Britain's top bosses are paid FIFTY times as much as in the Eighties

When are the Tories going to do something about this ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064521/Britains-bosses-paid-50-times-Eighties.html

It's not up to politicians to do this, it's up to the shareholders.

I didn't notice the Labour scum did anything.

I've a feeling the Tories might just stick with Labour's policy between 1997 and 2010 on this one. If the significant widening of the gap between rich and poor was good enough for Labour I'm sure it won't bother the Tories too much either.

What's wrong with it?

It's not up to politicians to do this, it's up to the shareholders.

But we all know the problem is that most of the shares are in managed chunks in pension funds etc. and the people who manage them have little incentive to vote down the pay rises proposed by the bosses themselves as in part it makes the amount the are paid for managing look more competitive. I think some sort of legislation that allows the actual owners of the shares to vote rather than the person who is in charge of buying and selling them would help.

But we all know the problem is that most of the shares are in managed chunks in pension funds etc. and the people who manage them have little incentive to vote down the pay rises proposed by the bosses themselves as in part it makes the amount the are paid for managing look more competitive. I think some sort of legislation that allows the actual owners of the shares to vote rather than the person who is in charge of buying and selling them would help.

I say: let the 'man in the street' consumers choose. If you don't want the boss of Tescos (for example) earning a huge wedge then buy your chickens and sausages from the local butcher (etc).

That said, it takes a lot less effort for the apathetic British public to moan about these sort of things on an Internet forum than to actually put their money where their mouth is...

I say: let the 'man in the street' consumers choose. If you don't want the boss of Tescos (for example) earning a huge wedge then buy your chickens and sausages from the local butcher (etc).

 

That said, it takes a lot less effort for the apathetic British public to moan about these sort of things on an Internet forum than to actually put their money where their mouth is...

I am talking about the person who actually owns the shares (even if they are bought via a ISA/pension) I think they have as much right to vote on the renumeration package of a companies bosses as any shareholder.

Given that the corporate greed appears to be uncontrollable by the current routes (can anyone justify the increase in the last 20 to 30 years, especially people being given large payrises/bonuses/share options even when their company has performed badly)?

There is an interesting video I saw recently (will add link if I can find it) that goes into some research that found that for more than the most trivial of jobs offering to pay someone more actually makes them perform worse.

I think the Tories did do something about this....they created it and ideologically support it.

Harold Wilson must bear some of the responsibility for the widening gap, in fairness, it was he who introduced the percentage payrise system as opposed to the £ per annum predecessor.

It's also true that it's down to the shareholders - spot why the Tories are unlikely to change it then?

Thing is that initially they could get away with it and now its just got a bit out of control and like the housing market there will almost certainly have to be an adjustment. This is interesting reading:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/22/cut-executive-pay

Yet our research has shown little connection between pay and performance; top executives rarely cross the world in search of work and even when they do, the role can be too much for just one person. António Horta-Osório was recruited in March from the Spanish bank Santander to run Lloyds Banking Group on a package of pay and shares reported to be worth £12m, but eight months later is off with stress. Maybe we are just expecting too much from our top bosses.

 

 

Just as important, we have found that large gaps in pay undermine employee engagement, leading to low levels of motivation, effort and co-operation. Pay is too often set by a closed shop of individuals on remuneration committees with little regard to the conditions among the rest of the workforce, and the packages have become so complex that even shareholders struggle to understand how much they are worth.

 

 

Pay in publicly listed companies sets a precedent. When it rewards failure, it sends out the wrong message about business and is clearly a symptom of a poorly functioning market. High levels of inequality in income contribute to sectorial imbalances, regional disparities and asset bubble inflation.

 

 

Society suffers too when there are huge income disparities. When the gap widens, it does not encourage aspiration or cohesion but rather disengagement and social unrest. Academics have warned that inequality can lead to instability, with poorer groups pursuing their objectives outside the mainstream.

CEO's and their Finance Directors normally work on (well paid) short term contracts linked to decent bonuses.

