to Fat Cat Thursday.....

[jjb1970]

Extreme examples never make for good comparisons. Comparing a vanishingly small number of the highest paid people in the country with the national average may give an amusing headline but it is a meaningless comparison. The great majority of senior board level leaders and managers get nothing near the rates of remuneration of that tiny handful.

And as has been pointed out by several, people in those positions tend to work very long hours at the beck and call of their organisation and need to be able to cope with a lot of stress. Not to mention the fact that they have probably had to invest an awful lot of effort to be in that position in the first place. If it's easy or such a great life there's nothing stopping anybody making the effort to do it.

[Clearwater]

It’s also worth noting that the risks of senior employment can also be very high. Whilst you may earn a large amount of money, if you “fail”, it can be quite hard to get another equivalent role. The football manager analogy isn’t too weak here.

 

I appreciate some execs can appear to get fired from one job, get handsomely paid out and then walk into another high paid role. My understanding is that the reality can be quite different. Undoubtedly though, some have the gift of the gab that helps them move from role to role almost seamlessly.

 

David

[Reorte]

Whilst there are some good points being made, and I certainly don't begrudge everyone who get paid more than me, the devil's in the detail. Talking about envy and jealousy is just dismissing the question. Sure, there'll be some jealous people out there but stating it as a rule when pay differentials are brought up is unfounded

[Ian Smeeton]

I used to run a business where every one of my employees earned more than me either annually, or for the part timers, per hour.

 

I was not  an overly generous employer, however, all of my staff earned more than the minimum wage, and at the high end of the wage range in our sector of business.

 

I finally decided to pull the plug on the business after a good number of years, earning enough for my needs i the processs, buut with nothing left over for 'luxuries'.

 

I worked 7 days, most weeks, at least 12 hours per day. I paid myself £200 per week.

 

I do not envy those who earn massive salaries. I am pretty sure, that like me, they won't have the time to enjoy it.

 

I did get grumpy about staff who made my life a misery, after I took over a business, and found it almost impossible to get rid of those who were not, and would not, pull their weight in the organisation.

 

These days, I earn more, work less hours, have time for, and take, paid holidays. I have weekends, Bank Holidays, and evenings free. A new experience after more than 35 years in the workplace.

 

Rant over!

 

Regards

 

Ian

[great central]

Surprised footballer's wages haven't been discussed yet.........

It wouldn't surprise me if a good number of those bemoaning the different wages in the workplace (at the lower end obviously) spend a good amount of their low wages watching football, and even spending a lot of their meagre income on doing so. Something I seriously cannot fathom out

Edited January 4, 2018 by great central

[jjb1970]

It’s also worth noting that the risks of senior employment can also be very high. Whilst you may earn a large amount of money, if you “fail”, it can be quite hard to get another equivalent role. The football manager analogy isn’t too weak here.

 

I appreciate some execs can appear to get fired from one job, get handsomely paid out and then walk into another high paid role. My understanding is that the reality can be quite different. Undoubtedly though, some have the gift of the gab that helps them move from role to role almost seamlessly.

 

David

I once read an excellent analogy for the stresses of military high command which said that the difference between commanding an army and being a staff officer was that a staff officer was doing the equivalent of walking along a tight rope stretched 6 inches above their living room floor whereas the commander was walking the same tightrope over the grand canyon. Same basic skill and task but very different consequences if you make a mistake. I think it holds true for senior roles in business, everybody knows how to run a business but the difference between knowing what to do as a back seat driver and knowing what to do if you're the one actually making the decisions and any consequences of getting it wrong is profound and difficult to overstate. People at the top are very visible and if they get it wrong their mistakes are also very visible. And organisations tend to have a low tolerance for such people making mistakes.

[Mad McCann]

Those who think it’s about ‘envy’ aren’t paying attention.

It’s not about somebody who got where they are through their own work. It’s more the Philip Greens, Fred Goodwins and Rupert Murdochs of this world who did nothing to gain their wealth other than deprive others of their livelihood.

 

There’s nothing wrong with working hard to get a decent lifestyle so long as you don’t crap on anybody else on the way up. Sadly, that kind of sociopathic character thrives in a CEO position.

 

I consider myself lucky; I did a job I was pretty much unsuited for for 22 years and got little or no real joy from it, but there was a good occupational pension scheme. I stuck it out until I hit 50, checked the sums and found there was enough to pay off my mortgage and provide a modest monthly pension which pays my bills. I work three days a week to give me a little pocket money.

I live alone. I don’t have a lot, but I’m not materialistic and I at least have a roof over my head. I consider myself lucky; it’s my small reward for the shifts and situations that ultimately harmed my health over those 22 years but I think I’m probably one of the last of my demographic that will have that.

