I'm all for capitalism, but doesn't this sound excessive to you?

New York media conglomerate News Corp is paying $50,000 a month to rent an apartment for Chairman Rupert Murdoch. Mr. Murcoch's combined salary and bonus reached a high of $25.7 million in the year ended June 30. This information is quoted directly from the Wall Street Journal, pg B3 - 9/8/06. (I have $70 for gasoline and groceries after paying rent this month and I thought I had it good!)

You bring up an interesting point that has been debated for years. It applies not only to business upper management but to medicine, politics, sports, entertainment, etc... Most would agree that if they could earn that much doing what they do, they would not turn it down. So you can't really blame those who are offered the money for taking it. In some cases lack of accountability is to blame as in the case of politicians who are able to determine their own pay/benefits. Quite often in medical circles those who appear to be making too much really aren't when you consider the cost of education and insurance issues. As for sports and entertainment...well that is truely a phenomena isn't it. If those industries depended on my input, they would barely make more than minimum wage...the reason is that I rarely choose to spend my money on entertainment related expenses. But there are millions who disagree with me and as long as they are willing to pay the money, the studios and owners will continue to pay outrageous salaries.

Which brings me to upper management salaries. Studies conducted in the 1980's and 1990's described an interesting salary descrepancy between US and other countries. Japanese and Eurpean CEOs made far less than their US counterparts. Obviously our people aren't any better and cost of living doesn't account for million dollar differences! The reason sited was that Americans have a different focus and priority in this area. Also note that typical American top mangement hop from one company to another every few years, each time as a way of upping boosting their careers. This results in management that is less intune with the history of a company and who views his job as transitory. They look for quick improvements rather than longterm success.

The feeling all this gives you is shared by many of us. I am offended to think that these people make so much but really contribute so little as compared to other professionals. But don't blame the individual, blame our society. The only way to fix this is to form a true communist society so you can force conformity and equity on each individual. That really won't work as proven by the USSR's experiement--it was just another human endeavor that was tainted by human self interest causing the formation of have's and have-not's which crushed all individual thought and creativity. So there isn't a good answer for this unless you believe, as many do, that all cultures experience an eventual upheaval, a self cleansing that levels the playing field. You can see the trend by studying societies like the Roman Empire. Oh well...

There are too many injustices in this world. Capitalism is great, why punish someone for working hard. I would prefer to punish those that can work, but don't.

excessive is north americans wasting 85 percent of the worlds resources while the rest shares its crumbs

I hear you loud and clearly.

He was gonna sell Walden Woods too I think.

Maybe think of it like this, when some large amount of something stacks up. Eventually it spreads around a bit. If you want it all, you will be dissappointed. If you only want 10% of median income, easy mostly. The best thing is to figure out what you want in spite of money. Really. Not easy but possible.

$70, man you're loaded, you should see what those Chinese slave labourers are getting to produce more stuff than the rich can ever use while living in poverty to uphold such a great system.

It is not excessive, just disproportionate to what you are used to. There are only a handful of $25M/yr executives out there. On the other hand, there millions and millions of us.

Now, should the company put the money towards housing 25 to 50 families each month instead of one executive who could easily afford rent?

What is in this apartment?

He does own a large piece of the company himself and has given shareholders a very high return and is a great businessman, typically perks like this are only looked at negatively when they are taking them and doing a crappy job.

Hi Ostego, basically in capitalism the fittest survives and shines! More than the ability to make money, it is the ingenuity to multiply it which decides how much one can grow financially. Rupert Murdoch is just one example but compared to Bill Gates, maybe the former is a peanut in the world of business!

As for his emoluments quoted by you, well it should be commensurate with his input. If the input doesn't match what he takes home, well that scenario may be short-lived.

Rupert, as I understand, is not a native of America and so it is not totally inappropriate for the News Corporation to provide him with accommodation as part of his package. When it comes to fringe benefits and so on, whether one is a Chairman or CEO, company policy is and should indeed be the same!

The fact that you end up having just 70 bucks for gasoline and groceries after paying rent, but at the same time putting on a face of feel-good factor which I appreciate, should serve as a strong motivating factor for you to strive for a better tomorrow and maybe one day you too will hit the roof like Rupert Murdoch or Bill Gates! It is only in capitalism or market economy that one can aspire to achieve something like that!

So, be inspired and motivated Ostego by the success stories of people like Rupert Murdoch and Bill Gates, and don't give up hope!
Cheers!

I believe you should just take Bush's advise and "Stay the Course."

that's trickle down economics for you. yes it is excessive. theory of trickle down is "if you feed the horse enough oats some will trickle down to the road for the sparrows." Workers aren't even due Chicken feed.

NO. Things done by force are excessive. Nothing here is being done by force.

No one put a gun to their head and forced them to pay that much compensation. News Corp is paying that much because they believe he's WORTH that, TO THEM. You have to look beyond these numbers, and examine the growth of News Corp under Rupert Murdoch's guidance. The amount of money he receives each year is only a small fraction of the increased profits.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment:

Archive: Forum -Forum -Finance - Links - 1 - 2 - RSS - All RSS Feeds
The Causes and the Results. 0.054
Copyright (c) 2011 Financial Crisis Sunday, May 27, 2012 - Terms of use - Privacy Policy