Qantas CEO pay $23.9 million

[Zanzara]

Australia's highest-paid CEO takes home 275 times the full-time average wage

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has topped the list of Australia's highest-paid chief executives, taking home more than 275 times the full-time average wage.

www.abc.net.au

Surprised no one has commented on this...

 

[33kft]

It reflects poorly on those who feel it necessary to collect such fees from the businesses they work to make profitable. How it doesn't seem to be a giant conflict of purpose is beyond me, but I guess I don't have renovations to harbourside mansions to worry about. That said, it would be nice for CEOs to recognise the difference between reasonable and obscene remuneration and to act accordingly,

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Executive pay in Australia (and worldwide) has escalated to ridiculous levels.
There is no way anyone is worth such an amount.

 

[get me outta here]

And, it is not even as bad as this : “Depending on how you calculate it, Latitude Financial Services boss Ahmed Fahour could make between $40 million to $50 million from the company's planned float.”

How did CEO pay get to 500 times the wages of ordinary workers?

The head of Lattitude could get a $50 million pay day from the company's listing. Alan Joyce received more than $23 million last financial year. Andrew Robertson asks whether these executives really deserve the big bucks they receive.

www.abc.net.au

 

[33kft]

Good old Mr Fahour, previously famous for being the CEO of AusPost, a government owned enterprise at which he was paid $5.6 million per annum whilst boasting achievements such as:

Under Fahour's leadership, in 2015 Australia Post recorded its first full-year loss in over 30 years, with half-year profits down some 56 percent

Ahmed Fahour - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[tgh]

His social agenda colours many opinions, but he has done well in a corporate sense.
I agree that worldwide, in general , Ceo's receive excessive renumeration.
Otoh, they don't care what I think and I don't intent to let the issue spoil my life….

 

[33kft]

Otoh, they don't care what I think and I don't intent to let the issue spoil my life….

I think you'd be surprised. Having their excessive pay dissected on current affairs shows for weeks on end doesn't do much for employee morale, boardroom comfort or AGM question and answer sessions.

 

[juddles]

I was reluctant to engage in this thread as it is a frequent topic with a predictable course to the "discussion". But then I thought I would have a crack at derailing the train that these threads inevitably create. (The "train" being the usual comments from haters and defenders of such things)

Anyway, I will just chuck in two ideas:

(1) The first is to try to tackle a reality that I suspect most people do not see when they simply look at how much money rich people have. So Alan "gets" 275 times the average wage. Sure, that goes into his bank account. But where does it then go to? He does not eat 275 times more than the average person. He does not fly 275 times others travels. He does not get to live 275 times as long. No, what he does is spend that money, and every single dollar that he gets, eventually goes to other people. To workmen who build a new wing on his house. In tips to waitresses at the swish restaurants he dines at. To the artisan that makes him a custom-build gold toilet seat if he so desires. That wealth means nothing in a bank account - it has to be spent. It ALL filters back out. And in his case that filtering pays the wages of 275 people on average salaries.

(2) Having people who are "rich" has a very positive aspect. Because it allows a margin of wealth in which a person can desire things that are at a level above the norm. This brings innovation into play. Every second really rich person funds programs (whether it be medical research or saving trees in Sardinia) that noone else would touch or throw a dollar at on a "average wage".

 

[33kft]

I'm not sure that trickle-down economics can be argued with a straight face.

 

[juddles]

I'm not sure that trickle-down economics can be argued with a straight face.

I'm not sure what there is to argue about? He spends his money. He does not somehow suck that wealth out of existence. End of story.

 

[33kft]

I'm not sure what there is to argue about? He spends his money. He does not somehow suck that wealth out of existence. End of story.

So his net worth is $0, then?

 

[juddles]

So his net worth is $0, then?

See, this is where concepts become separate from reality. "Net worth"??? That is a concept in your head. If you mean "resources controlled at a given point", then clearly that depends on his bank balance at any given moment in time. But that money only means something when it is given to another.

Why you should suggest that his "net worth" is zero I do not understand.

 

[dajop]

I'm not sure what there is to argue about? He spends his money. He does not somehow suck that wealth out of existence. End of story.

You could also make the same argument, if for example each employee of Qantas was given an extra $500 bonus... and AJ only received $8m.

In any event, let’s ignore my previous paragraph, and argue that it is fine that he earning that money - after all earning it is largely contingent on generating returns for shareholders - including most likely Super funds held by many Australians (although with airlines, maybe not!), there is no way he is spending all that he earns, he would no doubt be investing it. That is where the economic activity and innovation can come from - investing in venture capital, R&D and the like to create jobs, not so much just rich people buying “stuff”!

 

[33kft]

No, I understand exactly what I am asking you. I am asking you if you really are suggesting that the wealthy spend all (and I'll be fair and walk it back for you a bit, and say even 60%) of what they earn.

For your argument to have any basis whatsoever, you must believe that he spends more than the average worker. That is, the theory that the money would have greater utility if given to the average worker is incorrect because their outgoings are lower than the CEO.

I don't understand how that makes sense? The wealthy tend to amass fortunes, not for the benefit of the people but for the benefit of their dynasties. They also have the means to place their money where the taxman will see very little of it, and they have great resources behind them to ensure that is the case.

This is why trickle-down economic theory fails, because that money does go into a big money pit, in an account in switzerland, earning interest being loaned out to the peasants who can't afford to buy houses with cash.

 

[juddles]

......there is no way he is spending all that he earns, he would no doubt be investing it. That is where the economic activity and innovation can come from - investing in venture capital, R&D and the like to create jobs, not so much just rich people buying “stuff”!

Yes and no. Yes, in that I agree that investment is what funds things. But there is also an element of "buying stuff" that also allows innovation. For companies (or individuals) to have the time and resources to develop new products, it helps a lot if they can make a good margin at the top end of the range....

 

[juddles]

No, I understand exactly what I am asking you. I am asking you if you really are suggesting that the wealthy spend all (and I'll be fair and walk it back for you a bit, and say even 60%) of what they earn.
.......
This is why trickle-down economic theory fails, because that money does go into a big money pit, in an account in switzerland, earning interest being loaned out to the peasants who can't afford to buy houses with cash.

God, so much to try to answer here....

Am I really suggesting that the wealthy "spend" all their money? Of course they save and invest. But that money only becomes real when it is spent.

"interest being loaned out to the peasants who can't afford to buy houses with cash" ?? Are you calling average Australians with a mortgage "peasants"???

 

[33kft]

"interest being loaned out to the peasants who can't afford to buy houses with cash" ?? Are you calling average Australians with a mortgage "peasants"???

Do I need to dignify this with a response? Is it necessary for every point made to be literal on here? I thought this was a forum for adults, it's an illustrative point, to bring to your attention the lack of altruism and yet it comes down to some sort of mock outrage? I'm out.

 

[juddles]

Do I need to dignify this with a response? Is it necessary for every point made to be literal on here? I thought this was a forum for adults, it's an illustrative point, to bring to your attention the lack of altruism and yet it comes down to some sort of mock outrage? I'm out.

Am sorry my quoting you caused you to feel that way. In the same way you used the "peasants" comment to somehow turn a person's savings into an evil thing, I used your same term in a (admittedly short) way of highlighting that it is the exact same source of funds that enable average australians to buy their own homes even though they do not have the financial capacity to front cash.

I also think that it is way too early in this discussion to be throwing in things such as "I thought this was a forum for adults". Certain irony there....

 

[sjk]

Maybe your rum-pickled brain should mull on things a little longer, juddles. You really aren’t making a whole lot of sense.

 

[juddles]

Maybe your rum-pickled brain should mull on things a little longer, juddles. You really aren’t making a whole lot of sense.

sjk, I really enjoy your contributions - they enhance everyone elses