 

I don’t envy people with massive homes, super yachts and flash cars; that kind of ostentatiousness merely betrays the deficiencies in their character make up.

I just care that these sorts are depriving decent, ordinary working people and caters of their fair share.

Call that jealousy if you want but I call it giving a damn for my fellow human beings.

 

D4

Edited January 4, 2018 by Mad McCann

[Mallard60022]

Please do not label me as being envious and that those views I might express must be 'politcs'.

I dislike those that earn huge amounts that is so out of proportion with what is actually needed to live a comfortable life and those that look down on those that will never ever have such advantage. I do not envy those that work amazingly hard and provide a service to their fellow humans and society and also get reasonable wages for doing that; Doctors and Consultants for example. I detest the amount of money spent on footballers in the top Leagues, however brilliant they may be. 

Also, to liken those such as myself that feel uncomfortable about what seems like excessive incomes achieved by certain people in powerful positions (notice I did not use the word earnings) when there are people in this so called wealthy country that have to use food banks, to some scrote that breaks in and steals your possessions, is patronising and insulting. I wouldn't steal another's property because I am not a criminal. I also detest criminals and their associated behaviours. They also do not care about their fellow members of society.

I do not envy people that are overpaid and who don't give a toss about the community and probably people they employ, I despise them too for their selfish attitude. Remember Sports Direct? It is that sort of employer's alleged attitude and behaviour that needs challenging rather than saying the 'Boss' has a huge income therfore he or she must work extremely hard and so deserves it. That is not always the case.

There we go, another attempt at being banned.

Phil

[jjb1970]

Personally I can't stand Rupert Murdoch's politics and find some of his media channels and publications to be appalling. However to claim he did nothing to gain his wealth other than deprive others of theirs is plain wrong. Whatever I think of him he is clearly brilliant at what he does, he didn't get it all handed to him on a plate and he's provided an awful lot of jobs for people.

[Mallard60022]

Personally I can't stand Rupert Murdoch's politics and find some of his media channels and publications to be appalling. However to claim he did nothing to gain his wealth other than deprive others of theirs is plain wrong. Whatever I think of him he is clearly brilliant at what he does, he didn't get it all handed to him on a plate and he's provided an awful lot of jobs for people.

Maybe so, and I accept that he was a clever bas###d, however he put thousands of people out of work too (although I accept that some of them probably deserved to be thrown out as they didn't do very much for what they were earning) and Murdoch was ruthless with little empathy for others who dared to disagree with him. That's why I dislike that particular person.

Phil

[Clearwater]

Personally I can't stand Rupert Murdoch's politics and find some of his media channels and publications to be appalling. However to claim he did nothing to gain his wealth other than deprive others of theirs is plain wrong. Whatever I think of him he is clearly brilliant at what he does, he didn't get it all handed to him on a plate and he's provided an awful lot of jobs for people.

Within the Bodleian Library, they hold collections of materials from various Oxford student societies including the Labour Club (OULC). Amongst the Labour Club collection, there are some old posters and materials from elections to its executive in the early 50s. One of the candidates in c1950 was one KR Murdoch (Worcester).

[Mad McCann]

He’s also has a major stake in Genie Energy along with Dick Cheney.

Have an extended trawl on Google to see how else he earns his money...

 

D4.

[jjb1970]

Please do not label me as being envious and that those views I might express must be 'politcs'.

I dislike those that earn huge amounts that is so out of proportion with what is actually needed to live a comfortable life and those that look down on those that will never ever have such advantage. I do not envy those that work amazingly hard and provide a service to their fellow humans and society and also get reasonable wages for doing that; Doctors and Consultants for example. I detest the amount of money spent on footballers in the top Leagues, however brilliant they may be. 

Also, to liken those such as myself that feel uncomfortable about what seems like excessive incomes achieved by certain people in powerful positions (notice I did not use the word earnings) when there are people in this so called wealthy country that have to use food banks, to some scrote that breaks in and steals your possessions, is patronising and insulting. I wouldn't steal another's property because I am not a criminal. I also detest criminals and their associated behaviours. They also do not care about their fellow members of society.

I do not envy people that are overpaid and who don't give a toss about the community and probably people they employ, I despise them too for their selfish attitude. Remember Sports Direct? It is that sort of employer's alleged attitude and behaviour that needs challenging rather than saying the 'Boss' has a huge income therfore he or she must work extremely hard and so deserves it. That is not always the case.

There we go, another attempt at being banned.

