My salary cannot be justified
Discussion
I think the same applies to all CEOs of ex-utilities.
...and arguably to many CEOs of big corporates (and some smaller ones, in my experience, but that's just down to them being incompetent, not because the salary is obscene).
But in a free market, the market sets the price. Or rather the old boys club typically at this level...would be interesting to do a statistical review of FTSE-100 and NYSE-100 CEOs to see:
- How many are female
- How many are from ethnic minorities
- How many didn't go to private schools
- ...and most tellingly (as I think 1 and 2 may have progressed slightly), how many haven't been networked to the hilt with a load of other CEOs and Chairmen for decades.
...and arguably to many CEOs of big corporates (and some smaller ones, in my experience, but that's just down to them being incompetent, not because the salary is obscene).
But in a free market, the market sets the price. Or rather the old boys club typically at this level...would be interesting to do a statistical review of FTSE-100 and NYSE-100 CEOs to see:
- How many are female
- How many are from ethnic minorities
- How many didn't go to private schools
- ...and most tellingly (as I think 1 and 2 may have progressed slightly), how many haven't been networked to the hilt with a load of other CEOs and Chairmen for decades.
havoc said:
I think the same applies to all CEOs of ex-utilities.
...and arguably to many CEOs of big corporates (and some smaller ones, in my experience, but that's just down to them being incompetent, not because the salary is obscene).
But in a free market, the market sets the price. Or rather the old boys club typically at this level...would be interesting to do a statistical review of FTSE-100 and NYSE-100 CEOs to see:
- How many are female
- How many are from ethnic minorities
- How many didn't go to private schools
- ...and most tellingly (as I think 1 and 2 may have progressed slightly), how many haven't been networked to the hilt with a load of other CEOs and Chairmen for decades.
I get the feeling that it's like s...and arguably to many CEOs of big corporates (and some smaller ones, in my experience, but that's just down to them being incompetent, not because the salary is obscene).
But in a free market, the market sets the price. Or rather the old boys club typically at this level...would be interesting to do a statistical review of FTSE-100 and NYSE-100 CEOs to see:
- How many are female
- How many are from ethnic minorities
- How many didn't go to private schools
- ...and most tellingly (as I think 1 and 2 may have progressed slightly), how many haven't been networked to the hilt with a load of other CEOs and Chairmen for decades.
t football managers they just sit there and then the phone rings and back in the game somewhere else until that fecks up and rinse repeat...IanJ9375 said:
havoc said:
I think the same applies to all CEOs of ex-utilities.
...and arguably to many CEOs of big corporates (and some smaller ones, in my experience, but that's just down to them being incompetent, not because the salary is obscene).
But in a free market, the market sets the price. Or rather the old boys club typically at this level...would be interesting to do a statistical review of FTSE-100 and NYSE-100 CEOs to see:
- How many are female
- How many are from ethnic minorities
- How many didn't go to private schools
- ...and most tellingly (as I think 1 and 2 may have progressed slightly), how many haven't been networked to the hilt with a load of other CEOs and Chairmen for decades.
I get the feeling that it's like s...and arguably to many CEOs of big corporates (and some smaller ones, in my experience, but that's just down to them being incompetent, not because the salary is obscene).
But in a free market, the market sets the price. Or rather the old boys club typically at this level...would be interesting to do a statistical review of FTSE-100 and NYSE-100 CEOs to see:
- How many are female
- How many are from ethnic minorities
- How many didn't go to private schools
- ...and most tellingly (as I think 1 and 2 may have progressed slightly), how many haven't been networked to the hilt with a load of other CEOs and Chairmen for decades.
t football managers they just sit there and then the phone rings and back in the game somewhere else until that fecks up and rinse repeat...And the Public Sector is even worse, as people are slowly beginning to realise with the PO.
EmBe said:
IanJ9375 said:
havoc said:
I think the same applies to all CEOs of ex-utilities.
...and arguably to many CEOs of big corporates (and some smaller ones, in my experience, but that's just down to them being incompetent, not because the salary is obscene).
But in a free market, the market sets the price. Or rather the old boys club typically at this level...would be interesting to do a statistical review of FTSE-100 and NYSE-100 CEOs to see:
- How many are female
- How many are from ethnic minorities
- How many didn't go to private schools
- ...and most tellingly (as I think 1 and 2 may have progressed slightly), how many haven't been networked to the hilt with a load of other CEOs and Chairmen for decades.
