Pericles,

"screw-the-rich" is an interesting choice of term you use, particularly when we're talking in relation to Rupert Murdoch. This is the guy who adheres to a "come from a position of strength, drive a hard bargain and make myself rich at everyone else's expense, and when they remonstrate to glibly blame them for the situation they're in" school of doing things.

Instead of blaming me for doing the screwing, which I've never done in my life BTW, I suggest you do a 180 degree spin in your chair to see who are the real masters of the screwing.

Pericles, whether you know it or not, you're acting as a front man for all the self-serving, elitist masters of the universe.

*I think you stand on the extreme right side of the new-conservatives.*

Antonios, you are free to think whatever you like, but you could
also be very wrong. That is your problem, not my problem.

I have not responded to the question of CEO salaries as I was
debating other points and I don't see the issue in simplistic
black and white terms as you do. It is more complex then that.

I am on record in the OLO archives for having pointed out that
CEOs of Japanese and Korean companies earn far less then those
of Western CEOs, yet in global terms, Toyota for instance has
run rings around GM, Ford and others.

That said, Asians in general are more loyal to the companies
for which they work, so salary is only one point. Westerners
are commonly far more mercenary and will change employers
relatively commonly, if more money is offered by somebody else.

Your first mistake is to assume that CEO salaries are a big
cost. Not so, as there are so few of them. Even if the CEO
of Pacific Brands was paid only 1$, the savings would not even
pay the payroll tax of the 1850 workers that she plans to fire
or sell.

I personally think that company shareholders should vote on
the salary packages offered to CEOs. Those risking their
capital would then be responsible for their actions, if they appoint a dud as CEO and he/she
bankrupts the company.

Are there times when a large salary is justified? I think
there are. Back in the early 90s, the management
of Westpac nearly bankrupted the bank and an American, Bob
Joss, was brought in to turn things around. He did a great
job, but he was not about to pack up in America, move his
family and friends and come here, if the salary did not
make it worth his while.

Similarly Chip Goodyear did a great job at BHP, for
around 3 million a year. That was cheap compared to somebody
being hired for 500k, who might have stuffed the company and
lost-billions.

Pericles,
I value you intelligence please don’t insult mine.
Executive greed is rampant the whole credit crash was based on it.
Class, equality is not at issue basic humanity and equity is.

Although the child labour or sweat shop attitude is rife in these countries.
Local rates come on P there’s a world of difference between fair pay and exploitism. You ignored conditions including pollution issues oh yes that local conditions….shall we talk about uneven bargaining. “ Mr 3rd world pres. I’m thinking of setting up a factory in your country with 400 workers…I want tax breaks…special labour rates …no unions…6 days per week and 12 hr days.” You know as well as I do the business could pay more and still make a profit.
Yes I know locals screw locals there but where is it written that the escapee from 1st world restrictions must join in.

Oh yes lets manufacture products in the third world that for either product health or hazardous manufacturing practices are banned in the 1st world. Talk about Dickensian attitudes.

Have you deliberately(?) Missed the point. No body is suggesting screwing anyone.
Neither Rob nor I are getting in anyone’s way merely saying that the priorities are wrong that this disparity is available. (full stop)

Where some one comes from in fact the whole point was irrelevant. Why was it included if not to start violins?
>The general public identifies with these people < Bollocks! The public are manipulated into strive to emulate these people through constant clever advertising. Selling the notion that “If I buy these clothes perfume et al I too can be hot or what ever the term is this week. It’s manipulation of people insecurities need for belonging. ( Psych 101)”.

A moderation of the excesses that are rife will not result in a bureaucrat levying what ever.
I thought such black or white reasoning was beneath you. Apart from this aberration I still prefer to think it is .

