Does Google Chief's bashfulness prove pay at the top is skewed.

[Rexxar]

I don't see why he should have to tell anyone what he is paid, Same as i shouldn't have to tell anyone what i'm paid, unless they are for example, HMRC , but then it won't be public knowledge.

I would be surprised if he's paid that much at all, as opposed to being "paid" in kind through other channels/methods , bonuses etc

 

[Edrof]

A jew in 1930's germany, a muslim at a trump rally, a moderate on the internet - all these things are not intrinsically bad but you would be foolish or brave to open up about it.

I remember a journalist asking people who the rich were, and it didn't matter how far up the scale you went, the answer was someone who had a lot more than the person they asked.

It's all relative. There's quite simply not a single person in the UK who is not 'rich' by global standards yet you don't see anyone on minimum wage comparing downwards when complaining how unfair the world is.

Rarely does GD see such eloquence!

 

[ChrisJSY]

For the same reason you don't ask a woman her age; it is a private matter.

Something something tax dodging.

 

[D.P.]

You can't critisise high pay, it's a privte matter between employer and employee., and it's daft to only focus on those in high profile positions. If the public is concerned about hight pay in general, they should vote to increase higher rate tax... but they don't.

And if they are concerned about the pay gap then they should really focus on increasing minimum wage, which is far more import than one some CEOs get paid.



You put some arbitrary cap on the top salaries and all that happens is the best people move to the US or find loopholes like performance related bonuses. If you do lower the top salaries then all that happens is the shareholders get richer with bigger dividends.

 

[D.P.]

It's our business because Google have claimed that the London subsidiary essentially carries out basic administrative tasks. Looking at the salaries of the people employed there can go a long way to rubbishing that claim.

HMRC know that, no need to tell the public on TV.

And I see very little correlation between the senior salaries and what work is done at an office, in London no less.

 

[estebanrey]

He should have said "I earn loads more than yow council worker".

As a "council worker" myself, I'm intrigued by the implied indignation towards me in that post

 

[Dis86]

And if they are concerned about the pay gap then they should really focus on increasing minimum wage, which is far more import than one some CEOs get paid.

Really? Putting minimum wage up by 20p makes a difference in that grand scale of things? Does it nuts.

Looks at it this way, average workers are continuing to face real world pay cuts. The latest stats I could find for 2011 indicated execs had a 45% raise.

Paltry increases in minimum wage do sweet fa when the gap continues to increase and no longer reflects the worth of CEOs.

I used to work for a company where during our AGM it was announced we wouldn't be receiving a pay rise in the next year due to the crash in the economy and difficult times ahead.
However, our CEO had to publish his salary and it showed a 30% increase. I stood up and asked why he was receiving a raise whilst the rest of us were frozen and the answer was 'well, last year we made a good profit thanks to his leadership'.

During the next years meeting we were greeted with more of the same. This time he received a 40% increase. So again I stood up and the answer this time was 'because he guided us and continues to through difficult times'.
No mention of the fact that average hours put in by people increased by 15% to cover leavers who weren't replaced.
The company barely made any profit that year, but granted, didn't make a loss.

He was asked to leave the company soon after due to record levels of worker dissatisfaction which came very close to a strike.

Basically we continue to see epic rises in executive salaries no matter how the company performs whilst the average workers are at an effectual pay decrease in many cases.

 

[Caged]

HMRC know that, no need to tell the public on TV.

And I see very little correlation between the senior salaries and what work is done at an office, in London no less.

Well all the claims of "we need to pay these salaries to attract top talent" go out the window if you've said that you don't really make any money in London.

It may not be necessary for the public to know, but the guy should have had a better answer than "I don't know".

 

[Pudney]

As a "council worker" myself, I'm intrigued by the implied indignation towards me in that post

Isn't it a reference to that old bbc sketch show with the rich man who used to say he earned considerably more than you (in an accent). Harry Enfield I think.

 

[Pudney]

Well all the claims of "we need to pay these salaries to attract top talent" go out the window if you've said that you don't really make any money in London.

It may not be necessary for the public to know, but the guy should have had a better answer than "I don't know".

Total rubbish when your talking about senior tiers of management. They're responsible for high level strategy and decision making, not revenue generation. That's why they're normally employed by holding companies, not the trading entities.

 

[stewski]

Reminds me of when Bill Clinton was asked about sexual relations during a totally unrelated investigation. I'm willing to bet some who think this question was wrongfully asked think the Clinton Question was just fine...

 

[Chojin]

The woman asking the question looked like a Grade A truffle sniffer.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Why is it not?

You happy to tell world what you earn?

I'm not.

 

[aardvark]

i'm a free market capitalist but there are many people simply taking the ***

fine if you invented google or something amazing but a lot of these top execs simply don't deserve it.

i heard an interesting story the other day about GSK.
Apparently 50% of their global travel budget is taken by the board (an enormous amount of money as you can imagine) - they all travel first class and their partners and family can also travel on the companies money (first class). So the internal auditors tried to change it and said that this should stop - business class is good enough and there is no need to pay for family travel as well. The board of course voted against it and it continues to this day. I don't know if its common knowledge or if the shareholders know or care.
The people in charge of these companies simply have too much power to award themselves perks at the expense of everybody else.
It was hearsay of course but i bet its true.

 

[D.P.]

Well all the claims of "we need to pay these salaries to attract top talent" go out the window if you've said that you don't really make any money in London.

It may not be necessary for the public to know, but the guy should have had a better answer than "I don't know".

Not making money is not the same as not needing talented workers.

What creates value in Google is the IP developed back in silicon Valley. The people in London are executing the business models developed in the US, and they need talented people to do that.

 

[Caged]

The high salaries paid in London though would suggest that they aren't just passing on IP developed in Mountain View. There has to be some value-add there or they wouldn't earn an average of 160k each.

 

[jimjamuk]

Would have asked what see earnt including all the other income she get to earn outside of being an MP. Or told her to do one

 

[Strife212]

Outrageous question and completely irrelevant. She had no right to ask it at all.

It's our business because Google have claimed that the London subsidiary essentially carries out basic administrative tasks.

 

[pepsilol]

Woman is annoyed at her rubbish salary.

The bloke clearly has money and I genuinely believe he has no idea what his salary is. Even I don't know what my salary is.

 

[enkoda]

I'm willing to bet that the reason he wouldn't reveal his salary is because he forgot what he declared to the tax man!