Should CEO salaries be capped?

Should CEO salaries be capped?

  • Yes

    Votes: 41 47.1%

  • No

    Votes: 46 52.9%
  • Total voters
    87
rpm

rpm

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
66,805
Reaction score
5,057
Location
Johannesburg
Do you think CEO salaries should be capped or do you think the free market should decide what they are worth?
 
No idea, would have to look at the data to see whether it actually makes a difference. Though maximum wage makes a whole lot more sense than a minimum wage.
 
supersunbird said:
I actually voted yes, it should be capped at a certain high amount of times over the least paid employees salaries. So it they want to pay the CEO more, they should pay those workers more.
Click to expand...

Basic economics. Supply vs Demand.
Unfortunately in SA we have a lot of unskilled workers which is an over supply. Over supply = low price
We do not have a lot of competent CEOs thus high demand = high price.
 
Zarnicate said:
Basic economics. Supply vs Demand.
Unfortunately in SA we have a lot of unskilled workers which is an over supply. Over supply = low price
We do not have a lot of competent CEOs thus high demand = high price.
Click to expand...

Yet many incompetent CEOs get paid grandly too, and CEOs are sometimes rewarded for things external to them, like the company just rising due to the market tide, I'm just saying the rising tide should lift everyone a bit too.
 
There will be Pro's and Con's to this.

SOE must be capped to stop money wastage.
Private, must be linked to operating profit.
 
Should be in the hands of the majority of shareholders which is exactly how the private sector works whether the company is listed or not. Those with the most at to lose should have the most say. I don't see any reason why anybody should interfere with this model.
 
Last edited:
Since the 1980's the amount CEO's earn vs ordinary staff has skyrocketted with no sign of it moving backwards. If the trend continues we will return to a time of income inequality similar to the Fuedal era. I think it should be capped at a level that is say 20 times the average salary of the employee's in the company. That gives an incentive to raise earnings for everyone as well as for themselves. For low value companies like security companies with lots of security or cleaning staff perhaps make it higher, and for investment banking perhaps a 10 or 15 times multiplier but it definitely is needed in publicly listed companies.
 
Cius said:
Since the 1980's the amount CEO's earn vs ordinary staff has skyrocketted with no sign of it moving backwards. If the trend continues we will return to a time of income inequality similar to the Fuedal era. I think it should be capped at a level that is say 20 times the average salary of the employee's in the company. That gives an incentive to raise earnings for everyone as well as for themselves. For low value companies like security companies with lots of security or cleaning staff perhaps make it higher, and for investment banking perhaps a 10 or 15 times multiplier but it definitely is needed in publicly listed companies.
Click to expand...
I cast Margret Thatcher on you commie.

 
You can't "cap" anything in a free market. So Yes it should be capped, but No, you can't actually do anything about it without letting the ANC interfere. So although I voted "Yes" in principle, the answer in this country must be "No".
 
supersunbird said:
I actually voted yes, it should be capped at a certain high amount of times over the least paid employees salaries. So it they want to pay the CEO more, they should pay those workers more.
Click to expand...

This to a certain degree.. it’s actually a practice done elsewhere except certain countries like US.

This is of cause not a one size fits all thing though and there may be exceptions. Interestingly developed markets show that unions disappear when conditions of employment and value of employment reach what’s considered equitable levels.

SA has always sucked on the lower end value for labour though.. one could say this is the risk ceo takes to make profit I guess but on a macro level it hits economy badly as then everyone wants to be ceo and make everyone else pay for it haha.. oh wait that’s what we have now with c-suite level jobs (this includes gov).
 
konfab said:
I cast Margret Thatcher on you commie.

Click to expand...
I am a huge fan of the free market and fully support it but I am also not naive enough to think zero regulation of it is a good thing. The consequences of more and more money being held by less and less people is a very bad thing and that is the direction we are headed.
 
Cius said:
I am a huge fan of the free market and fully support it but I am also not naive enough to think zero regulation of it is a good thing. The consequences of more and more money being held by less and less people is a very bad thing and that is the direction we are headed.
Click to expand...
It's a free market. If companies want to pay this for their employees - so be it. The axe swings both ways. If its ok to cap the CEO then every other position should be so limited.
 
Cius said:
I am a huge fan of the free market and fully support it.
Click to expand...
That is where you should have ended it. Putting "but" after it means that everything you say before it is not true.


Cius said:
I am a huge fan of the free market and fully support it but I am also not naive enough to think zero regulation of it is a good thing. The consequences of more and more money being held by less and less people is a very bad thing and that is the direction we are headed.
Click to expand...
Straw man right there.

Regulations have a place. To regulate the effects of a transaction that affects third parties. How much a CEO earns is none of your business. It is only the business of the people who pay him/her.


Cius said:
The consequences of more and more money being held by less and less people is a very bad thing and that is the direction we are headed.
Click to expand...
Pity that isn't true.

Real incomes are up for everyone in every country with free market policies. Which means that everyone has more money to spend. As Margret Thatcher stated, you would rather the poor be poorer and to have the gap between the rich and the poor be smaller, than the rich to be richer and the poor to be richer.

Countries that have more free market and less redistribution of income are better off than countries that have less free markets and more redistribution of income.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X