But, but, but….

The Prime Minister indicates he will attempt to cap executive pay at the forthcoming G20 summit. He said that pay should reflect "hard work" and values rather than risk-taking.

"Most people want business to have the same values as they practise in their everyday life," he said. "People would rather reward hard work rather than risk-taking. They want to support enterprise and not excess. They want to support people that take responsibility and not run away from it."

The reason we hire managers is to take risks on our behalf. To essay ou capital into the turbulent seas of commerce.

Of course we don\’t want to just pay for hard work, for time serving. We would much rather pay for success, for risks aptly and ably taken. As Napoleon didn\’t say, we\’d happily pay purely for luck, that rarest of attributes.

What is the Scotchman talking about?

10 thoughts on “But, but, but….”

  1. Will this apply to the 646 overpaid individuals in Westminster, one wonders? You know, the ones who got us into this mess?

  2. It just a blatant power grab. Why bother nationalizing means of production when you can control the pay of the companies executives.

  3. If you are deficient of talent and a workaholic what method of evaluation would seem fairest to you?

    So Gordon Brown thinks we should be paid for effort not attainment. Ugly wimmin don’t like beauty contests either.

  4. This is like an arms race. The more they regulate the more effort will be put in to finding ways to pay more within those regulations. Just like pay national caps in the 70’s led to everyone getting company cars or the efforts that go in to tax avoidance.

    My money’s on executives to win this one, but at great cost to us in taxes as we see an explosion in regulators.

  5. I love Brown’s comment about risk-taking. He has obviously no clue about how entrepreneurs work. Without a willingness to take a risk, how does he think anyone can act in conditions of less than perfect foresight? In many ways, Brown’s hatred of other risk-takers betrays an inner caution that explains, for instance, why he bottled the decision to go for an election over a year ago.

    Obnoxio the Clown refers to this character as “the nutter with the stutter”. Perfect.

  6. So by extension to the Prime Mentalist’s logic, a devout family man digging holes in the ground then filling them in again should be rewarded, as he has ‘values’ and is ‘hard working’.

  7. The shareholders should be left alone to work things out for themselves. They have taken an enormous hit in this crisis. They allowed executives to pocket very large salaries bonuses and pensions, but those payments were in no way tied to middle or long term performance. So it was in the best interests of Fred the shred to keep fuelling the bubble until it burst. He had nothing to lose.

    Maybe shareholders in future will consider paying bonuses and vesting pension funds in shares, with a term retention restriction.

  8. But let’s not encourage the bloody government to run in and help.

    You can take the Scotch out of the Scotchman, in which case you get Broon, and you wish you had had a chance to vote for Rab C Nesbitt and a bottle of the Glenlivet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *