Depression in the UK. Is it really that bad?

[peterg1965]

Err think you have that one wrong. Since when has it been easy to fire anyone in the public sector? It is nigh on impossible to get rid of anyone without going down a lengthy and drawn out procedure that they (or their union ) will contest all the way. Never mind if the are rubbish at their job or always off ill but still able to play squash etc

Sorry, that is what I meant, just badly phrased.

 

[Dryce]

The market pays what salaries the market will sustain. If you start to cap the salaries of public sector high ranking positions then you wont get the best people in those positions and ultimately the service will be affected. some of the best people in the public sector have come from the private sector. That wouldnt happen anywhere near as much if the salaries were not comensurate with roles involved.

I disagree.

If you do any analysis of top level pay in the private sector against performance then it doesn't look good in VFM terms. What seems to happen is there is a kind of pay arms race that occurs where it becomes self justifying that if we don't pay X then we will lose people. That then transfers over to the public sector.

One of the supposed justifications of boardroom pay was shareholder value. We've seen how ephemeral that actually was. Sadly we don't see shareholders screaming to retrospectively reclaim a proportion of pay and bonuses paid while all this alleged value was being added.

 

[crockers]

Dead easy to cap salaries....just tax at 98% above a certain level...




......................lights touch paper and stands back ................

 

[Biscuit]

I disagree.

If you do any analysis of top level pay in the private sector against performance then it doesn't look good in VFM terms. What seems to happen is there is a kind of pay arms race that occurs where it becomes self justifying that if we don't pay X then we will lose people. That then transfers over to the public sector.

One of the supposed justifications of boardroom pay was shareholder value. We've seen how ephemeral that actually was. Sadly we don't see shareholders screaming to retrospectively reclaim a proportion of pay and bonuses paid while all this alleged value was being added.

whilst the current banking crisis can in part be blamed on some banking execs its just not accurate to think that top level exec pay doesn't look good VFM. most retail, FMCG and service provider execs climb their respective ladders having to prove themselves at every rung. if the company does well under them they keep their job, if they get paid millions the company has usually made many multiples of that.

it might not seem fair, it might not be perfect but it's what we call capitalism. for every bad exec you'll find many good ones. i give you Branson and Dyson as two outstanding British examples. they took risks, they worked their rear ends off and drove jobs into the British economy on the back of their efforts. good on em i say.

 

[Dryce]

whilst the current banking crisis can in part be blamed on some banking execs its just not accurate to think that top level exec pay doesn't look good VFM. most retail, FMCG and service provider execs climb their respective ladders having to prove themselves at every rung. if the company does well under them they keep their job, if they get paid millions the company has usually made many multiples of that.

I disagree.

There is a high % of right place/right time combined with personality and ambition. Actual ability isn't top of the list. Chances are that if you don't have some ability you will fail to progress - the problem is mediocrity gets away with a lot.

The thing is that companies can make millions without actually making millions. This is the joy of the balance sheet.

it might not seem fair, it might not be perfect but it's what we call capitalism.

I don't think it's directly tied in to capitalism. The same sort of effect happens in a controlled economy. Large organisations are the underlying key.

for every bad exec you'll find many good ones. i give you Branson and Dyson as two outstanding British examples. they took risks, they worked their rear ends off and drove jobs into the British economy on the back of their efforts. good on em i say.

Branson and Dyson are entirely different animals from the average exec.
(Both interesting for different reasons). Entrepreneurs rather than execs.

 

[Biscuit]

okay then - you dont like Dyson and Branson I'll raise you terry Leahy and stuart rose of tesco and M and S respectively. they both climbed up the ranks of their companies (Rose has done time in others too) and now get paid gajillions. Leahy has taken Tesco almost to the point of monopoly in the supermarket field (the one in seven British pounds spent stat is just astounding) and Rose has almost single handedly rejuvenated M and S from grannies knickers to almost hip.

they are two good examples of high flying execs who get paid astronomic amounts of money and deserve it. if you really think they were just right place right time (or indeed wouldn't weed out people without real ability from their organisations) you are mistaken.

of course its possible to get a good job and get paid more than you are worth, its even possible to get over promoted within the high echelons of execs but you won't last long. ability does, in fact, count for a lot.

 

[Dryce]

they are two good examples of high flying execs who get paid astronomic amounts of money and deserve it. if you really think they were just right place right time (or indeed wouldn't weed out people without real ability from their organisations) you are mistaken.

And there are some interesting people such as Fiorina at HP and Ayling at BA.

I didn't say all. You can find examples of all types. The problem though is measuring who is actually contributing.

 

[Biscuit]

I disagree.

There is a high % of right place/right time combined with personality and ambition. Actual ability isn't top of the list. Chances are that if you don't have some ability you will fail to progress - the problem is mediocrity gets away with a lot.

you may not have said all but this sounds pretty categorical. if you now mean that you can find some examples of mediocre over paid executives then we agree entirely. i'm merely saying they are a small, and short lived, minority.

 

[hawk20]

Wedgwood/Waterford/Royal Doulton in Real Trouble.
Administrators are battling to find a buyer for historic crystal and china maker Waterford Wedgwood after the collapse of the ailing firm put 2,700 jobs at risk.
The group - best known for Wedgwood pottery, Royal Doulton and Waterford crystal - has appointed receivers to parts of its Irish business and administrators at its UK arm.
Waterford, which can trace its origins back 250 years, collapsed after talks over a possible sale to a US private equity firm failed to bear fruit and lenders' patience ran out.
Administrator Deloitte said a restructuring of the firm could not be achieved "in an acceptable timescale" as trading deteriorated.

Hard to believe that such a historic and prestigious company could be in real danger of going under.

 

[verytalldave]

Any company that exists soley on what could be broadly termed "luxury goods" will be in the same boat eventually. Anything non-essential - or if there is a cheaper option - are always most at risk when times get hard. Expect to see jewellers, tour operators, garden centres etc...etc....disappear.

 

[crockers]

Not just luxury goods Dave - also any manufacturer / trader that works on high turnover and small margins.......

Car Manufacturer
Airlines
Computer Goods