63 times average

[Gerokent]

"THE average total pay for chief executives in Australia’s top listed companies has hit $4.84 million — 63 times an average worker’s earnings.":eek:

And the ordinary ozzy worker is to blame for the cost of labour being too high so we can't compete with other countries.

[TerryO]

There is always at least two ways of looking at every argument. Not saying one is right or one is wrong.

However think about it like this, if next year the top 100 company's bosses were given a $1,000,000 a year pay rise each then that would cost business $100,000,000 in extra costs.

From memory (which isn't that good) there are roughly 8,000,000 workers in Australia, so next year give each of them a $5 a day pay rise or $1,300 per annum then that works out at $10,400,000,000 per year.

So 10.5 billion dollars in added wages costs for a tiny wage increase for the masses versus a $100,000,000 increase for a tiny number of bosses I reckon tends to put arguments about is it the bosses wages or the employees wages and their increases that are having the greatest impact on business costs.

[nugge t]

When you look at the actual data, it isn't as rosy as it might first appear with CEO salaries have actually fallen 33% since they peaked at 94% average earnings. A couple of big payouts also skewed the number a bit as well.
Pay packets for top bosses hit $4.8m
· Trevor Chappell
· AAP
· September 18, 2014 8:25AM


THE average total pay for chief executives in Australia's top listed companies has hit $4.84 million - 63 times an average worker's earnings.


THE bosses of Australia's top 100 companies listed on the stock market received 2.9 per cent more in total statutory pay in the 2013 financial year than in the previous 12 months.


But the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors' (ACSI) annual survey of CEO pay found that their average total pay was at its lowest level in a decade when compared to average earnings.


On that basis, total CEO pay was 33 per cent below the peak in 2007, when it was 94 times average earnings.


Also, the increase in average total pay in 2013 was boosted by termination-related payments to the boss of blood products and vaccines maker CSL, Brian McNamee, who retired.


Excluding those payments, average CEO statutory pay would have been $4.73 million - marginally higher than in 2012.


ACSI said greater focus by investors and boards on executive pay following the global financial crisis in 2008 had resulted in CEO pay lagging behind inflation and general wages growth.


"We have seen fewer votes against remuneration reports over the past year as remuneration packages have improved in the market," ACSI chief executive Gordon Hagart said.


"Specific improvements include the major reduction in termination payments, more demanding bonus hurdles, longer performance measurement periods, and an end to the culture where bonuses are seen as entitlement rather than reward for outperformance."


Mr McNamee was the highest paid chief executive in ACSI's survey, taking home $19.1 million. That sum included $10 million related to his retirement at the end of 2013.


The lowest paid CEO in the top 100 was Regis Resources' Mark Clark, who received $616,972.


The survey also found that the "golden parachute" given to terminated chief executives wasn't as shiny as it used to be.


The median termination payout to CEOs dropped from $3.5 million in 2008 to $1.3 million in 2013.


Thirteen payouts in 2008 to top 100 CEOs totalled $83 million.


In 2013, there were nine CEO payouts totalling $12 million.


TOP FIVE PAID CEOS IN 2013


(STATUTORY PAY)


1 Brian McNamee, CSL, $19.1m


2 Peter & Steven Lowy, Westfield Group, $18.4m


3 Mike Smith, ANZ, $10.1m


4 Sam Walsh, Rio Tinto, $9.5m


5 Gail Kelly, Westpac, $9.2m

[Gerokent]

I wonder if the CEO's pay packets are included in the total used to find the average. I would dare say so. But anything can be proven either way by the use of statistics.

[numpty]

There is always at least two ways of looking at every argument. Not saying one is right or one is wrong.

Yes, there are two ways of looking at this .......... are they worth it, or are they not.

I'm of the considered opinion, that "no one" is worth obscene amounts such as this, no matter who they are or what they do.

[TerryO]

There is an old saying that springs to mind. ... If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

If I had a large amount of my personal superannuation fund invested in shares in a publicly listed company then I would want to know that one of the best business minds was running the company and looking after the future of my retirement investment not some middle of the field manager who was prepared to work for a small financial package.

Again it's all about peanuts and monkeys.

[Rurover]

I'm of the opinion that executive pay should be tied to the average pay rate of the workers in the organisation.
Recently read a fascinating book about the incredibly corrosive effects of a large gap between rich and poor in a community. It's called "The Spirit Level" by Wilkinson & Pickett.The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_ Always_Do_Better)

It uses many measures and statistics to show that inequality leads to many of the social problems now afflicting Western countries. In other words it's not how much money the average person makes that leads to unhappiness and discontent, but the gap between the haves and have-nots. So people living in a relatively poor society can be happy and fulfilled, and free of social problems, as long as everyone more or less feels equal.

