Jump to content
juggtron

Occupy Melbourne

Recommended Posts

Although I see where you are going with asking - giving my friends an unethical payoff is not the same as supporting the lively hood of my countrymen.

It isn't? I could argue differently.

 

In India there's probably a poor (both meanings of the word) family or two living in horrible conditions, barely a roof above their head and food in their stomachs, that would have a remarkable change in lifestyle if you paid $20 per day for something you might pay an Australian $100 per day for so that he can get Arkham City on 360.

 

If you think income inequality in Australia is bad, holy-fuck do I have news for you.

 

I'm having trouble pinning down the exact number, but make no mistake, you are in the top <5%.... and 17% of the people in developing countries are starving.

 

But hey, its your money, I don't care that you choose to give it to people that already own a PS3.

 

[edit]: And by the way, what the heck are you doing putting your superannuation money into equity?! Don't support those greedy bastards!

 

Rob.

Edited by robzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would be asking, is if the increasingly higher incomes for CEOs are seeing increasingly better performance for the companies. I understand that, as a market, you have to offer good money to attract the best. But at what point do you sit down and look at the diminishing returns for each extra dollar and wonder if it would not have been easier to pay less for someone who does almost as good a job and put the money saved back into the company itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel I need to demonstrate that. As I said, I don't see why you should have a problem with what shareholders, or a private company, chooses to remunerate any of its stuff.

Of course you do. If one evaluates this from a pure effort input perspective, any ground level employee should be paid at least 20% more then his or her CEO. You say that for a CEO to be paid three orders of magnitude more those that actually make his business work is fine and normal. I say its grossly abnormal. My standpoint makes more logical sense unless evidence is missing from that summation.

 

Demonstrate your evidence.

 

If one day you happened to be part of a business that was immensely successful (perhaps one you've started yourself?), I would not at all try and tell you how you should be remunerated.

So if I refuse to give my workers sick leave, holidays or maternity leave, that's fine because its my company and thus none of your business? Edited by Sir_Substance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one day you happened to be part of a business that was immensely successful (perhaps one you've started yourself?), I would not at all try and tell you how you should be remunerated.

So if I refuse to give my workers sick leave, holidays or maternity leave, that's fine because its my company and thus none of your business?

 

There is social good to minimum wage, sick leave, socialised healthcare, annual leave, maternity leave and a healthy regulation system. These are all negative exernalities.

 

What social good is there to capping CEO's pay to 5x [whichever salary you happen to choose]. Seriously, if there is, my entire argument goes flying out the window.

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What social good is there to capping CEO's pay to 5x [whichever salary you happen to choose]. Seriously, if there is, my entire argument goes flying out the window.

The redistribution of wealth from the pockets of the very rich brings a variety of benefits, depending on how it is redistributed. If it is redistributed to the employees, then incomes verses import cost of commodities becomes a far more favorable ratio, and average quality of life rises.

 

If it is turned inward to finance the company, then company debts drop and perhaps even savings increase, the entire economic system becomes more stable as a result, and creativity becomes more prevalent due to increased funds and less company wide financial risk if a project is a devastating failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I see where you are going with asking - giving my friends an unethical payoff is not the same as supporting the lively hood of my countrymen.

It isn't? I could argue differently.

 

In India there's probably a poor (both meanings of the word) family or two living in horrible conditions, barely a roof above their head and food in their stomachs, that would have a remarkable change in lifestyle if you paid $20 per day for something you might pay an Australian $100 per day for so that he can get Arkham City on 360.

If you think income inequality in Australia is bad, holy-fuck do I have news for you.

I'm having trouble pinning down the exact number, but make no mistake, you are in the top <5%.... and 17% of the people in developing countries are starving.

[edit]: And by the way, what the heck are you doing putting your superannuation money into equity?! Don't support those greedy bastards!

Rob.

 

Just because someone else is doing it - does that make it right?

Will this CEO be so disadvantaged if he didn't get this payrise? I doubt it. If you halved my payrate i would fucking riot. I'm guessing if you halved the Indian blokes income he would starve to death.

 

 

If one day you happened to be part of a business that was immensely successful (perhaps one you've started yourself?), I would not at all try and tell you how you should be remunerated.

So if I refuse to give my workers sick leave, holidays or maternity leave, that's fine because its my company and thus none of your business?

 

There is social good to minimum wage, sick leave, socialised healthcare, annual leave, maternity leave and a healthy regulation system. These are all negative exernalities.

 

What social good is there to capping CEO's pay to 5x [whichever salary you happen to choose]. Seriously, if there is, my entire argument goes flying out the window.

 

Rob.

 

Last time I checked if business didn't have to pay for any of those good things they wouldn't. And they would put children back to work to boot.

Why are these CEO's getting huge bonuses for fucking things up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trawling through 9msn this morning i found an interesting write up on the Qantas fiasco:

 

Qantas operations could shrink

 

from the article:

I'm disgusted with the remuneration, with the state of the company as it is

 

Since Mr Joyce came in as CEO of this company, the share price has dropped 50 per cent

ORLY? that would be a bad thing right

However, protests from the little guys had little effect as they were outvoted by the big institutional investors.

