DS Forums

 
 

FTSE bosses earn more by today than average worker all year


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-01-2017, 08:39
Aristaeus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,199

By lunchtime today, the average FTSE 100 boss will have earned more money than the average-waged worker will make in the entire year. And it's still only the 4th of January!

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...-cat-wednesday

We really do need a maximum salary which is linked to to the lowest waged employee. In the 60's and 70's, the average FTSE boss earned 40 times the lowest waged employee, this has risen to 400 times the lowest waged employee.
Aristaeus is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-01-2017, 09:36
Vast_Girth
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,261
A maximum salary is a good idea. Even though the fat cats will just find ways around it (share options etc) to pay themselves more, at least it means the lowest paid should get more.
Vast_Girth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 09:40
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,307
They deserve it, if they weren't paid it then they'd go elsewhere.
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 09:53
indianwells
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,236
In a free market economy how do you dictate how much the people at the top earn in a private company? It doesn't sit well but I don't see how government can legislate. Nobody seems to object when the likes of Gareth Bale gets paid £70m(?) a year.
indianwells is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 09:57
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,307
In a free market economy how do you dictate how much the people at the top earn in a private company? It doesn't sit well but I don't see how government can legislate. Nobody seems to object when the likes of Gareth Bale gets paid £70m(?) a year.
Gareth Bale is fairly unique, most bosses aren't. Their pay is determined mainly by what other bosses are being paid not how good they are.
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:14
GreatGodPan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,805
By lunchtime today, the average FTSE 100 boss will have earned more money than the average-waged worker will make in the entire year. And it's still only the 4th of January!

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...-cat-wednesday

We really do need a maximum salary which is linked to to the lowest waged employee
. In the 60's and 70's, the average FTSE boss earned 40 times the lowest waged employee, this has risen to 400 times the lowest waged employee.
Agreed, although it is difficult to introduce in a capitalist economy. Much easier in a socialist one.

Incidentally, I was called a sociopath by a regular contributor to this forum for putting this idea forward.
GreatGodPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:20
ShaunIOW
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Isle of Wight
Posts: 7,810
I object to the term earn, and think get given is more appropriate as I doub't they actually 'earn' their money in a day and a half.
ShaunIOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:29
Vast_Girth
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,261
In a free market economy how do you dictate how much the people at the top earn in a private company? It doesn't sit well but I don't see how government can legislate. Nobody seems to object when the likes of Gareth Bale gets paid £70m(?) a year.
I think people do object, but they understand why Gareth Bale gets paid so much. Millions of people are prepared to pay to watch Gareth Bale, so like many other celebs, he essentially is the brand. To go along with his wealth he also has all the drawbacks of fame such as being in the media spotlight, etc.

The fat cats are getting paid similar amounts just for essentially doing a normal job.
Vast_Girth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:38
paulschapman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,726
Agreed, although it is difficult to introduce in a capitalist economy. Much easier in a socialist one.

Incidentally, I was called a sociopath by a regular contributor to this forum for putting this idea forward.

You don't need a maximum salary. Just insist that all PLCs have a pay remuneration board made up of independent shareholders, employees and a representative for the board - and this board sets the pay. Employees should be protected so that they are free to comment without fear of losing employment. Those boards should be minuted and form part of the annual accounts , alongside pay ratios. As this will then be public that information can be used to put public pressure to change the situation.

Given that there is little correlation between the performance of companies on the FTSE and board pay - it follows that in letting independent shareholders have a say may make board level payments more responsive to the performance of the company.
paulschapman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:51
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,670
A maximum salary is a good idea. Even though the fat cats will just find ways around it (share options etc) to pay themselves more, at least it means the lowest paid should get more.
How would a maximum salary work for those who make their income through royalties? If I write a best selling book or a chart topping album or star in a blockbuster film should there be a limit on what I earn? How could that be enforced globally?

Should there be a limit on how much (Sir) Andy Murray or Lewis Hamilton earn?
LostFool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:53
moox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,633
They deserve it, if they weren't paid it then they'd go elsewhere.
They patently don't deserve to be on orders of magnitude more than the average employee. More, yes, but not this scale.

The boards of these large companies seem to believe that they need to pay megabucks to get "the best", and it just leads to a bidding war.

With the money that they're on, according to the law of CEO worship, these companies should all be world leaders in their field. Not many of them are.

We're usually paying for incompetence - and then we pay again when they "resign" and get a massive golden parachute. And let's not forget how responsibility is a one way street. How many FTSE CEOs will take the blame for the bad news? They like to personally take the credit (and the cash) when times are good.
moox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:59
ShaunIOW
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Isle of Wight
Posts: 7,810
How would a maximum salary work for those who make their income through royalties? If I write a best selling book or a chart topping album or star in a blockbuster film should there be a limit on what I earn? How could that be enforced globally?

Should there be a limit on how much (Sir) Andy Murray or Lewis Hamilton earn?
Those you mention are essentialy self-employed, and their income is dependent on their own success, which isn't the case with bosses who get their pay and bonuses regardless and if they screw up really badly, a massive pay-off.
ShaunIOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 11:05
NilSatisOptimum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 577
By lunchtime today, the average FTSE 100 boss will have earned more money than the average-waged worker will make in the entire year. And it's still only the 4th of January!

