'Bout freakin time.

Andrew.C · by Andrew.C on Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:19 pm

http://business.smh.com.au/business/down-the-golden-chute-20090216-88cu.html?page=2

Article wrote:Higginson has upped the ante in the governance debate on executive pay by calling on government to ban the practice by legislation. Until now the governance fraternity has only gone so far as to call for caps on severance payouts.

[...]

''(Golden parachutes) are almost always paid out to under-performing executives who have usually failed dismally and dramatically, and caused hundreds of millions of dollars of company wealth to disappear in short order simply to enable these woeful performers to be removed from the company quietly and with a minimum of fuss, and reputational damage,'' says Higginson, not to put too fine a point on it.

[...]

Crunch time for pay arrived last year with the global financial crisis. And despite a 16.9% decline in the ASX 200 share index to June, chief executives managed somehow, on average, to enjoy a pay rise.

[...]

The top 58 CEOs split $88 million between them in 2004 while, according to the annual AFR salary survey, the top ten alone took home $156 million between them in 2007. And that was in a year when sharemarket values had receded to pre-2004 levels.

It's a fair call to say that executive pay is out of control.

Tom · by Tom on Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:23 am

I, in no way, absolutely do not, agree with that. I agree that paying someone a lot of money to stay silent and leave quietly is a bit dumb when you can just force them out, but we are capitalist. People should be able to shoot for the moon and see it as an atainable goal. A lot of executives enjoy massive pay packets because, to be frank, they deserve them. They head billion dollar companies and have more stress placed on them that the President of the USA with share holders and board members expecting growth all the time. To say that they get paid 'too much' is rather an inflammatory statement given that there is nothing to compare it to. Its like saying that water is too wet, or that gravity is too harsh. They do because they can and they do because they should and who are we to say otherwise. Just because we don't get paid as much as them doesn't mean that they are evil because they do. A lot of these people, not all but a lot put money back into the comunity as well so...

Can't have it both ways, you can't have a societal system that encourages economic growth and competition and then cap the upper limit of achievement. It isn't these people who caused the economic crisis it was dodgy lending by small time lenders that caused it. Its spending by these people that will get us out!

Andrew.C · by Andrew.C on Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:06 pm

Tom wrote:A lot of executives enjoy massive pay packets because, to be frank, they deserve them.

This I couldn’t agree less with. I wholeheartedly deny that they ‘deserve’ the criminally exhorbitant pay packages they give themselves (essentially). Justifying it by saying that they have a great amount of stress is, I’m pretty sure, not just inaccurate (I believe there’s studies to show that the people in the low end of the income spectrum suffer far greater stress than those at the top) but it also, in my mind, is just not acceptable; it’s probably stressful being the leader of a crime syndicate, but who cares — it doesn’t justify them getting paid ludicrous amounts.

Tom wrote:To say that they get paid 'too much' is rather an inflammatory statement given that there is nothing to compare it to.

Nothing to compare it to? We compare it to the reality around them in which they are (should be!) operating in, and the fact that there are probably countless jobs or individuals who are as (if not more) stressed, dedicated, skilled, hardworking, important etc. at their jobs but don’t get paid a fraction of what they do.

Tom wrote:Just because we don't get paid as much as them doesn't mean that they are evil because they do.

I disagree.

Tom wrote:A lot of these people, not all but a lot put money back into the comunity as well so...

As they bloody well should. They stole it (effectively) in the first place; it’s the least that they could do.

Tom wrote:Can't have it both ways, you can't have a societal system that encourages economic growth and competition and then cap the upper limit of achievement.

I don’t understand why.

Tom wrote:It isn't these people who caused the economic crisis it was dodgy lending by small time lenders that caused it.

I don’t think it was just small time lenders. I’m pretty sure it involved big-big lenders doing some pretty fucking dodgy (yet constitutional – only in America!) lending, or, a more accurate term might be, financial raping.

Glenjamin · by Glenjamin on Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:12 am

I'm gonna go in with Andy here...

One of the gents from my church was (possibly still is) part of QBE, he was on the board of directors, he says the money he was being paid was silly- he worked on average 60+ hours a week and yes was under a fair amount of stress, try this though- most social workers (Docs) and medical personnel (nurses, doctors, etc) in remote areas work in excess of 70 hours a week, and do so for far less money. Yes i hear your remarks about stress- try keeping someone alive for days on end, or keeping them from suicide/ murder. How's that for stress?

But you're right Tom, organising meetings and listening to the advice of highly trained analysts (which Mr QBE [i haven't asked his permission so i'll keep his name private] says was the majority of his job at the top) is stressful work considering the alternatives...

Tom · by Tom on Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:46 am

And so you are saying that our society, what our society is based on is wrong..

Suggest an alternative.

Andrew.C · by Andrew.C on Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:36 am

Putting some restrictions on it...? I believe that's what we already do in many situations, don't we?

Nick · by Nick on Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:39 am

I don't know...