 

Mr Joyce got his 71 per cent pay rise and a 1.7 million share package, while small shareholders moaned about the company's sad share price and wondered whether they'd ever see another dividend.

WTF MAN?

So let me get this straight - he sucks at his job and his mates who run the companies that own Qantas voted to give him a payrise?

 

Dude you are making a planet load of assumptions here. Joyce has been in charge during a GFC that wasn't of his own making (Duh) in one of the toughest industries going - air transport.

 

Now I personally don't know if he has done a good job or not, but to say the share price has halved therefore he MUST have done a shit house job is way too simplistic.

 

Actually, it reminds me of the logic behind many protesting...

 

EDIT : A quick google and you find articles like this.

Edited by Mac Dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in one of the toughest industries going - air transport.

Sorry, I'm just going to pick on this one. I see this argument all the time. Whenever a CEO is called into question, he is always working in a "tough industry".

 

Firstly, all business is tough in the sense that people don't just hand you money, and every industry has its own unique pitfalls.

 

Air transports pitfall is astronomical initial investments.

 

However, is it really a tough industry, relative to other industries?

 

Air transport is indispensable. The world cannot live without it. Not will not. Cannot. Our society would fall apart. When your customer cannot, under any circumstance, tell your industry as a whole to fuck right off, you have it damned easy. Try being in the high end custom sports car modification industry.

 

As in those guys from Sweden who made the hydrofoil car they had on top gear a number of years ago. That's a hard industry, because you've got to justify your existence before you even get to the price tag. Air transport? You're as secure as the shoes industry, and that isn't going away any time soon either.

 

I've had many arguments with people who refuse to believe that the gold standard is not still in force, y'know. The number of people who think there's actually a dollar's worth of gold in a $1 coin is fucking amazing.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but my understanding of the gold standard is that it has not been for a long time that the money had its worth in gold in the coin.

 

My understanding was that the gold standard means currency is a promise from the government for the value of gold. AKA, if you go to the US government and give them a USD$5 note, they have to give you $5 worth of gold at current market prices.

 

To my knowledge, that is still in force in the US, I have no idea about Australia.

Edited by Sir_Substance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in one of the toughest industries going - air transport.

Sorry, I'm just going to pick on this one. I see this argument all the time. Whenever a CEO is called into question, he is always working in a "tough industry".

 

Firstly, all business is tough in the sense that people don't just hand you money, and every industry has its own unique pitfalls.

 

Air transports pitfall is astronomical initial investments.

 

However, is it really a tough industry, relative to other industries?

 

Air transport is indispensable. The world cannot live without it. Not will not. Cannot. Our society would fall apart. When your customer cannot, under any circumstance, tell your industry as a whole to fuck right off, you have it damned easy. Try being in the high end custom sports car modification industry.

 

As in those guys from Sweden who made the hydrofoil car they had on top gear a number of years ago. That's a hard industry, because you've got to justify your existence before you even get to the price tag. Air transport? You're as secure as the shoes industry, and that isn't going away any time soon either.

 

Companies like qantas rely heavily on the tourist and business traveller. During the GFC tourism fell through the floor and businesses slashed their travel budgets. I'm not talking about 'every CEO' I'm talking about passenger air transport, to be specific.

 

Let's just say it's not an industry segment I invest in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you do. If one evaluates this from a pure effort input perspective, any ground level employee should be paid at least 20% more then his or her CEO

Do you know what a CEO does on a day-to-day basis?

 

And I don't mean imaginary playboy CEOs like Tony Stark. I mean real CEOs that run real businesses.

 

It's a role that's romanticised in pop culture, but in reality it consumes your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just say it's not an industry segment I invest in.

What you invest in and what constitutes a relativly stable market are entirely seperate. Most consumer-orientated industries got hit hard by the GFC.

 

To my knowledge, not a single airline closed during the GFC. Downsized or changed focus, perhaps, but not shut down.

 

Here are some links for you to consider:

 

 

The hardest hit industries during the GFC:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/...hit-industries/

 

Noticeably present: Non-critical industries like florists, drycleaners and venues that serve alcohol, and industries that move their goods internationally by ship rather then plane, such as lumber and non-metallic mineral quarrying, as well as the ship construction industry.

Noticeably absent: Anything even slightly related to airlines or avionics.

 

In summary, the marine shipping industry got fucked over a lot harder then the airline industry, and you don't see them acting like a bunch of tosspots.

 

Best careers to pursue during a recession:

http://www.hrworld.com/features/top-25-rec...careers-022008/

 

Noticeably at number 5, international business.

 

Gonna walk to Shanghai from Sydney to sign that contract, are you?

 

I'm sorry if it doesn't support your argument, but airlines are pretty safe. Not completely bullet proof, but hardly fragile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my knowledge, that is still in force in the US, (not since 1971) I have no idea about Australia. (and 1983)

Not since 1971 and 1983 respectively.

 

See: Fiat currency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a role that's romanticised in pop culture, but in reality it consumes your life.