I get the feeling that it's like s...and arguably to many CEOs of big corporates (and some smaller ones, in my experience, but that's just down to them being incompetent, not because the salary is obscene).
But in a free market, the market sets the price. Or rather the old boys club typically at this level...would be interesting to do a statistical review of FTSE-100 and NYSE-100 CEOs to see:
- How many are female
- How many are from ethnic minorities
- How many didn't go to private schools
- ...and most tellingly (as I think 1 and 2 may have progressed slightly), how many haven't been networked to the hilt with a load of other CEOs and Chairmen for decades.
t football managers they just sit there and then the phone rings and back in the game somewhere else until that fecks up and rinse repeat...And the Public Sector is even worse, as people are slowly beginning to realise with the PO.
We have a perverse idea that a bug salary is a bad thing it makes you a sell out or no longer part of the workforce etc. Often gap between you an next level is £2k and realistically that's about £60 a month more in take home.
So ask yourself would you take responsibility for 1000s of staff, potentially billions of pounds in shareholder value, have yout public and private life scrutinised for just say 150k or 200k it's really nit worth it
Loads of them are happy to say that the total amount of money they're paid isn't that important to them. What they care about is how they're paid relative to their peers. For example, who wants to be the worst paid CEO of a big supermarket chain? It's the exact same thing as the salesman staring at each others cars in the carpark. They'll all put up with a Cortina until one of them gets a Grenada, then all hell breaks loose.
Market forces have no way of correcting this sort of problem. It requires coordinated intervention, if you choose to try to tackle the problem rather than just ignore it.
Market forces have no way of correcting this sort of problem. It requires coordinated intervention, if you choose to try to tackle the problem rather than just ignore it.
However, salaries CAN be justified. These people are the top performers in business and responsible for millions/hundreds of millions of pounds of money, their decisions can make or break a company and put hundreds or thousands of people out of work if they get it wrong.
In the UK we like to hate them for being so wealthy but most are smarter, more hard-working and simply better overall in business, no different to anything else in life. In the USA people aspire to be like them, we prefer to despise their successes.
In the UK we like to hate them for being so wealthy but most are smarter, more hard-working and simply better overall in business, no different to anything else in life. In the USA people aspire to be like them, we prefer to despise their successes.
You make it sound like they do this single handedly.
There is a pyramid of employees who all play a part in the success of a company and have a direct effect on the profitability etc.
The CEO can go on holiday without the sky falling in.
They pay themselves too much in comparison to the rest of the staff.
Why? Because they can.
There is a pyramid of employees who all play a part in the success of a company and have a direct effect on the profitability etc.
The CEO can go on holiday without the sky falling in.
They pay themselves too much in comparison to the rest of the staff.
Why? Because they can.
Frimley111R said:
However, salaries CAN be justified. These people are the top performers in business and responsible for millions/hundreds of millions of pounds of money, their decisions can make or break a company and put hundreds or thousands of people out of work if they get it wrong.
In the UK we like to hate them for being so wealthy but most are smarter, more hard-working and simply better overall in business, no different to anything else in life. In the USA people aspire to be like them, we prefer to despise their successes.
BullsIn the UK we like to hate them for being so wealthy but most are smarter, more hard-working and simply better overall in business, no different to anything else in life. In the USA people aspire to be like them, we prefer to despise their successes.
t. There has been plenty of research to show CEO performance has very little impact on the company. Unless they are monumentally stupid or arrogant (going on TV to tell the world your product is crap) they don’t have those risks. Just look at the number of public CEO failures where they get a payout bigger than most people’s life time earnings and then swan off to the next gig.They are despised because most people are aware that they get paid for going to the right school, knowing the right people and bulls
tting their way to the top.I’m sure someone will be along to tell me how it’s envy, I should ha e worked harder etc. but the facts show 50% of CEOs in the FTSE 350 are privately educated. In the FTSE 100 it’s over 60%.
EmBe said:
Boardroom salaries are way too high, but they mark their own homework so aside from government intervention (which I'm against both ideologially and practically - they balls up everything they touch) then what can be done?
And the Public Sector is even worse, as people are slowly beginning to realise with the PO.