Groove Champion · by Groove Champion on Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:37 am

You're not even trying anymore are you Nick?
Pirate

Glenjamin · by Glenjamin on Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:45 pm

I think Andy has it right, and no i seriously doubt Australian society is particularly capitalist (Docs funding, the Dole, public health/education, etc)... but yes, let's cap people's excessive greed please.

Nick · by Nick on Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:06 pm

It's funny because all of those things you mentioned are quite underfunded.

Groove Champion · by Groove Champion on Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:48 pm

No they aren't.
DOCS: Lack of funding isn't the problem. The high amount of pieces of shit who have children and then treat them like shit are the problem.
DOLE: Lets see. A couple on the dole have a child they can't afford. So they get more dole and $5000 cash. I'm all for welfare but it should help the unfortunate not reward stupidity.
HEALTH: The problems here are caused by an unnaturally high demand placed on a poorly designed system by an unhealthy society. The money thrown at this could provide a great system.
EDUCATION: Ummm..... fine, that's underfunded and an increase here would pay for itself eventually. Still, you can't buy intelligence. That's determined by genetics and is also affected somewhat by nutrition while in the womb and during the early developmental years.

Overall I'm just saying that lack of funding isn't the problem. Australians are.
Pirate

Tom · by Tom on Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:50 am

hhahhaaha TREVOR for 2012!

We are a mixture of capatalist and socialist, just like every other western country on the planet. However look at our ethos and it is incredibly capatalist in that, although, as trev says, we 'reward the stupid' those people don't hold positions in society above the lower rungs. Our entire society revolves around achievement and, in most cases, achievement is measured in $$$. We have altruism (in its only form, lets not get into that) where scientists and so forth work for lesser pays etc, but $$$ is driven by consumer demand. Were we to take money from the execs and just give it to these people who are working more 'deserving' jobs... i don't know where i was going with that.. did i just convert myself?

I don't agree with capping anything really. Salary caps for sport don't work, they force players overseas. Salary 'caps' (forced by budget restraints) on scientists and professors makes them also move overseas. Salary caps on execs would make companies move overseas. The more someone has to work for the better they work. If you have an upper level of achievement then what is going to spur someone on, especially a go getter who has attained great hights through hard work (and back stabbing, there i said it). When someone runs out of goals, challenges and sees no incentive for working hard then they tend to either move on or they don't work as hard.

My main problem with this type of thing is that it reverberates everywhere. You remove the freedom to make rediculous amounts of money then it is removing a freedom. The only freedoms that should be removed are the freedoms like 'the freedom to kill another person', 'the freedom to drink and drive'. I do not equate that here, and so i believe it would set a dangerous precedent.

Tom · by Tom on Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:52 am

BTW trev i love the new signature. I will change mine to match

Andrew.C · by Andrew.C on Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:19 am

Yeah, I agree, especially about caps forcing people overseas. But personally I just see that as a reason for global caps (however unlikely). I can kinda understand the desire to work for more money, but why don't those people just work the job they want without thinking about the money? Yeah, I know that's crap, but still, I don't think you can condone it (or justify it, or absolve it. or whatever) just by saying that people 'want that' — to me that is the problem. You ask "what is going to spur them on?" what about 'a job well done,' or 'doing something for the community', or whatever; why is money seen as the only achievement? (I'm pretty sure I know the answer, and that's the problem I want to address).

The freedom thing? Yes, I guess it is removing a freedom, and I think that's fine. One reason for that is because you probably could couch it in terms of those 'bad' freedoms you mentioned: "freedom for excessive greed," to use Glen's nice phrase. That's a freedom I would like to see curbed by governments, but, more ideally, I would like to see people making the choice so that governments didn't have to.

Tom · by Tom on Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:17 pm

Personally, andy, i am going to love earning 100K + when i eventually get there. Love it. And do you know why. Because, if i reach down, right down to the bottom of my soul where all the dirt is I can still find that little part of me that loves the idea of being 'that guy'. I mean there is the part where i never ever have to think about money again. There is the part that loves being able to live in a nice house and send my kids to uni. But there is also that dark, disgusting little bit that everyone has that makes me want to be 'that guy'. The guy that people turn to cause they want something. They guy that can help his mates or hurt his enemies. The power that comes with money. I have shoved it deep inside and i have said to myself that it is because i want to make my life better and my childrens, and my friends, and, if i have enough you had better believe i would help medical science etc. But its always there....

'Bout freakin time.

'Bout freakin time.

Re: 'Bout freakin time.

Re: 'Bout freakin time.

Re: 'Bout freakin time.

Re: 'Bout freakin time.

Re: 'Bout freakin time.

Re: 'Bout freakin time.

Re: 'Bout freakin time.

Re: 'Bout freakin time.

Re: 'Bout freakin time.

Re: 'Bout freakin time.

Re: 'Bout freakin time.

Re: 'Bout freakin time.

Re: 'Bout freakin time.

Re: 'Bout freakin time.