Sounds like a bunch of professions, especially people who are on salary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you do. If one evaluates this from a pure effort input perspective, any ground level employee should be paid at least 20% more then his or her CEO

Do you know what a CEO does on a day-to-day basis?

 

And I don't mean imaginary playboy CEOs like Tony Stark. I mean real CEOs that run real businesses.

 

It's a role that's romanticised in pop culture, but in reality it consumes your life.

 

Lets analyze it.

 

AB: Running such a large region, I'm usually travelling over 50% of the time. My typical day starts at 7:30 by connecting with our European offices, followed by meetings with our management and top executives, who are either Michael Page clients or candidates. I also frequently run internal meetings and training sessions with our staff to stay close to operations. As a typical European, I've always enjoyed a lunch to break up a long day and create deeper relationships with my business network.

 

50% of his paid time is spent sitting on his arse in a plane, doing limited amounts of work due to poor or non-existant internet.

 

He starts at 7:30, so at least he gets to work early, which is more then you can say for most CEO's. He meets with his top executives and management, runs meetings and then has a lunch break.

 

Do you think his lunch break is 30 minutes long and if he is late back two times in one week he gets a warning? I doubt it.

 

And that's it, apparently.

 

I'm sure there's more to it, but even if he doubled the amount of work he did, he'd still only hit about the same productivity as an ordinary employee due to the traveling part, assuming both he and the employee are spending 100% of their paid time doing work, and you know thats not the case, especially if you are in first class or business class on an airliner and feel like savoring the complementary/company funded champagne.

 

You aren't going to win this by telling me he is spending 1000x the effort of his normal employees. You know that's not the case, we all do. There aren't that many hours in the day. The rest of the paycheck IS there to cover the extra worry and responsibility that isn't on the shoulders of the entry level employee.

 

I've asked you to justify how that responsibility that makes up the rest of his paycheck is worth so much. Why do you all keep dodging that question? Why do you keep trying to justify it on work effort?

 

Is it because you don't have a good answer?

 

To my knowledge, that is still in force in the US, (not since 1971) I have no idea about Australia. (and 1983)

Not since 1971 and 1983 respectively.

 

See: Fiat currency.

 

Well, that's educational, if depressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subby:

 

CEOs have the ability(otherwise, they wouldn't be CEOs(for long, anyway)...) to win business deals, decide what path a business should take, and steer it into success.

 

Sometimes, success, in tough financial conditions can include reducing the amount of money the company LOSES. ie, a company could perform WELL, even though it has made a loss.

 

If your average employee was able to do the above, they will soon raise themselves in the ranks of the company and hold a role of authority or control. They will be paid more than somebody who doesn't have that ability.

 

 

However, I wonder how much of your opinion is because you're unable to do the above. Atleast, that's my impression of you, having met you previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding was that the gold standard means currency is a promise from the government for the value of gold. AKA, if you go to the US government and give them a USD$5 note, they have to give you $5 worth of gold at current market prices.

That is not what the gold standard is. Not even close.

 

The hardest hit industries during the GFC:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/...hit-industries/

"Not doing as bad as some" != "Doing fine"

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just say it's not an industry segment I invest in.

What you invest in and what constitutes a relativly stable market are entirely seperate. Most consumer-orientated industries got hit hard by the GFC.

 

To my knowledge, not a single airline closed during the GFC. Downsized or changed focus, perhaps, but not shut down.

 

Here are some links for you to consider:

 

 

The hardest hit industries during the GFC:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/...hit-industries/

 

Noticeably present: Non-critical industries like florists, drycleaners and venues that serve alcohol, and industries that move their goods internationally by ship rather then plane, such as lumber and non-metallic mineral quarrying, as well as the ship construction industry.

Noticeably absent: Anything even slightly related to airlines or avionics.

 

In summary, the marine shipping industry got fucked over a lot harder then the airline industry, and you don't see them acting like a bunch of tosspots.

 

Read the third paragraph of your first link then tell me how the statistics relate to qantas or the airline industry in general. I then suggest you compare the drop in sales in the airline segment to those listed in your link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would be asking, is if the increasingly higher incomes for CEOs are seeing increasingly better performance for the companies. I understand that, as a market, you have to offer good money to attract the best. But at what point do you sit down and look at the diminishing returns for each extra dollar and wonder if it would not have been easier to pay less for someone who does almost as good a job and put the money saved back into the company itself?

I'd say it should have been around 15-20 years ago for most huge companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your average employee was able to do the above, they will soon raise themselves in the ranks of the company and hold a role of authority or control. They will be paid more than somebody who doesn't have that ability.

That would imply that people get hired on competence rather then connections, and we all know that isn't true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your average employee was able to do the above, they will soon raise themselves in the ranks of the company and hold a role of authority or control. They will be paid more than somebody who doesn't have that ability.

That would imply that people get hired on competence rather then connections, and we all know that isn't true.

 

Connections and social skills are a form of competence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine an average employee could enjoy the prospect of being promoted on merit, rather than being overlooked in favour of clueless professional management brought in from outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't seem to apply to anyone below management level as far as my experience goes; most anyone who's in much of a position to know how the work's actually done on the ground is rendered completely disposable via casualisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×