The post office isn’t public sector… it’s a state owned private limited company. A very, very different thing, especially when talking about things line management renumeration.And the Public Sector is even worse, as people are slowly beginning to realise with the PO.
Electro1980 said:
Frimley111R said:
However, salaries CAN be justified. These people are the top performers in business and responsible for millions/hundreds of millions of pounds of money, their decisions can make or break a company and put hundreds or thousands of people out of work if they get it wrong.
In the UK we like to hate them for being so wealthy but most are smarter, more hard-working and simply better overall in business, no different to anything else in life. In the USA people aspire to be like them, we prefer to despise their successes.
BullsIn the UK we like to hate them for being so wealthy but most are smarter, more hard-working and simply better overall in business, no different to anything else in life. In the USA people aspire to be like them, we prefer to despise their successes.
t. There has been plenty of research to show CEO performance has very little impact on the company. Unless they are monumentally stupid or arrogant (going on TV to tell the world your product is crap) they don’t have those risks. Just look at the number of public CEO failures where they get a payout bigger than most people’s life time earnings and then swan off to the next gig.They are despised because most people are aware that they get paid for going to the right school, knowing the right people and bulls
tting their way to the top.I’m sure someone will be along to tell me how it’s envy, I should ha e worked harder etc. but the facts show 50% of CEOs in the FTSE 350 are privately educated. In the FTSE 100 it’s over 60%.
Electro1980 said:
Bullst. There has been plenty of research to show CEO performance has very little impact on the company. Unless they are monumentally stupid or arrogant (going on TV to tell the world your product is crap) they don’t have those risks. Just look at the number of public CEO failures where they get a payout bigger than most people’s life time earnings and then swan off to the next gig.
They are despised because most people are aware that they get paid for going to the right school, knowing the right people and bullstting their way to the top.
I’m sure someone will be along to tell me how it’s envy, I should ha e worked harder etc. but the facts show 50% of CEOs in the FTSE 350 are privately educated. In the FTSE 100 it’s over 60%.
While I don’t entirely subscribe to all your points, you're right to expose the myths and fallacies that the poster you responded to seems to have swallowed hook and line. The comparison with the USA always makes me smile, it’s a trope that the right wingers have used for years with absolutely no substance, simply a few anecdotes to grease the wheels and a blind acceptance that the US is the model to follow (anyone for Trump?). t. There has been plenty of research to show CEO performance has very little impact on the company. Unless they are monumentally stupid or arrogant (going on TV to tell the world your product is crap) they don’t have those risks. Just look at the number of public CEO failures where they get a payout bigger than most people’s life time earnings and then swan off to the next gig.They are despised because most people are aware that they get paid for going to the right school, knowing the right people and bulls
tting their way to the top.I’m sure someone will be along to tell me how it’s envy, I should ha e worked harder etc. but the facts show 50% of CEOs in the FTSE 350 are privately educated. In the FTSE 100 it’s over 60%.
If you look at the trends of Executive pay over the last 30 years the situation has become worryingly unbalanced, I’m all for rewarding talent but we need to strike a better balance though I’ve no idea how.
Tom8 said:
Do people really think there is this mystical network of private schools just give a job to their mate or a contract? Clearly not many people have any idea of governance of companies these days. I do however agree, like football managers, it is a merry go round of the same faces rolling into these jobs.
Hilariously, yes they do! Based on something a bloke down the pub said or that they read in the Daily Mail, probably. 
Louis Balfour said:
He is on £4.5m pa if anyone is interested.
He sat in the interview looking like a disenfranchised morris dancer, replete with handlebar moustache, making no attempt to justify his pay. I am of the view that, whilst his role might well justify the salary, he personally does not.
What channel was this on?He sat in the interview looking like a disenfranchised morris dancer, replete with handlebar moustache, making no attempt to justify his pay. I am of the view that, whilst his role might well justify the salary, he personally does not.
borcy said:
Louis Balfour said:
He is on £4.5m pa if anyone is interested.
He sat in the interview looking like a disenfranchised morris dancer, replete with handlebar moustache, making no attempt to justify his pay. I am of the view that, whilst his role might well justify the salary, he personally does not.
What channel was this on?He sat in the interview looking like a disenfranchised morris dancer, replete with handlebar moustache, making no attempt to justify his pay. I am of the view that, whilst his role might well justify the salary, he personally does not.
The presenters looked quite surprised and were briefly lost for words.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff