WTF !!! CALTEX Boss $14m Payday..No Wonder Petrol is Expensive!!! - Page 3

b0son · 25-02-2016, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NX74205

Whether you think it's worth it or not is irrelevant; what's important is whether the company thinks it's worth it.

Many don't, but that's the price the market has set.

Quote:

Private companies can pay its employees anything they like, so long as it's above the minimum wage.

So there should be no cap, because if the market is willing to pay, then the market SHOULD pay. Yet in the other direction, if the 4rse falls out of the economy and even the minimum wage becomes too high to be competitive, I am guessing that you wouldn't support a reduction in the minimum wage?

If so, and you don't see the hypocrisy of that position, well...... :/

NX74205 · 25-02-2016, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

Many don't, but that's the price the market has set.

So there should be no cap, because if the market is willing to pay, then the market SHOULD pay. Yet in the other direction, if the 4rse falls out of the economy and even the minimum wage becomes too high to be competitive, I am guessing that you wouldn't support a reduction in the minimum wage?

If so, and you don't see the hypocrisy of that position, well...... :/

My reference to minimum wage is because it is law, not because the market demands it.

b0son · 25-02-2016, 01:01 AM

So if the law was removed, you'd support removal of minimum wage?

NX74205 · 25-02-2016, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

So if the law was removed, you'd support removal of minimum wage?

I would support its reduction but not its removal. The reasons for the imposition of minimum wages is to protect employees from unfair exploitation.

There is no good reason for imposing a salary cap.

SYZ · 25-02-2016, 01:54 AM

Here's a hypothetical to ponder...

In the red corner we have 62-year-old Julian Segal, who heads a company with an annual revenue of $23 billion, getting a golden handshake of $14 million. Segal holds a Bachelor of Science and a Masters of Business Administration, and was a CEO at a couple of larger companies before joining Caltex.

In the blue corner, we have 24-year-old AFL player Tom Scully who only passed Year 12, and hasn't worked a full day in his life. He's currently enjoying a 6-year $6 million contract simply because he can kick a ball or catch it better than I can.

So, which is the more reasonable and logical contender for the belt in a world staggering on an economic and fiscal brink?
Obviously the bookies would go for Segal. So would I.

b0son · 25-02-2016, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SYZ

In the blue corner, we have 24-year-old AFL player Tom Scully who only passed Year 12, and hasn't worked a full day in his life. He's currently enjoying a 6-year $6 million contract simply because he can kick a ball or catch it better than I can.

But isn't there a salary cap in AFL? :P

superyob · 25-02-2016, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NX74205

So what? What's it to you? Private companies can pay its employees anything they like, so long as it's above the minimum wage.

I don't get the angst over how much CEOs get paid. Whether you think it's worth it or not is irrelevant; what's important is whether the company thinks it's worth it. They could pay the CEO $14 billion a year for all I care.

There isn't - and there should never be any salary cap in any job, anywhere in the private sector.

Surely there is a point where a 'generous' salary becomes obscene?

SYZ · 25-02-2016, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

But isn't there a salary cap in AFL?

Yep... $10.36 million for the 2016 season. So Scully "only" takes home $1 million of that 10 mill. Average player salary per game is $11.5K which ain't too bad for 1hr 20m of work. It's far better than a QC/barrister who only earns around $3K an hour—but then they only have a BA, an LLB and an LLM, and most couldn't kick a footy to save their lives.

Wretched · 25-02-2016, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NX74205

So what? What's it to you? Private companies can pay its employees anything they like, so long as it's above the minimum wage.

I don't get the angst over how much CEOs get paid. Whether you think it's worth it or not is irrelevant; what's important is whether the company thinks it's worth it. They could pay the CEO $14 billion a year for all I care.

There isn't - and there should never be any salary cap in any job, anywhere in the private sector.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NX74205

I would support its reduction but not its removal. The reasons for the imposition of minimum wages is to protect employees from unfair exploitation.

There is no good reason for imposing a salary cap.

Precisely. Otherwise lets start looking at every employee and determine what is an obscene amount of money for the role. I am sure many here would then quietly walk off.

Wretched · 25-02-2016, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

Why average/own? We're talking *many* multiples of difference between the average wage and CEO average. Why not something anywhere on the scale in between?

I'm saying what they get paid now is too much, not that they should be paid what you or I might earn. Funnily enough, some prominent CEO's agree...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8090948.stm

Former CEO of Shell said if I had been paid 50% more, I would not have done it better. If I had been paid 50% less, then I would not have done it worse

CEO salaries used to track with everyone else's wages til the 80s, then something went haywire from the mid-80s onward.

The UK Institute of Directors describes the increase in CEO remuneration as unsustainable.

https://bdaily.co.uk/entrepreneurshi...nable-say-iod/

A NSW Labor Council report (http://www.psa.asn.au/Oldsite/news/f...Stops_here.pdf) showed that from 1992-2002, executive pay went from 22 times the average wage to 74 times! The share price certainly didn't improve by such a margin. In fact, remuneration increased by more than double the share price increase. If you see nothing wrong with that, what more can anyone say to you...

Have other roles' salaries soared in the way executive salries have over the last 20 years?

I will rephrase it so you can answer it. Would you do the role for 60k a year?

If you think they are paid too much, then why not become a shareholder of he organisation and express your displeasure at it, be a little more active about it.
You cannot really comment on whether someone is being paid an obscene amount of money without knowing their job, the contract, the conditions, etc. I find some sportspeople earning far too much, soccer players, basketballers, IPL players, etc but you know what? Someone believes their worth it and you know what? Good on them and goodluck to them.

buggo · 25-02-2016, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

So? It's not like he'll be unemployable, and it's not like he'll be hard up for cash. Golden handshake anyone?

What do you mean 'so'? You said he gets money regardless, I said he doesn't, and your counter point is 'so'.
And he won't be held in the esteem he would be if his company declines. At most he'll be in a much lesser role where there are more suitable candidates waiting to fill those spots.

I don't know why you only quote one line of all my replies either. Does that mean everything else I said you agree with?

b0son · 25-02-2016, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buggo

What do you mean 'so'? You said he gets money regardless, I said he doesn't

And I dont understand on what basis you say he doesnt. If he performs poorly, he will still have collected an extremely generous salary up until that point, one he will not be required to repay. He wont receive a bonus, but in many cases, he will receive an overly generous severance package.

b0son · 25-02-2016, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wretched

I will rephrase it so you can answer it. Would you do the role for 60k a year?

No. But I would do it for a hell of a lot less than the millions they get. I suspect you would too.

I'm not sure why you seem to be fixated on the only alternative being for a CEO to be paid an average wage.

b0son · 25-02-2016, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SYZ

Yep... $10.36 million for the 2016 season. So Scully "only" takes home $1 million of that 10 mill. Average player salary per game is $11.5K which ain't too bad for 1hr 20m of work.

Nice of you to exclude the 5 days a week of training and preparation.

Sportspeople are a special case to some extent. The prospect of career-ending injuries, the relatively short time of high earning potential, the limited career options in that sport due to injury, loss of job or retirement.

A CEO OTOH, can go back to being a board member, executive, director, etc. The only thing precluding a CEO from a long career is job performance. People here are acting as if a failed CEO has no option but to hide away from the world because their name will be mud. That's simply not true.

buggo · 25-02-2016, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

And I dont understand on what basis you say he doesnt. If he performs poorly, he will still have collected an extremely generous salary up until that point, one he will not be required to repay. He wont receive a bonus, but in many cases, he will receive an overly generous severance package.

That doesn't really make a good point. That's like saying it doesn't matter if you lose your job, because you were paid up until that point. This guy just gets paid more each year. I'm sure he'd like to keep that going.

Quote:

No. But I would do it for a hell of a lot less than the millions they get. I suspect you would too.

I'm not sure why you seem to be fixated on the only alternative being for a CEO to be paid an average wage.

The quality of CEO Caltex could buy might not get the results this guy can. Sure it's a definite case of diminishing returns, but it's returns none the less and in which pays for the increased premium.

Anyway lets just agree to disagree, I think each side has put in all the arguments they can.