Sunday, 6 November 2011
Business, Finance and Politics are 'Out of Touch' with People ...
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Poweromics in Business - Rewarding Failure
Comment 87 (godfreybrown)
Re 64 William 1965
I agree with you when you say no person who heads up an organisation (as opposed to owning the business) should be able to earn more in one year than the avarage equally well educated working person can earn in a lifetime.
It is nonsense to say for anyone to say that the sums of money our top bankers and captains of industry deserve to paid the vast sums of money they are now being paid.
As recent events have shown moany of them managed to get to the top either through nepotisim or the old boy network and as a result we have ended up with far too many business clones suffering from high levels of inbred business idocy and insufficient entreprenurial flair.
Re: 70 pawns or players
I disagree with you when you say top bankers need to be sufficiently incentivised if they are to do the job we expect of them properly and what a good many who are earning considerably less could do equally well. There is nothing magic in being a top banker providing you have the right connections.
I am totally in favour of someone with genuine entreprenurial flair and business accumin (such as James Dyson) earning vast riches for his ingenutiy, enterprise and genuine hard work over many many years.
Neither am I against top bankers who put their own money at risk to earn over many years to earn themselves a vast fortune providing it is on the understanding that if the bank goes bust, in the way that we have seen banks go bust recently, then they lose everything they own.
It is a fallacy to say that there are insufficient numbers of suitable people about who can run these sort of organisations. Most large enterprises have very good succession plans in place and if the boards of these companies believe they need to recruit someone exceptional to do the job they want doing then it is time for some of them to be put out to grass because as the saying goes "they have reached their level of incompetence"–––––––––––––
Comment 88 (whatevernext1)
Only 60% of "shareholders" voted against despite the climate being so obviously against such greed. Presumably the 60% felt public pressure is mounting such that they had to do something whereas in the past they turned a blind eye.
The key problem is that the fund maangers are not the real shareholders - who are mainly pension savers - and fund managers and others in the City are on the same gravy train of paying themselves huge amounts effectively from our savings as the PLC directors.
Labour has not changed corporate governance to allow those whose money is actually invested in these companies the ability to vote on key issues such as Board appointments and remuneration.
Why?-because they get huge political contributions from the City, PLC directors etc and former cabinet ministers and senior civil servants get lucrative appointments with PLC's and in the City.
From expenses to corporate governance, corruption is rife, and we the ordinary public are the ones paying for it through taxes and raids on our pension savings.–––––––––––––
Comment 89 (alphaptarmigan)
Today I attended an Investment conference, hosted by one of our biggest fund managers and this "Corporate Governance" issue generated similar anger from the attendees as the MPs expenses issue. Fund Managers were being encouraged to create a new forum to exercise shareholder power.I can't help but wonder that all this is symptomatic of increasing disatisfaction with the inequalities between the top and the middle/average earners in our society.
Looks to me like we are gaining a new enthusiasm for democracy at all levels!
–––––––––––––
