|
||||||||
FTSE bosses earn more by today than average worker all year |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,201
|
FTSE bosses earn more by today than average worker all year
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. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,262
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,312
|
They deserve it, if they weren't paid it then they'd go elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,312
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,812
|
Quote:
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. Incidentally, I was called a sociopath by a regular contributor to this forum for putting this idea forward. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Isle of Wight
Posts: 7,811
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,262
|
Quote:
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.
The fat cats are getting paid similar amounts just for essentially doing a normal job. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,735
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,679
|
Quote:
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.
Should there be a limit on how much (Sir) Andy Murray or Lewis Hamilton earn? |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,636
|
Quote:
They deserve it, if they weren't paid it then they'd go elsewhere.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Isle of Wight
Posts: 7,811
|
Quote:
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 577
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,402
|
Quote:
They deserve it, if they weren't paid it then they'd go elsewhere.
Quote:
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.
The same very often cannot be said of executives. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,679
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,995
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norwich
Posts: 7,790
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norwich
Posts: 7,790
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 15,121
|
Quote:
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 15,121
|
Quote:
So you would prefer to have your highest salaried people playing football and selling shirts, rather than building houses or investing in factories?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,636
|
Quote:
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?
Either way, not technically employees so they don't count. I do agree that they need to rein this stuff in though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,662
|
Good for them...this is what free market capitalism is all about after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,423
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
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: Quote:
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 *****. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:07.


