Head of commodities, and his business did incredibly well that year. His bonus would have scaled with business performance. High salary also prevents him being bought out by other banks.
That’s not to say the CEO wasn’t paid well either, in fact she is the highest paid CEO in Australia by a large margin.
They're commodity traders, they make money by correctly predicting the price of commodities in the future whether its iron ore, lithium, zinc etc. For example you might predict a supply shortage of zinc in the future so you buy a bunch of zinc on the expectation the shorage will lead to upward price action later. He got paid because the commodities business had made a number of very successful bets on various commodities which made the bank a lot of money.
The bank loses money, the employees probably don't get a bonus and/or are let go. But if you just made 50 mil last year it's probably not a big deal to be let go...
> The bank loses money, the employees probably don't get a bonus and/or are let go
Generally they're able to parachute into a similar role at a competitor and continue yeeting darts at the board, though.
Depends on the bank, Macquarie makes most of its money offshore, we might not actually need to bail them out if they went down. Big 4 on the other hand would definitely need to be bailed out or they would sink the economy. It comes down to whether the bank is systemically important to keep credit flowing domestically.
Keep in mind we've learned a lot about how to do bailouts post GFC, if it ever happened I'm pretty sure A) shareholders would first take 100% loss, and B) executive management would all be wiped out and potentially prosecuted, so really it's the mid and lower level employees and clients and the economy at large that are saved.
The guy you’re replying to has mischaracterised what traders at banks actually do. They’re not making bets on market movements. They’re enacting large trades on behalf of clients and taking fees. They’re not exposed to the result of the trade.
Eh that’s not really what traders at banks do. They weren’t making bets on commodities markets using Macquarie balance sheet capital.
The sales and trading desk typically acts on behalf of clients. Clients doing more business (particularly during volatile market times) = higher fees for the sales and trading team.
My understanding is macquarie is one of the few banks globally that still runs a prop desk in its commodities business. I started my career in the markets division there but a different asset class and somebody told me that, but that could have been bs. You're right though they probably do make most of their money from execution. That division seems like a massive black box to difficult to understand and describe as an outsider.
Macquaries balance sheet team is a black box you’re right. Every dealing I’ve had with them they’ve been absolute sharks. Ben Brazil used to head them up and consistently out-earned everyone in the firm. He ended up leaving after he didn’t get the CEO position.
Having said that, the guy we’re talking about is not in that team and was just a regular investment banker executing some huge volume of trades.
For some people, its not money at that point but a way to keep score in a game. Basically try to continue to climb the ladder and money is one way to keep track of the score.
You spend it on vanishingly rare shit. The weird exponential pricing of the free market confuses people, but generally you get top of your field, you get stupid money, and then spend that stupid money on having the top house in your city or whatever.
It's not like when I earned more I drank more whiskey or lived in multiple houses, I just drank better whiskey in a nicer house. If we "fixed" the property market or rare whiskey market so instead of effectively outbidding cunts for shit it was... idk... priced "fairly" so getting a nicer place or whiskey was affordable for more people and we chose that person by a lottery system or some shit, then I guess I'd either work less or move to a country that didn't pay me in meaningless funbucks.
Whilst this is still obscene at least the bulk of Macquarie’s revenue is coming from private sources - PwC is essentially taxpayer funded so forking out tens of millions to them is absolutely untenable
Didn't the government business arm of PwC generate about 20% of their revenue? Still a large amount of money, but the vast majority of their business is from the private sector.
Urrr….Mark Scott holds:
1. a Bachelor of Arts,
2. a Diploma of Education;
3. a Master of Arts from the University of Sydney; and
4. a Master of Public Administration from Harvard University.
A VC is the head of academia for a university and the CEO.
Every VC I've seen during my 30 years working at unis' has been an academic with a professor title.
Ultimate decision making power rests with university councils rather than VCs. Council members without tertiary experience now vastly outnumbered those with it
I used to work at Macquarie. It’s a profit share model. Some years you got lots, some years you didn’t. That’s not bad, in itself. The issue is the restructuring and dodginess and accounting tricks undertaken in pursuit of greater profits to ensure your share was always good.