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...-cat-wednesday

We really do need a maximum salary which is linked to to the lowest waged employee. In the 60's and 70's, the average FTSE boss earned 40 times the lowest waged employee, this has risen to 400 times the lowest waged employee.
It's European Union's fault, those fat cats are all in it together.
NilSatisOptimum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 11:18
Glawster2002
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,402
They deserve it, if they weren't paid it then they'd go elsewhere.
Studies have shown that there is very little correlation between company performance and the rise in executive pay, if there was such a correlation people would be more inclined to believe that.

In a free market economy how do you dictate how much the people at the top earn in a private company? It doesn't sit well but I don't see how government can legislate. Nobody seems to object when the likes of Gareth Bale gets paid £70m(?) a year.
Whilst I think Gareth Bale, and other high earners in sport such as F1 drivers, are vastly overpaid I can see that their particular skills will attract such a premium in a delivery-based occupation where results are everything.

The same very often cannot be said of executives.
Glawster2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 11:37
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,670
Those you mention are essentialy self-employed, and their income is dependent on their own success, which isn't the case with bosses who get their pay and bonuses regardless and if they screw up really badly, a massive pay-off.
I just wouldn't want to live in a world where there is a legal limit to what you can earn in business but not to what you can make winning the X Factor.
LostFool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 11:45
jmclaugh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,965
Their remuneration package should have to be approved by shareholders annually and much more of it should be directly subject to the performance of the company and golden handshakes for departing executives should also be subject to approval by shareholders.
jmclaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 11:55
mungobrush
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norwich
Posts: 7,788
Meanwhile, in that Socialist Paradise called China, Ronaldo was offered an annual salary of $105,581,500 (€100 million) from an unnamed team that was offering Real Madrid around $316 million as a transfer fee for the Portuguese star. That would have easily set the world transfer record.

Just to add - that equates to $2 million a week - just to play football.

At least entrepreneurs generate business that creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and pay taxes
mungobrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:15
jcafcw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,439
The difference is that players like Ronaldo generate income from shirt sales, tv rights etc. which means their wages is delivered by performance - does their team win the titles, does his generate merchandising.

Not all company bosses have their pay decided by performance.
jcafcw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:22
mungobrush
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norwich
Posts: 7,788
The difference is that players like Ronaldo generate income from shirt sales, tv rights etc. which means their wages is delivered by performance - does their team win the titles, does his generate merchandising.

Not all company bosses have their pay decided by performance.
So you would prefer to have your highest salaried people playing football and selling shirts, rather than building houses or investing in factories?
mungobrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:25
Phil 2804
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 15,119
How would a maximum salary work for those who make their income through royalties? If I write a best selling book or a chart topping album or star in a blockbuster film should there be a limit on what I earn? How could that be enforced globally?

Should there be a limit on how much (Sir) Andy Murray or Lewis Hamilton earn?
One way is a general rule that highest salary in a company cannot be more than multiple of the lowest salary. Say 20 times the lowest salary. One advantage of that is that would put an end to endemic corporate culture that exists in the UK of cutting staff pay and conditions at each an every turn even when the business is making profit. After all if boardroom pay is linked to the shop floor there is no incentive for them to cut pay by 10% is there?
Phil 2804 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:29
Phil 2804
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 15,119
So you would prefer to have your highest salaried people playing football and selling shirts, rather than building houses or investing in factories?
There's not much evidence that FTSE 100 Executives do those things either. There is an endless list of companies where the pay of the boardroom has almost no connection to the growth and financial performance of the company they work for. At least with footballers there is usually a proven connection between their ability and pay packet.
Phil 2804 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:51
moox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,633
One way is a general rule that highest salary in a company cannot be more than multiple of the lowest salary. Say 20 times the lowest salary. One advantage of that is that would put an end to endemic corporate culture that exists in the UK of cutting staff pay and conditions at each an every turn even when the business is making profit. After all if boardroom pay is linked to the shop floor there is no incentive for them to cut pay by 10% is there?
I can just imagine that will lead to companies finding complex legal arrangements to get around that. Like "outsourcing" the board to a special purpose vehicle where everyone's inexplicably on a massive pay packet. Or outsourcing the minimum wagers to an even worse firm.

Either way, not technically employees so they don't count.

I do agree that they need to rein this stuff in though.
moox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:56
glasshalffull
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,662
Good for them...this is what free market capitalism is all about after all.
glasshalffull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:00
Slojo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,419
Personally I don't care what a CEO gets paid as long as it's linked to success. I do object to CEO's that fail and then get a massive payoff to go.

As far as linking Executive pay with workers it's a crazy idea. The jobs are in no way comparable and it would simply result in the best executives leaving the UK for better paid job abroad.

At a time when we need the best people in position to drive our companies forward the last thing you want to do is lose them.
Slojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:13
digitalspyfan1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 650
If you want a good reason why no-one should ever vote, check out Theresa May's first speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street and then think about today and the huge bonuses for city workers!

Part of her speech:

The Government I lead will be driven, not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours. We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives. When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws, we’ll listen not to the mighty, but to you. When it comes to taxes, we’ll prioritise not the wealthy, but you. When it comes to opportunity, we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few, we will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.
So what's she done to change the greed of the city? Nothing! No new taxes, no curbs on bonuses, no further regulation of the city.

I accept we live in a free market economy so that means the rich can get richer but May's words about trying to make society work for everyone sounds hollow. And if Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party are destined to lose the next election it seems more people are naturally right wing and not for a fairer society!

Slightly off-topic but I also think the huge rise in train fares is another racket the government does nothing about. Huge cost in travel bites into people's incomes and this is more proof the government couldn't give a *****.
digitalspyfan1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:29.