They seem very adept at manipulating targets and reaching them, triggering massive bonus payments, then swanning off leaving the next incumbent to pick up the pieces, probably on better terms

Of course some do a crap job but still seem to be able to be rewarded by a golden goodbye

When I started out, within the company i worked for some of the men on the shop floor (aided by very militant unions) earned more than the boss due to their fabricated overtime etc

That wasn't right then just as the enormous rewards for Chief Execs (and others) is not right now

I am talking about the person who actually owns the shares (even if they are bought via a ISA/pension) I think they have as much right to vote on the renumeration package of a companies bosses as any shareholder.

I agree, but all I was saying is, ultimately, it's consumers that have the final say as to how much salary and bonuses a company boss gets.

If everyone reduced their lazy reliance on supermarkets (for example) and started supporting local sole traders (for example) then supermarket revenues would drop and it would therefore follow that the top dogs would get less salary and bonuses (as voted for by the "shareholders").

"We" (Joe Public) have ultimate (albeit indirect) control over CEO renumeration.

I agree, but all I was saying is, ultimately, it's consumers that have the final say as to how much salary and bonuses a company boss gets.

 

If everyone reduced their lazy reliance on supermarkets (for example) and started supporting local sole traders (for example) then supermarket revenues would drop and it would therefore follow that the top dogs would get less salary and bonuses (as voted for by the "shareholders").

 

"We" (Joe Public) have ultimate (albeit indirect) control over CEO renumeration.

Too simplistic I fear. The general populous (the infamous "99%") will rarely if ever get coordinated enough to have any effect even if individually they would like to (The one obvious case where it did happen is the NOTW where the publics refusal to buy it after the milly dowler phone hacking came to light). Even then if a large proportion of people say started to boycott tesco say all that would happen is that the current chairman would get fired and they would bring someone else in on an equally high salary to try and 'turn the company round'.

The Secret Millionaire on tv last night showcased perfectly what actually matters in life and what makes people genuinely happy, and it wasn't his money.

But we all know the problem is that most of the shares are in managed chunks in pension funds etc. and the people who manage them have little incentive to vote down the pay rises proposed by the bosses themselves as in part it makes the amount the are paid for managing look more competitive. I think some sort of legislation that allows the actual owners of the shares to vote rather than the person who is in charge of buying and selling them would help.

Fair enough, but then I could ask how someone's pay, for example, at a FTSE100 company affects anyone else and what business it is of their's (unless they are shareholders)? The thing I love about this is that no one seems to mention the likes of a certain Mr Tevez (not a unique example) who earns a reported £269,000 a week (or just shy of £14 million a year), which I would have a guess might be post tax but frankly that is irrelevant. Why are footballers seen any different from FTSE company CEOs and other boardrooms? Could it by any chance be a politicised?

Expanding from Tevez, there was this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2055140/Premier-League-wages-FIVE-times-Championship.html

The most pertinent bit: Average Premier League wages have reached £22,353 a week - before lucrative bonuses - or £1.16million a year.

50 times as much?? I should be on over a million a year then,must ask for a pay rise.

Fair enough, but then I could ask how someone's pay, for example, at a FTSE100 company affects anyone else and what business it is of their's (unless they are shareholders)? The thing I love about this is that no one seems to mention the likes of a certain Mr Tevez (not a unique example) who earns a reported £269,000 a week (or just shy of £14 million a year), which I would have a guess might be post tax but frankly that is irrelevant. Why are footballers seen any different from FTSE company CEOs and other boardrooms? Could it by any chance be a politicised?

 

Expanding from Tevez, there was this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2055140/Premier-League-wages-FIVE-times-Championship.html

 

The most pertinent bit: Average Premier League wages have reached £22,353 a week - before lucrative bonuses - or £1.16million a year.

High pay affects the entire country, irrespective of who it is being paid to. There are gradations in every market, but the resources of the highly paid dictate the top end of that market.

