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

[LBRJ]

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

 

you intimated you wanted to hang people from lamp posts not long ago in this thread... which ever way you look at life that is a disgusting thought, and you should be thoroughly ashamed of even mentioning that "in jest"

Edited January 5, 2018 by LBRJ

[chris p bacon]

 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.

 

 

And yet of the 5 I know (1 GP, 1 surgeon and 3 consultants)  all of them are quite open that they went into it for the challenge and the money. 

 

I won't count the Dr (GP and owner of practice) who up until 18 months ago lived next door, He went to prison for fraud and was asked to 'retire' at aged 52.

[pH]

The average boss of Britain’s top companies will (by today) have earned the same as the typical worker will make in the entire year. 

 

UK bosses are obviously underpaid. The "top" 100 Canadian CEOs, based on 2015 figures, "earned" 193 times the "typical" Canadian worker. The average of these CEOs would have "earned" the "typical" Canadian worker's annual wage before lunchtime on January 1. - http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/top-ceo-pay-1.3907662

[PatB]

Of course, mind-bending levels of stress and, particularly in the digital age, expectations of 24/7 availability are not exclusive to CEO level roles. Indeed, in at least some professions (perhaps most or even all) it starts pretty much at graduate level, whatever anyone's supposed agreed conditions of employment might say. So I'm afraid those aren't adequate reasons for obscene remuneration.

 

The GFC and events leading up to it (and numerous individual cases before and since) have showed us that staggering levels of executive salary do not guarantee quality recruitment.

 

And, as a thought for the day, why is it that, for the very successful/wealthy, giving them more money is considered the prime motivator for performance, whereas for the very poor, giving them less is supposed to be more effective?

[Nearholmer]

Ozex

 

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

 

From what I recall, it applied, or applies, to every entrprise in the country, so by aggregate the whole country. I think their public service ratio was tighter still.

 

K

[Clearwater]

On the maximum compensation ratio, my concern is that it is one of those things that sounds superficially attractive but in practice drives behaviour against the intention of the policy. Firstly, how do you define company? Is it a group or a single legal entity? You wouldn’t want to create a “senior exec co”, perhaps based overseas that allows the law to be bypassed. Does the ratio apply to salary or all compensation? Eg grant of shares that could vest/pay dividends etc? Even if tightly drafted, how do you stop a company seeking to outsource lower paid roles to either contractors (and therefore not employees) to a third party agency providing a service (eg catering/cleaning/office clerical etc) to push up either the lowest salary/median or whatever measure being used?

 

There have been great strides in corporate governance over the years giving much greater transparency on executive pay than historically existed. Compare a current ftse annual report to a 1980s or 70s one to get a feel. Whilst there are some dangers in transparency, “if they get that, so shrouds I” etc, I don’t think any of us want to return to a more opaque system of executive remuneration

 

David

[Mod4]

This topic has been locked as it entered the world of politics which as you all know is a prohibitive subject on this forum and these posts and also some considered inflammatory have been removed (including a number of political links within a signature) 

 

Please play by the rules on all counts.