Quality Business Reporting
Journalist Brain Drain
"But the row raises questions about society's priorities.
Lets forget all the ill-informed quoting out of context (an overly modest risk-taking entrepreneur's comment used and abused in an employee context of valuing worth to society) from an obvious candidate for anti-business journalist of the year. This had me heading for the Alka Seltzer as I am quite sick of this nonsense:
"But the row raises questions about society's priorities.
What is it that corporate high fliers do that warrants them earning twenty, thirty, five hundred times more than unsung heroes such as theatre nurses and police officers on whom they depend, at times of crisis, or the teachers they require to educate their children?".
Ughmmm. Society's priorities?? What is it????
Perhaps the concept of intellectual capital?
Perhaps the idea that the "unsung heroes" are not actually nurses, police officers or teachers because every dripping journalism dipstick graduate is mass producing "human interest" rubbish about how "unsung" they are therefore they cannot possibly be deemed "unsung" anymore?
Perhaps the idea that very few people actually really want to be "corporate high fliers"? And with all the downsides. They just want the upside which is to be paid like one.
Perhaps the idea that to suggest a nurse or a police officer or a teacher is paid as much as say the CEO of Telecom is blatantly insulting and disrespectful to the CEO of Telecom because as nice as it would be to dream that someone trained as a teacher, police officer or nurse could one day actually be the CEO of Telecom, they bloody can't because they are simply not smart enough. But the CEO of Telecom is more than likely smart enough to train as a nurse, police officer or teacher. If they really wanted to.
Perhaps the concept that we are not living in a Communist state and people are paid differently to do clearly different jobs?
Example:
An author of this kind of anti-business nonsense, a teacher or even a toilet cleaner possibly work longer hours than I do and touch more lives on a daily basis in a mushy gooey way. Does that mean they should be paid more to do their jobs than I do? Get serious.
I can do any one of their jobs with minimal re-training. If I really wanted to.
The six figure question is: are they and can they ever be, qualified, ready and able to do mine?
Example 2:
After investment bank Goldman Sachs announced a bonus pool of US$16.5 billion last year, the New York Daily News commented that "something is wrong when one firm's bonus pool is enough to end poverty in America's largest city".
This is a simply ghastly example for the anti-business reporter to have used.
At least one of my long-time readers has experience working at Goldman Sachs. I have referred business to Goldman Sachs and receive invites to their swanky functions because of it. I have been involved in supplying product to Goldman Sachs for their intricate and time sensitive corporate deals. I have a background that means if I applied myself in a slightly different direction at times in my career I too could now be working at Goldman Sachs.
Unlike the author of this anti-business nonsense, I am educated enough to know precisely what it takes to work at a firm like Goldman Sachs at that level to earn that kind of reported reward. And do I want to work there even if they wanted me to join? To be part of the reported US$16.5 billion bonus pool? Wanna be a part of the intense 24/7, 365 days a year pressure that is this?
Gotta be friggin' joking.
Which would be the answer that most New Zealanders would give if they were smart enough to actually realise what a CEO or "corporate high flier" has had to actually do to get to where they are and how hellish and volatile their life can be as a result of the pressure and responsibility.
More column inches should be used to report that.
Ughmmm. Society's priorities?? What is it????
Perhaps the concept of intellectual capital?
Perhaps the idea that the "unsung heroes" are not actually nurses, police officers or teachers because every dripping journalism dipstick graduate is mass producing "human interest" rubbish about how "unsung" they are therefore they cannot possibly be deemed "unsung" anymore?
Perhaps the idea that very few people actually really want to be "corporate high fliers"? And with all the downsides. They just want the upside which is to be paid like one.
Perhaps the idea that to suggest a nurse or a police officer or a teacher is paid as much as say the CEO of Telecom is blatantly insulting and disrespectful to the CEO of Telecom because as nice as it would be to dream that someone trained as a teacher, police officer or nurse could one day actually be the CEO of Telecom, they bloody can't because they are simply not smart enough. But the CEO of Telecom is more than likely smart enough to train as a nurse, police officer or teacher. If they really wanted to.