Take London for example. Most normal people cannot afford to buy something decent because the top end adjusts to what people can afford. Everything else, rightly or wrongly, grades down from the obscene prices at the top of the market. The net effect is that many Londoners feel they're never going to get anything out of the city on the wages they can attract, giving them two options - stay trapped finding the rent each month or move out of the city.

On your point about footballers versus high earning execs. We all know that footballers have shorter careers than executives. I'd agree that they are still being over-compensated, but then, us taxpayers haven't been forced to devote a great deal of our income into sorting the finances of football clubs out. The same cannot be said for many of the FTSE companies, which have been propped up by our cash.

Also, I would imagine that it's a lot harder for footballers to avoid the higher rate of tax than it is for FTSE companies to avoid their bills. Why is it okay for the likes of Vodafone and Barclays to pay a fraction of their corporation tax when your average small business has to pay full whack?

Ultimately, having a chasm between the richest and poorest citizens of a country never works out well. History is littered with populist uprisings when the gap gets too wide. So in my view, the disparity between the pay people get is hugely important, and affects us all, whether you realise it or not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15827683

"High pay of UK executives corrosive, report says"

Both Daily Mail and BBC reports are about this: http://highpaycommission.co.uk/uncategorized/final-report-of-the-high-pay-commission-published/ if you want the original.

If any, and I mean any, of the posters on this site was offered a job that paid £1M a year, not one would turn it down on the basis of corporate greed. So, let's admit that any opinions are based on jealousy, as is the case of the majority of Socialist/Communist/Lib Dems.

It would be better to concentrate on public, rather than private finances, where billions are wasted on the wages of public sector employees and political appointees. The Socialist/Communist/Lib Dems are first in line at this particular trough, as the Kinnocks, et al demonstrated so well in Brussels and haven't we had value for money from these Euro Parliamentary leaches? The EU? Possibly the most expensive and biggest failure since the Treaty of Versailles.

High pay affects the entire country, irrespective of who it is being paid to. There are gradations in every market, but the resources of the highly paid dictate the top end of that market.

 

Take London for example. Most normal people cannot afford to buy something decent because the top end adjusts to what people can afford. Everything else, rightly or wrongly, grades down from the obscene prices at the top of the market. The net effect is that many Londoners feel they're never going to get anything out of the city on the wages they can attract, giving them two options - stay trapped finding the rent each month or move out of the city.

I take your point, but with your example of London, I am afraid that the influence of international buyers also adds to the problems as well as people with any spare money. Property is generally a good investment and it really isn't the top earners that are pushing the prices. When the £ got near parity with €, the number of houses sold to overseas buyers (esp from France) went through the roof.

On your point about footballers versus high earning execs. We all know that footballers have shorter careers than executives. I'd agree that they are still being over-compensated, but then, us taxpayers haven't been forced to devote a great deal of our income into sorting the finances of football clubs out. The same cannot be said for many of the FTSE companies, which have been propped up by our cash.

 

Also, I would imagine that it's a lot harder for footballers to avoid the higher rate of tax than it is for FTSE companies to avoid their bills. Why is it okay for the likes of Vodafone and Barclays to pay a fraction of their corporation tax when your average small business has to pay full whack?

This is what REALLY annoys me about the argument about football players. Why can't they get another job after they have hung up their boots. Saying that they have a short playing career is a hugely spurious argument. In the good old days, they seemed to be able to get jobs. Publicans, posties, physios, pundits, whatever. And as for not being able to avoid tax as well as company directors, I think that that you are being a little naive. But the point I agree 100% with, is the corporation tax issue (but that is wholly different to what is being discussed).

Ultimately, having a chasm between the richest and poorest citizens of a country never works out well. History is littered with populist uprisings when the gap gets too wide. So in my view, the disparity between the pay people get is hugely important, and affects us all, whether you realise it or not.