Phil

 

I'm not rich or a big shot, but as a result of the job I do as a mid echelon seat warmer I have had the opportunity to observe and study a few who are, including some extremely rich ship owners. Something I'd say is whether a person is rich or poor tells you nothing about whether that person is nice, is of high or low morals or generally virtuous or otherwise. I've observed powerful people who are complete A-holes, they weren't A-holes because they were rich or well paid, they just weren't nice people (although they had qualities at work). I've also observed very wealthy people who were remarkably modest, self effacing and generous and lovely people and who'd worked extremely hard for their wealth. Equating wealth or otherwise with virtue is a dangerous road.

[jjb1970]

He’s also has a major stake in Genie Energy along with Dick Cheney.

Have an extended trawl on Google to see how else he earns his money...

 

D4.

 

I'm guessing he has all sorts of interests but it is his media empire that made him rich and famous. And he didn't build that empire or end up worth $13 billion or whatever his current worth is from Genie Energy. Again, I don't like a lot of what he is responsible for but he is brilliant at what he does.

[Mad McCann]

What strikes me about many of these super wealthy is the absolute fear and paranoia that surrounds their lives; Panic Rooms, yachts with near warship levels of protection, armed ‘security’ escorts.

Many own so much they live in constant terror of losing it.

That wealth doesn’t seem to provide much peace of mind.

Of course, in a world where one percent of the ‘top strata’ of humanity owns more wealth than the poorest 50%, the motivation may also be the guilt of knowing where they got it from in many cases.

 

D4

[Ozexpatriate]

The Reuters report is pretty appalling in terms of presentation of numbers.

We have the following data (in pounds)

Mean FTSE 100 CEO salary of 4.5m

Mean FTSE 100 CEO earns 27,758 in three working days

Maximum FTSE 100 CEO salary of 48.2m

Ratio of CEO:worker pay = 120:1
Median worker salary of 28,758 (not clearly specified if this is FTSE 100 workers)

 

One would think that if we were comparing median worker income, it should be compared with median CEO salary. (My guess is that given the range of max:mean of 10.7:1 for CEO salaries there's a lot of variation there and the actual median is quite smaller than the mean, like it probably is for workers too.)

 

If we take the ratio of 120 and apply it to 28,758 we get 3.45m (not 4.5m).

 

I don't know how many "working days" are imputed here. Let's extrapolate the maths.

 

Using 52 weeks x 5 days - 8 holidays we get 252 working days. (It's not possible to compute more "working days" than this.)

This divided by 3 is 84.

84 x 28,758 = 2.4m.

 

So which is it for averaged executive salaries?

2.4m

3.4m

4.5m

 

Nothing here is an apples/apples comparison that is congruent with the other data presented.

 

I note that the minimum FTSE 100 CEO salary is not reported, nor is the mean worker salary.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Ozexpatriate

[eastglosmog]

Well, I object to people calling them fat cats! I have known many fat cats and they have all worked very hard (purring and rubbing on their owners) to get so much more cat food than they really needed!

[Horsetan]

.... a lot (and I mean a lot) of people said "yeh well, you can afford it, you must have loads of money if you lost that"  

At least It reminded me that no matter how hard you work in this country,  there'll always be envious and jealous people  that begrudge you for it.

Some of them on this Forum.

[APOLLO]

I see the problem as the constantly increasing near exponential rate of change of Capitalism. It has been forever thus, but never at the speed we see today.

 

Money can be moved around the globe in microseconds, deals done, wealth converted etc etc.. Big corporations eat up the smaller ones, wring out the value, discard the unwanted bits (costs) which is usually people. The corporate CEO's etc are on a bonus induced mission to do just that everywhere, and care not one jot about the consequences to those cast aside. Its mainly fed by rampant greed, ambition etc, and will get worse over time, VERY worse as the ability to do such things eases due mainly to the advance of technology available to them. Government will allow this as it suits them (the lot of them).

 

I fear in 50 years or less we will all be microchiped and micro controlled, (just like our model railways !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

 

Brit15 - retired and out of the rat race - (40 odd years working at "The gas board" I was probably never in it !!)

[Ozexpatriate]

I see the problem as the constantly increasing near exponential rate of change of Capitalism. It has been forever thus, but never at the speed we see today.

The speed of commerce is faster, but I'm not sure your "constantly increasing near exponential rate of change of Capitalism" is necessarily accurate.

 

There are cycles to this sort of thing. The completely unfettered commerce of the mercantile (colonial) period (17^th and 18^th centuries, which included the most odious abuse of labour, being slavery) and then the industrial revolution in the 19^th century led us to the organized labour movement and the pendulum swung back.