Perhaps the concept that we are not living in a Communist state and people are paid differently to do clearly different jobs?
Example:
An author of this kind of anti-business nonsense, a teacher or even a toilet cleaner possibly work longer hours than I do and touch more lives on a daily basis in a mushy gooey way. Does that mean they should be paid more to do their jobs than I do? Get serious.
I can do any one of their jobs with minimal re-training. If I really wanted to.
The six figure question is: are they and can they ever be, qualified, ready and able to do mine?
Example 2:
After investment bank Goldman Sachs announced a bonus pool of US$16.5 billion last year, the New York Daily News commented that "something is wrong when one firm's bonus pool is enough to end poverty in America's largest city".
This is a simply ghastly example for the anti-business reporter to have used.
At least one of my long-time readers has experience working at Goldman Sachs. I have referred business to Goldman Sachs and receive invites to their swanky functions because of it. I have been involved in supplying product to Goldman Sachs for their intricate and time sensitive corporate deals. I have a background that means if I applied myself in a slightly different direction at times in my career I too could now be working at Goldman Sachs.
Unlike the author of this anti-business nonsense, I am educated enough to know precisely what it takes to work at a firm like Goldman Sachs at that level to earn that kind of reported reward. And do I want to work there even if they wanted me to join? To be part of the reported US$16.5 billion bonus pool? Wanna be a part of the intense 24/7, 365 days a year pressure that is this?
Gotta be friggin' joking.
Which would be the answer that most New Zealanders would give if they were smart enough to actually realise what a CEO or "corporate high flier" has had to actually do to get to where they are and how hellish and volatile their life can be as a result of the pressure and responsibility.
More column inches should be used to report that.
posted by Cactus Kate at 3:00 AM
6 Comments:
Bravo!
SG
One word: Enron.
145 words: I hate myself for writing this, but even as a lapsed orthodox Marxist I don't begrudge most CEOs for earning as much as they do. They manage risks beyond anything I could comprehend, they take responsibility for things out of the control of most of their employees, and if they stuff up they're publicly ruined. At times the renumerating seems disproportionately high, but I know that the worst thing that happens if I stuff up at work is that we end up printing more bible pages than we really need to, I can wallpaper over my mistakes anyway, and nobody's going to jail. There are, of course, people in positions of such responsibility that when they have a bad day people die (medical professionals, Melbourne police, Sydney ferry operators); but as far as what "society" really values, wealth follows what wealth values: being, well, wealth.
However IMHO there is a debate to be had regarding the need to pay bonuses for performance and whether this is a suggestion that the employee wont give of their best otherwise.Afterall we dont pay bonuses to surgeons if they keep their patients alive do we.
gd
I agree in principle Kate. But re Mark Weldon- for a company with a market value of only 90 million (and lofty P/E of 28), trading revenue of only 16.5 million or so, to be potentially paying the chief close to 5% of trading revenue, or 24% of operating surplus after tax profits seems like an unjustifiable deal.
Of course if punters dont like it they can sell their shares - which I did. I invest in teh DJI these days.
http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/default.aspx?id=71626
Further research shocked me a bit. I am in the UK Kate and do not actually personally know any expat here older than say 33 that in NZD terms earns less than the average amount quoted here for being a public or private sector CEO. In Hong Kong it is likely you are in a similar position.
NZ CEO rates (on average) are absolute rubbish in terms of comparative responsibility and pressure to perform to what we have here.
Anonymous
Try as soon as I stepped off the plane after leaving NZ in 2003 and you could drop the 33 back a few years as well.
I am not in Hong Kong for the abundant supply of sexy males. In fact its the last place in the world a white woman should come if she wishes to find a nice similar man to settle down with.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home