I don't earn these figures, so am not coming from that angle. I still think that it isn't a closed shop and it is open to one and all. Sure certain people have less hurdles than others, but if you have the drive then you can make of yourself what you want. I know people who got off their backsides and are up there - no university degree or anything, taught himself the City exams etc. I put this all down to jealousy, although rewards for failure is something I have never agreed with. Maybe that is the perceived issue and not the actual wage itself?

I imagine that the nice restaurants, car dealers etc are quite pleased people get paid a lot. Then these people can in turn get paid well, and spread the money down the chain, employ people etc.

This is the free-market working in its unfettered way. Survival of the fittest. It's why we have employment legislation, because you can bet that if we didn't, these fatcats would be paying you next to sod all and your conditions would be crap.

Unfortunately, the Tories and their big business backers want to soften this legislation. Leopards don't change their spots.

I didn't notice the Labour scum did anything.

That's because the third way doesn't care about people getting stinking rich... as long as it benefits the poorest by raising their standard of living as well(which broadly, it did).

It's pretty left wing of you to moan about this, Dune.

For what it is worth, let them earn that much, just tax them more and make damn well sure they pay that tax. As someone said above, this is what happens when the free market runs rampant.

Too simplistic I fear. The general populous (the infamous "99%") will rarely if ever get coordinated enough to have any effect even if individually they would like to (The one obvious case where it did happen is the NOTW where the publics refusal to buy it after the milly dowler phone hacking came to light). Even then if a large proportion of people say started to boycott tesco say all that would happen is that the current chairman would get fired and they would bring someone else in on an equally high salary to try and 'turn the company round'.

It's only "too simplistic" because human beings are typically better at moaning about stuff than actually getting up off their arses and doing something about it. Collective laziness and ambivalence.

That's because the third way doesn't care about people getting stinking rich... as long as it benefits the poorest by raising their standard of living as well(which broadly, it did).

 

It's pretty left wing of you to moan about this, Dune.

 

For what it is worth, let them earn that much, just tax them more and make damn well sure they pay that tax.

By the by how do today's taxation levels compare with those of the 80's? I used to earn about 30K ish in 83 and I'm pretty sure I paid a real lot of tax but then I think "company cars" were pretty heavily taxed in those days as well. I have a vague notion

that you paid on the car and on a set sum of the "personal mileage" as well. I think I might have been taxed at about 40p in the £ after personal allowance in those days.

That's because the third way doesn't care about people getting stinking rich... as long as it benefits the poorest by raising their standard of living as well(which broadly, it did).

 

It's pretty left wing of you to moan about this, Dune.

 

For what it is worth, let them earn that much, just tax them more and make damn well sure they pay that tax. As someone said above, this is what happens when the free market runs rampant.

There's a 'happy medium' in that arguement somewhere

The Secret Millionaire on tv last night showcased perfectly what actually matters in life and what makes people genuinely happy, and it wasn't his money.

The only people that say money doesn't make you happy are ones that dont have any.

It's only "too simplistic" because human beings are typically better at moaning about stuff than actually getting up off their arses and doing something about it. Collective laziness and ambivalence.

If there is an obvious route that people can take to do something about it then often they will. Making a complete change to how you purchase everything as a protest at the salaries at the people at the top of companies is not obvious as a) It would not work without lots of other people doing at the same time and b) even if you did manage to organise a group action the people likely to suffer first would be the normal staff that would be laid off well before any executive decided to take a cut in pay.

It's only "too simplistic" because human beings are typically better at moaning about stuff than actually getting up off their arses and doing something about it. Collective laziness and ambivalence.

If shareholders can't be ar $ed to be vigilant, shouldn't expect too much from joe public.

The only people that say money doesn't make you happy are ones that dont have any.

And often can't be bothered to better themselves or put their money where their mouths are. If my business was making vast profits after years of hard work I'd be reaping the rewards too (in a tax efficient way of course).

On the other hand Bob Dimond isn't worth £4m per year, especially as Barclays share price has basically halved in recent times.

to me there is the self made business where the chairman/owner gets the fruit of his work and earns what he deserves and then the fatcat who gets parachuted in on a fantastic salary. The former deserves all he gets, the later should earn on results.