 

I would agree that we are presently seeing institutional preference being given to capital over labour in the current political climate in the west, but I don't know that we can definitively say that it is either a constantly increasing or near exponential rate of change of capitalism.

 

The harbingers of a backlash are there, like the short-lived "Occupy Wall Street" movement of a few years ago. In the current trajectory, more backlash is inevitable. My hopes are that it will remain within the democratic, electoral sphere.

[Nearholmer]

I'm not sure if it still applies, probably not, but in at least one Scandinavian country there was a convention, if not a rule of law, about salary differentials, which limited the multiple within a company to something like 5:1. I'm not sure how the base figure, the "1", was calculated, but I do recall that it excluded the salaries of trainees and those under 21 years old.

 

Leaving aside details, the point is that it doesn't cost 120x to feed, clothe, or house senior leaders as compared with those they lead, nor, I would argue, is 120x any sort of 'just reward' for the undoubted 'life sacrifices' being made. And, I don't believe for one millisecond that, exceptional as the talents of these people are, people with those talents are so phenomenally rare that 120x is actually necessary to obtain their services.

 

If the pyramid were to be flattened, so that 60x, or 10x, or even 5x was the greatest differential obtainable, would the supply of senior leaders suddenly dry-up? No it wouldn't, because senior leaders are among the cleverest and/or most ruthless people in the population, and the cleverest and/or most ruthless will always seek to be the senior leaders, because that position confers advantage, whether it be 'blooming gigantic' or simply 'significant' advantage.

 

In short, some differential is defensible, necessary even, but nothing like to the degree that applies in these few cases. It is just plain silly, and more than silly: it is a poke in the eye to the vast majority of people, a generator of cynicism rather than positive motivation. As such it is indefensible.

 

Whether the silliness can be corrected is another question, though, because, it could only ever be fully corrected by 'mutual de-escalation' by all corporations, which is vanishingly unlikely, or globally enforced legislation, which is, er ..... even less likely.

 

Kevin

 

PS: I'm talking here about salaries paid to senior employees. Wealth accumulation by owners of enterprises is a different subject, which means that the Murdochs, Gates, etc of this world are actually outwith the scope of this rant.

 

PPS: I'm with JJB that plenty of ludicrously-over-rewarded people are perfectly decent human beings, but that doesn't justify them being over-rewarded, it merely slightly softens the poke in the eye that their over-reward administers to everyone else.

[Ozexpatriate]

I'm not sure if it still applies, probably not, but in at least one Scandinavian country there was a convention, if not a rule of law, about salary differentials, which limited the multiple within a company to something like 5:1. I'm not sure how the base figure, the "1", was calculated, but I do recall that it excluded the salaries of trainees and those under 21 years old.

Kevin, I imagine that rule of thumb applies to a single company - not a random financial index like the FTSE 100?

[Clive Mortimore]

It wouldn't surprise me if a good number of those bemoaning the different wages in the workplace (at the lower end obviously) spend a good amount of their low wages watching football, and even spending a lot of their meagre income on doing so. Something I seriously cannot fathom out

I am a bit confused by this post, surely what other people, irrespective of their earnings, spend their money on as long as it is legal is up to them.

 

Footballers only get paid silly money because someone thinks they are worth it, the same with highly paid managers of business. Most of my working life I received average or below average wages......I think some people thought that what I was worth.....such is life. I did retire as the CEO of a pet care business and was worth every penny I earned. Being self employed is hard graft.

[Reorte]

I am a bit confused by this post, surely what other people, irrespective of their earnings, spend their money on as long as it is legal is up to them.

 

Footballers only get paid silly money because someone thinks they are worth it, the same with highly paid managers of business. Most of my working life I received average or below average wages......I think some people thought that what I was worth.....such is life. I did retire as the CEO of a pet care business and was worth every penny I earned. Being self employed is hard graft.

From a financial point of view footballers presumably are worth the money. Football is a business after all, and has the advantage that the effect of the players is measureable. There's even a large number of people actively wanting and trying to be footballers, suggesting that the skills needed at the top really are quite rare. Where it's different is only that it's not the people running the business who attract the headlines when it comes to wages.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Reorte

[The Stationmaster]

I'm not sure if it still applies, probably not, but in at least one Scandinavian country there was a convention, if not a rule of law, about salary differentials, which limited the multiple within a company to something like 5:1. I'm not sure how the base figure, the "1", was calculated, but I do recall that it excluded the salaries of trainees and those under 21 years old.

 

 

 

I'm fairly sure that it was Sweden and the figure was 7:1 - although that was good many years ago and it might not be the case now.