Yabby,
I understand your argument but look at the Mexican banditos that ran Telstra, was he worth what he took out, Bondy, Quintex beneficiaries, FAI, HIH execs, rich executive wives/families etc. Do they suffer the same as the average man when the execs screw up, even relatively? Not on your nelly. Rodney Adler clearly gross incompetent who did time, did it tough he was forced to 'down size' from a $23 million mansion to a $6 million mansion (Awww poor man bugger me). How many farmers, people who were caught lost their homes, life savings? equitable?
Do I go on Packer Jr., Murdock JR got away Scot free. By any reasonable stance Packer Jr is trading on his money etc not necessarily his smarts.

The capitalist god Pty Ltd and its far more virulent, misbegotten, grotesque progeny has unleashed some horrible monsters upon the world.

I would also suggest that greed is fine, providing it's on a level playing field but the context of what I think is being said,it isn't. There are more victims to the vampiristic corporation than beneficiaries.

Did you watch 'hungry beast' about the two supermarket giants, strangle hold of the market in Aust compared to other western economies...Oh yes and the raw deal farmers get? (its on the net and only a few minutes but truly terrifying for those who think of where it's going) Competition? Independence of Government's? what's that?
Yabby, you are right magic pudding is apt the question is Who's getting the biggest cut and why are the rest of the population forced to squabble over ever decreasing share of the pie?
Your view seems to cheer squad the hopelessly inequity.

As for rehctub's 'bleeding hearts' Comment,"Paper deep superficiality" comes to mind.

*I would also suggest that greed is fine, providing it's on a level playing field*

Examinator, I never said that greed was fine, for personally I am
not a greedy person, far more commonly far too generous for my own
good. What I said it that this is reality. Next point, life is not
fair, get over it. If the pretty girl decides not to bang you,
because say you have a big nose and are short, instead shmoozing with
the attractive hunk, then that's just his good fortune, born with
genes that make him look pretty in her eyes. Similarly, some people
face disease etc all their life, despite healthy living, others
abuse their bodies yet are always healthy. That is hardly fair,
that is just how the dna rolled the dice. Just realities of nature and nature is certainly not fair.

Skase, Adler, Bond etc, were not employee CEOs, they were
entrepreneurs who screwed investors and landed up in jail.
I certainly never bought shares in any of their companies, but
like my old uncle used to say, for every fool that dies, another
10 are born :) Scoundrels exist in every sphere of life, including
the corporate world.

I personally also am not jealous of those who inherited heaps of
money, for I don't suffer from envy, as Mikk seems to. What I have
noticed however, is that those kids who do inherit heaps, if they
don't have the aptitude to manage it wisely, there is soon not
much of it left.

As to CEO salaries, we could go through a list of individuals and
how they changed companies, compared to what they were paid. Some
were more then worth it, some were not.

Take a smart CEO like Michael Chaney, who transformed Wesfarmers
from a small farmers coop into a huge company, with shareholders
benefitting all the way and tens of thousands of jobs created.
Frankly he would have been cheap, at double what they paid him.

Similarly Bob Joss, an American import, who turned Westpac around,
when it nearly went broke in the early 90s.

Yabby,
While greed is not confined solely to any one group, I don't think you can compare a push for higher wages for lower income workers with highly inflated salaries of CEOs.

Certainly the trend is more people are spending more than they earn and the level of personal debt has grown, shows a change in the modern mindset in regards to consumerism. I am all about personal responsibility but income disparity is not the same thing.

It is in the ratio between minimum income and highest income that the problem lies. You can't argue that the fight for higher wages or even the right to a living wage is the same as the nest feathering of those who have group power to influence their rates of pay. This is why unions are needed, to collectively fight for the rights of employees. Are unions perfect? No they are full of careerists as much as anyone else but without them who would ensure that rates of pay are 'fair'. The free market won't work because of group vested interests (think banks).

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/

From that article: "In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks."

You and I hold similar views about money. Happiness is not about money unless you are nearing poverty and thankfully we are not.

*I don't think you can compare a push for higher wages for lower income workers with highly inflated salaries of CEOs.*

Pelican, that depends on how you define "lower income workers".
The train drivers that went on strike in the NW, earn over
200k$ a year and admit to being extremely well paid. The
last little 50k$ blackmail was paid to workers already on 6 figures,
hardly lower income. But now that the union is back, it has
the power to hold up multi billion $ investments, by pulling
out a few men. In my eyes that is little more then blackmail,
hardly "negotiation".

Yes, in America there are some huge extremes in CEO salaries,
unlike anything that exists in Australia.

The last figure I can remember, the CEOs of Australias top
20 companies averaged around 10 million. For that they bear
the responsbility of companies worth tens of billions of $.
One strategic mistake can cost a billion or three. The stress
of that kind or responsibility is huuuuge. I certainly would
not want it, even for 10 million.

Some of these companies employ over 100'000 people. Even if you
paid the CEO nothing and spread his salary over the rest of
the workforce, that is around 100$ a head per year, its hardly
going to matter. None of them would be working just 260 days
either.

Take out half their salary in tax and they are left with
5 million. People complain about that, but seem to have
no problem with sports stars, rock stars, earning far far
more.

What a crock Yabby.How can we defend this largesse was the question posed. Yabby, "people are paid what they are worth." No one is worth hundreds of millions as a CEO.It is the upper and middle managers who do all the hard work.The monetarist system is dying and you don't even recognise the symptoms of decay.

Yes there does seem to be a certain amount of envy among the posters although I admit some of the recipients of large salaries can be seen to be unworthy of their wealth.

It always puzzles me when individual earnings are discussed that so-called celebrities often get off scot free in this regard. The sports stars who earn incredible amounts of money or film stars that earn millions for one movie. Is it because the public feels it knows and likes them and therefore it is OK for them to earn equally large amounts of money ? They, like their counterparts in industry, are at the top of their profession, so can command large remuneration for what they do. Again like their counterparts in other areas, they have probably made great sacrifice in achieving their goals, but that is often never considered and nor is the often large amounts given to charities by wealthy people. Just a thought, to consider the other side of the coin. Things are often not always what they seem

We live in a world where we are not all born equal and don't often get equal opportunities. As has been pointed out, some have better genes than others which gives them a leg up. We are all in control of our own destiny and the decisions we make in life govern what we can get out of it and we have to make the most of it. There are risks in everything we do.