When are the Tories going to do something about this ?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064521/Britains-bosses-paid-50-times-Eighties.html

the money should have gone to thousands of small business wealth creators to create the jobs rather than lining the pockets of fat cats and taxcuts for the lower paid and middle income making them wealthier to spend in shops etc.

because it was another of maggies policy failures in the greedy 80s of the selfish me me society

http://spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5841

If shareholders can't be ar $ed to be vigilant, shouldn't expect too much from joe public.

Can't beat a bit of double apathy I say

http://spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5841

The Secret Millionaire on tv last night showcased perfectly what actually matters in life and what makes people genuinely happy, and it wasn't his money.

That's why it's the best show on TV.

What is the % increase for union bosses and council leaders?

What is the % increase for union bosses and council leaders?

Less

What is the % increase for union bosses and council leaders?

Article in the Torygraph gives some information, although unhelpfully, not in percentage terms. Interesting to note which political party runs each council, as the salary increases are voted for by the council members.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-spending/8714259/Council-chief-executives-enjoy-pay-rises-as-services-are-cut.html

I genuinely can't find any info on Trade Union General Secretaries' pay rises. However, they earn at the lower end of Councils' Chief Executives (in the £100K bracket) with one or two exceptions.

In a previous life I was married to a full-time regional secretary of a TU. He doubled his salary by moving into the private sector to do the same job (industrial relations) (the turncoat). I can tell you that the wages of full-time officials are both paid for and voted on by the membership. So, unlike council bosses and city fat cats, you and I don't pay for TU bosses' wages, unless we're members of those unions.

I didn't notice the Labour scum did anything.

What's that got to do with the question?

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/star-spangled-staggers/2011/10/income-home-inequality another view of the greedy 80s

Interesting, solentstars

As for the UK, we're not doing much better. The richest 10 per cent now receives 31 per cent of national income and owns almost half of the country's personal assets, while the poorest 10 per cent takes home just 1 per cent of the total income. The coalition's decision to rely on spending cuts (which hit the poorest hardest), rather than tax rises, to reduce the deficit will inevitably widen the gap. Conservatives may criticise the Occupy London movement but they cannot deny that it reflects a grim empirical reality.

Paying people by results is good thing. At the beginning of 2000 the FTSE 100 was 6930. Its currently trading at 5207, the same level as in 1997. So FTSE directors should be earning the same as in 1997? after all thats capitalism isnt it? Or do we simply have a corrupted croneyism version of capitalism - a self perpetuating oligarchy.

Basically you and me, have our pensions invested by bankers who earn vast sums based on 'performance'. They invest our money in companies whose management are also paid vast sums. Surely if we are paying top money to attract the best talent available globally you should get stellar returns, otherwise whats the point? Losing 25% of pension holders capital since 2000 doesnt seem that stellar to me - but thats probably because Im a stupid socialist who doesnt understand the careful nuances like Dune does.

What's that got to do with the question?

Its part of the two branch approach to defending in this sort of situation:

1) Someone let them get away with it for a time so its all right

2) Other people have done the same (if not quite to the same extent) and not many have complained about them

Its part of the two branch approach to defending in this sort of situation:

 

1) Someone let them get away with it for a time so its all right

 

2) Other people have done the same (if not quite to the same extent) and not many have complained about them

Also known as 'completely missing the f**king point'

(not you, people who use that line of argument)

Also known as 'completely missing the f**king point'

 

(not you, people who use that line of argument)

Makes a nice change.

Fair enough, but then I could ask how someone's pay, for example, at a FTSE100 company affects anyone else and what business it is of their's (unless they are shareholders)? The thing I love about this is that no one seems to mention the likes of a certain Mr Tevez (not a unique example) who earns a reported £269,000 a week (or just shy of £14 million a year), which I would have a guess might be post tax but frankly that is irrelevant. Why are footballers seen any different from FTSE company CEOs and other boardrooms? Could it by any chance be a politicised?