Australia used to pride itself on being a fair and egalitarian society, but sadly we're drifting away from that ideal, and we're ALL paying the costs... rich and poor.

Alan

[Gerokent]

Yes but the head monkey is only as good as the monkey(s) backing him/her up.
No one can run a big business alone.

[TerryO]

As good old Winston once said ... "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

We can all pine for the way the world once was in our memories, but in reality history is only ever remembered and seen through rose coloured classes.

The world has moved on, nothing you or I can do about that other than make the most of it while we can.

How is that for being profound before the sun has even gone over the yard arm? ... ;)

[incisor]

How is that for being profound before the sun has even gone over the yard arm? ... ;)
i'm impressed!

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[nugge t]

Yes but the head monkey is only as good as the monkey(s) backing him/her up.
No one can run a big business alone.


That is true but at some point someone has to have the vision and drive to make the company go..the old saying about where the buck stops.


A very good example is Gina Rheinhardt as I posted in a separate thread. That venture would never have gotten off the ground but for 20 years of determination, drive, vision and heaven forbid, money. She made it happen and I bet it wouldn't happened if the returns were linked to average earnings.

[Chenz]

That is true but at some point someone has to have the vision and drive to make the company go..the old saying about where the buck stops.


A very good example is Gina Rheinhardt as I posted in a separate thread. That venture would never have gotten off the ground but for 20 years of determination, drive, vision and heaven forbid, money. She made it happen and I bet it wouldn't happened if the returns were linked to average earnings.

There is a very big difference between someone who puts their money into a venture and then reaps the benefits or losses due to their entrepreneurial skills and a person recruited to a company for a large salary.

I am all for rewarding persons for success. If the company is successful, there will be more jobs, which in turn stimulates the economy and so on and so forth.

What I object to is CEOs getting huge salaries when the company is failing.

Tie salaries to a company's success and if they do a good job, good on em let them share in the wealth and benefits, but if the company is not doing well under their leadership, take a cut or get rid of them without the massive payout figure.

[Gerokent]

As good old Winston once said ... "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

We can all pine for the way the world once was in our memories, but in reality history is only ever remembered and seen through rose coloured classes.

The world has moved on, nothing you or I can do about that other than make the most of it while we can.

How is that for being profound before the sun has even gone over the yard arm? ... ;)

That's very defeatist. IMO everything should be questioned otherwise peopole will get ripped off at every turn.
Don Chipp "To keep the bastards honest"

[TerryO]

If you tie a CEO 's salary to success, especially in the short term which is what every investor wants, then all you get is short sighted decisions made to give short term rewards.

A easy way and well proven way for short term profits in a large company is to sack lots of people, this works in the short term as overheads go down quickly. But usually has a medium to long term negative effect on how the company grows as you often lose your best people when you offer redundancy packages.

It nearly always comes back to peanuts and monkeys.

[nugge t]

There is a very big difference between someone who puts their money into a venture and then reaps the benefits or losses due to their entrepreneurial skills and a person recruited to a company for a large salary.

I am all for rewarding persons for success. If the company is successful, there will be more jobs, which in turn stimulates the economy and so on and so forth.

What I object to is CEOs getting huge salaries when the company is failing.

Tie salaries to a company's success and if they do a good job, good on em let them share in the wealth and benefits, but if the company is not doing well under their leadership, take a cut or get rid of them without the massive payout figure.



Could not agree more but that could apply all the way down the line as well.


A CEO is still where the buck stops in big companies and they are the ones who set the vision. A good example is Apple.

[TerryO]

That's very defeatist. IMO everything should be questioned otherwise peopole will get ripped off at every turn.
Don Chipp "To keep the bastards honest"


Nothing defeatist in my comments as I was referring to making the most of life in the short period we have on this planet.
For me the best way to make the most of life is to keep moving and not dwell to much on how good we remember it used to be in the past.

Each to their own. ... ;)

[Mick_Marsh]

A easy way and well proven way for short term profits in a large company is to sack lots of people, this works in the short term as overheads go down quickly.
That's been the Australian way of doing business for well over a decade.

But usually has a medium to long term negative effect on how the company grows as you often lose your best people when you offer redundancy packages.
I can see you'll never become a captain of industry.

[BMKal]

How is that for being profound before the sun has even gone over the yard arm? ... ;)

Speaking of the sun going over the yard arm .............................. isn't today International Pirates' Day. :eek:


Aaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ....................... :D