Are high salaries necessary to attract the best people?

At Audi's suggestion and following on from Squire's observation here I wonder what is the view of contributors to the oft repeated line that our politicians and bankers must receive their enormous remuneration so that we might attract the 'best people' to these roles?

Relatively high salaries are necessary. However, there are people equally competent to the top bankers who would do their job for less money. You could attract very good candidates to be a Chief Exec of an Irish bank for half a million, rather than 3 million, per annum.

I think the evidence suggests we need to be aiming higher than 'equally competent'.

I think in fairness of democracy the poll requires an option where the leaders and senior bankers are competent and deserve what they are paid.

And maybe a 4th where they are competent yet get paid too much.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

I think in fairness of democracy the poll requires an option where the leaders and senior bankers are competent and deserve what they are paid.

And maybe a 4th where they are competent yet get paid too much.

Hit and run by coc there - maybe that's why only mods are allowed make polls ...

I cannot vote in such a poll which begs the question as to whether bankers and politicians "are a bunch of clowns, thieves or thieving clowns".

Auditor #9 wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

I think in fairness of democracy the poll requires an option where the leaders and senior bankers are competent and deserve what they are paid.

And maybe a 4th where they are competent yet get paid too much.

Hit and run by coc there - maybe that's why only mods are allowed make polls ...

It was done at your suggestion! I was trying to modify the poll as per EVM's input but that seems not to be possible. I fully respect Zhou_Enlai's right to abstain on the question.

coc wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

I think in fairness of democracy the poll requires an option where the leaders and senior bankers are competent and deserve what they are paid.

And maybe a 4th where they are competent yet get paid too much.

Hit and run by coc there - maybe that's why only mods are allowed make polls ...

It was done at your suggestion! I was trying to modify the poll as per EVM's input but that seems not to be possible. I fully respect Zhou_Enlai's right to abstain on the question.

If you go and edit your post you will be able to edit the poll too at the bottom.

It sounds to me like I'm voting for the same thing...

I feel I can't vote in this poll.
There's no choice to vote "this poll is bollox" and was only set up to confirm one posters views.

Who allowed this nonsense?

Well done coc, you get a poll set up here that P.ie would be ashamed of, some achievement that.

FFS would someone here get a grip on this before digout has to come over to raise the tone.

Speaking of "Digout", when did digout he lose the "day" and why?

Presumably he was banned or for some other reason was unable to access the old username so took on a new one.

Anyway, this is Machine Nation, not Politics.ie. If people have concerns about Politics.ie I would politely suggest that they are raised over there. Let's move this thread back on topic please.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Speaking of "Digout", when did digout he lose the "day" and why?

When; anytime he had an argument with another poster, Why; because he's as thick as a plank.

EDIT - poll choices have been amended.

The poll choices look OK to me now.

My I protest the manner in which my contribution was altered after Fianna Fáil's representative on earth showed up and started whining?

Surely a pm or even an editors note might have been more appropriate?

I will consequently not be commenting in any way negatively any more about the establishment for fear of my opinions being thus censored.

I reckon the mods thought you had tried to correct the poll but failed, as per your previous post.

"Fianna Fáil's representative on earth" kind of suggests that Fianna Fail are a kind of heavenly organisation . In any event, the FF Ministers obviously thought they were being paid too much when they took a 10% pay cut and prescribed a levy for themselves. I expect them to follow with a ban on pensions earned from jobs which they have been on sabbatical from for upwards of 15 years.

Yes. I did try to add a new option to satisfy EVM's concerns but couldn't see how to do it. I certainly had no intention of modifying the post to satisfy tonys. Either way I considered myself more than entitled to express my view that our leaders and senior bankers are either incompetent, corrupt or both. Obviously tonys didn't agree and my post was accordingly edited. Fair enough, the mods are free to do as they please, but that is not how I thought MN worked. I will no doubt recover from the disappointment over the coming months. I wonder does tonys approve of my signature? Maybe I should change it just to be on the safe side?

coc, my concerns were only over the choices presented in the original poll. I had no problem with the post which sparked the poll, and indeed I thought it was quite funny.

As a poll though, it wasn't usable because both choices meant the same thing in the end. That is all.

However now that it has been redrafted (by I know not who) I suggest we get on with it and vote. Unless there are further objections to the choices, in which case posters should state their objections.

And I will be the first to support your right to criticise the establishment ...

I voted. Even if I wasn't opposed to the class system, I would still think they were paid way too much on grounds of comparison with EU and US levels for people with similar jobs and responsibilities.

Plus, how much should you pay someone who loses the firm billions?

coc wrote:

I wonder does tonys approve of my signature?

Tonys couldn't give a flying coc about your signature.

You do not need to pay in the region of £1,000,000 to get competent executives. What the current lot are good at is singing their own praise. Their job is not that difficult they have all the expertise in their staff that they could possibly need and if they don't they simply buy it in and delegate responsibility. The trick is in delegating. Their track record speaks for itself. You wouldn't let this lot run a candy store at a fair.

IMO really difficult is the people who run small businesses on a shoe string. Those people really have to multi task. They are their own marketing department, decide on corporate image, are their own book keepers, secretaries, receptionists etc. To my stupid way of thinking that is hard.

I think the term "business leader" is too vague.

Are we talking about the board of Anglo or the board of CRH, or are we talking about union leaders or shop owners?

I think the Taoiseach and Minister for Finance are worth €300K per year plus a good pension.

I think lots of people are worth more then they are paid but that often this is because they don't have the courage to go to the market.

Also, I think the idea that delegation is the only key to success isn't accurate for really good business leaders. Just because others have failed doesn't mean the requirements for the job have changed.

To be a top bank executive you should be a number of things:
1. Highly Intelligent.
2. Of unquestionable moral character.
3. Able to organise and mobilise large groups of people.
4. Able to plan strategically for the short, medium and loong term.
5. Be an excellent communicator to people outside your organisation.
6. Have years of experience in banking with familiarity for various areas.
7. Have the cold inner steel required to put your loyalty to fellow staff members below your loyalty to shareholders, customers, depositors, borrowers and regulators.
8. Be a great networker with the most important people in the country.
9. Be a good leader who inspires confidence and loyalty.

tonys wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

coc, my concerns were only over the choices presented in the original poll. I had no problem with the post which sparked the poll, and indeed I thought it was quite funny.

As a poll though, it wasn't usable because both choices meant the same thing in the end. That is all.

However now that it has been redrafted (by I know not who) I suggest we get on with it and vote. Unless there are further objections to the choices, in which case posters should state their objections.

And I will be the first to support your right to criticise the establishment ...

The “poll” as reconstituted is a pointless exercise, as originally constituted it was a ridiculous exercise. Improvement, but not as we like it , Jim.
Political discussion web sites are not representative of the general public, they are more often than not left leaning, anti-government in opinion.

A poll such as this will have a predictable result, but that said if you wish to talk to yourselves to reassure yourselves, who am I....

The whole damn internet is a pointless exercise if you want to be characteristically pedantic. It does have entertainment value though .