 

Expanding from Tevez, there was this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2055140/Premier-League-wages-FIVE-times-Championship.html

 

The most pertinent bit: Average Premier League wages have reached £22,353 a week - before lucrative bonuses - or £1.16million a year.

The situation of footballers is completely different. A footballer in negotiating his contract is effectively offering his services at a price. The club decides whether or not they think that price is worth paying for those services. This is the "free market" in operation - note I'm using the economist definition of "free market" that being a market where supply meets demand with an absence of barriers/impediments. Arguments about short careers etc are irrelevant. Footballers simply try to get rewarded as best as they can, clubs try to employ the talent as cheaply as they can. The price - wage - gets set as a result of competition between players and between clubs.

The argument against CEOs is that their compensation all too often exceeds (by some margin) their talent i.e. the impact they have upon the companies for whom they work. This could be because those setting and advising on the levels of CEO pay and the CEOs themselves are all part of the same set (indirectly or directly) and have no interest in seeing overall levels of pay go down - this includes those acting for major shareholders who are also in the high pay club. Thus competirion to accurately match supply with demand is absent.

CEOs and Directors earn 50x what they did in 1980s - are we as a country 50x more wealthy than the 80s? are indiviual companies 50x more valuable than in the 80s? I think we all know the answer to that.

Paying people by results is good thing. At the beginning of 2000 the FTSE 100 was 6930. Its currently trading at 5207, the same level as in 1997. So FTSE directors should be earning the same as in 1997? after all thats capitalism isnt it? Or do we simply have a corrupted croneyism version of capitalism - a self perpetuating oligarchy.

 

Basically you and me, have our pensions invested by bankers who earn vast sums based on 'performance'. They invest our money in companies whose management are also paid vast sums. Surely if we are paying top money to attract the best talent available globally you should get stellar returns, otherwise whats the point? Losing 25% of pension holders capital since 2000 doesnt seem that stellar to me - but thats probably because Im a stupid socialist who doesnt understand the careful nuances like Dune does.

Nail on head - success is rewarded disproportionately to failure.

What to do about it? Now that is friggin difficult.

Nail on head - success is rewarded disproportionately to failure.

 

What to do about it? Now that is friggin difficult.

Only really seems difficult because we're told we have to keep the current system alive at all costs, as if it's a point of truth.

While capitalism has done some great things, it's definitely not fair. People pay a lot of money to keep it that way. These figures just seem slightly more obscene than normal.

When are the Tories going to do something about this ?

Twas the tories (in their traditional blue and 'New Labour' red guises) who created them, keep up.

What's wrong with it?

Having seem 'The Flaw' recently on TV I'm now a top class expert in economics and hence in a position to explain.

The problem with ever widening pay differentials is that as the wealthy few a the top (in general) already have all the material possessions they could possibly want, so they tend to invest the larger part of their surplus income in things like property and other financial investments. The laws of supply and demand means that this river of cash flowing in a limited pool of property (for instance) forces the prices up to unsustainable levels - otherwise known as a 'bubble'. The 2008 credit crunch shows us yet again that bubbles do have a very unhealthy tendency to burst.

It is argued that it is no only socially more just, but also far better for the economy as a whole, that ordinary working people retain a larger share of the national wealth because they tend to spend a much bigger proportion of their income on things like manufactured goods, food, fuel .. etc - things that benefit the real economy rather than just lining the pockets of the rich and those in the financial industry. Draw two graphs, one showing the rise in pay differentials, and the other the price of property, and they will match almost perfectly I'm told.

I saw some merchant banker type on the news today trying to justify extremely high pay for top executives on the grounds that international competition is intense 'for the right people' and that we must attract these elite individuals whatever the cost. Well, it seems to me that these 'right people' are exactly the same types who got us all into the appalling mess we're in today, and if you pay any berk £5m a year then pretty soon he'll be convinced he's worth every penny.