Yabby,
If Asian CEOs with less money do the same job with Western CEOs and if Asian CEOs who receive less money for the same job are more loyal than Western CEOs who are ready to leave the company for more money then Western CEOs have a huge problem which is releated with their ethos, their culture, their moral code, their maturity.
Do you think persons with these characteristics are ready to manage a big company? Do you expect from this kind of CEOs to unterstand the meaning of their role, to have developed human or social sensitivities?
Do you think this kind of CEO who have no connection with the company they work, no connection with the people who are working under themDO YOU THINK THIS KIND OF CEOs could create something important? NO! They are useless!
Yabby
You did not write anything for Obama's policy about CEOs income. I think in the past you was Obama's supporter and not an extreme neo-conservative!
Yabby, I understand your worries but do not forget that it is not for first time that presidents, parliaments or senates which involved in the businesses and made some changes in business practises. Always there was some persons who was against these changes but often we have had changes and most of them was very helpful for the buseness , for the employees, the society, for the country.
You have plenty knowledges, you know many things about economy but from your texts it is missed your seoul, you write as a beaurocrat, as a competitor, as a writer BUT not as a creator, not as an artist. I know from the past that you have a sensitivy seoul but you afraid to express your self, you afraid to write what you want realy!
NOW IT IS TIME FOR SOME LIMITS TO CEOs INCOME.
Your support not only in this forum but in your channels, is very important.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

I know that it all makes perfect sense from where you stand, RobP, I just happen to disagree with you, that's all.

>>Pericles, whether you know it or not, you're acting as a front man for all the self-serving, elitist masters of the universe<<

Sloganism. Not particularly illuminating, but it does save your having to think through the realities of what you are asking.

>>"screw-the-rich" is an interesting choice of term you use, particularly when we're talking in relation to Rupert Murdoch<<

Who was talking about Rupert Murdoch? I thought that Sarah was your target, who is merely an in-law. Are you suggesting that she is not allowed to make a career for herself, simply because she married the son of a media mogul?

But you know, the remedy to this is in your own hands.

According to the rumour mill, the celebrities involved are on a retainer of around $200,000. Big bikkies, agreed. But for that, they have to give their full support to everything that Pacific Brands ask them to. I would imagine that their contracts are so watertight, that they would be sued from here to eternity if they broke a single clause. Which would prohibit them, in any event, from paying back the dollars. Shows disloyalty, you see.

Where the big money normally comes in with celebrity agreements such as this, is through a share of the increased profits that are attributed to the campaign - so for the duration of the contract, they'd share, say, around 5-10%% of the additional value they created for the company.

So if you really feel strongly about this, the simplest remedy is to boycott the product. Get all your friends to do the same, and you will have a significant impact upon their earnings.

Of course, you might at the same time put the jobs of the remaining workers here in jeopardy - but hey, it's all in the name of fairness and equality, isn't it?

And if they have to close some factories in China too, so what? They'll probably be glad to be out of the sweatshop.

Antonios, I am indeed a supporter of Barack Obama, but what you
are suggesting and he is suggesting, are quite different.

His point is that companies being bankrolled by the Govt, should
have restrictions put on the salaries of their CEOs. Fair enough.

If you are suggesting that all Australian CEOs should be limited
to earning 500'000$, then I would have to disagree with you.

If Govts want CEOs to justify their salaries, then they should
mandate that shareholders vote on those salaries, for it is
shareholder money that is at stake here. At the moment it is
so called "salary experts" who make suggestions to boards, who
then normally agree.

There are times when a company is up the creek and needs some
real talent, perhaps from overseas, to come and turn the whole
thing around. Take the case of Coles for instance. They turn
over huge amounts, but hardly make any money. Its all costs,
overheads etc. Wesfarmers have now hired a top man from
Britain, where supermarkets are far better organised and far
more competitive then in Australia, to come and add his
expertise and try and turn the place around. The man would
not have left his whole life behind, if you offered him peanuts.

If he succeeds, not only will staff be better off, but
customers will be better off, so will shareholders, ie a win win
all round. Why should I complain about his salary?

Business is not about poetry or emotion, it is dog eat dog,
it is about survival of the fittest. This is not driven by
CEOs or staff, it is driven by customers, who want value
for their money. Fair enough.