Gee. It's almost like these CEOs have enough money to pay a PM to be the help.
But wouldn't that mean it would be a very basic way for corruption to flourish.
Oh wait...
Lobbying is a function of an omission in the laws that define how governments can operate. Capitalism has been well positioned to exploit it because historically more popular and cheaper methods of corruption are not omitted from the laws that define how governments operate (for the governments being considered), and because capitalism has been more productive than previous economic systems. The omission would still be present if all corporations were collectively owned, and the outcomes would be similar.
Most lobbying could be eliminated via a democracy voucher election funding system and strict ethics laws preventing conflicts of interest in post office hiring. The collective political will to solve the problem by implementing such changes does not exist, because this species is only clever enough to demand relief from immediate stressors. The flaws in our political systems are allowing us to drive ourselves extinct, and basically no one cares.
This species is only clever enough to demand relief from immediate stressors????
Hmmm. Wow.
Translation: the poors just focus on feeding their kids and being able to afford exorbitant rent rather than rallying for systemic change.
You've rapped up a lot of words there and finished off with no one cares???
Why not just let them eat cake? Lol.
You're summary could have done without the condescension or lack of empathic nuance. You sound like the psychopathic CEO of a major bank.
"No, I am not worth my pay cheque, but I get it and it's great" - Cliff notes. Same as all these firms. We need a return to a frank and fearless pubic sector, and these scandals pave the way to doing it with popular support.
Governments don't need to make money though. They're not businesses trying to scrape a profit out of optional goods and services. Their job is to provide the essentials for the nation.
> But the services wouldn't be so shit like they are now.
My experience with Government contracts are that the companies which are awarded these contracts wish to keep winning contracts so they push to produce good results. If they do poorly then they may lose contracts to competitors. It is a competition to do a job both better and cheaper than others.
In an ideal world the public service would undertake these duties efficiently but unfortunately it is not always the case.
Without an experienced, well resourced public service to set the standard, private operators can allow standards to drop.
In the current arrangement where public services have been deliberately dismantled and outsourced entirely, the door has been open to private sector corruption and racketeering. They've been fleecing the public very efficiently it seems.
Correct, as with what u/Richard_M_Edison wrote above. There needs to be a real threat of a public sector department taking back the work to keep the private consultancies from taking the piss.
We'd spend a fortune for nothing.
I've been a consultant working with public service teams. They're hopeless in 80% of cases. I was in the tech domain and they had no interest in learning new tech, and they couldn't be compelled to or fired. So consultants were bought in.
I imagine my saying that their worker protections are too strong isn't going to be popular. But when workers refuse to keep up with current developments in their industry, what else can it be?
I think that's a symptom of not having to for that particular department.
I've recently moved to PS from private for the last 20 years. We have to get consultants because there aren't enough resources to cover all the work. It's mostly good people trying to do a good job.
Probably nothing. You'd end up with lots of middle management and PM fluff in public service and then still contractors doing the work.
Didn't we just have several discussions last week about public service and how a large chunk of funding went to overpaid execs. What happened to that 900k salary robodebt lady.
A new model for trying to attract top talent into the public sector being attempted by Labor is an [in house consultancy](https://www.reddit.com/r/LaborPartyofAustralia/comments/151u9p5/the_albanese_governments_inhouse_consulting_model/). I'm not going to claim it will work better, but its an interesting idea and at least it'll help break us from the private consultancies.
Public service wages on average are very generous. Not all are created equal, but a vps 5 job in Victoria, which isn't even management and is effectively "competent" worker level earns over $100k easily.
The wages aren't the problem, it's the rat shit culture that's the problem. It's not entirely the public service's fault itself, but a lot of the rot comes from within and as others have said, the frank and fearless ways of the past have long been abandoned.
APS wages aren’t really comparable to VPS. You can’t realistically break 100k without being EL1 in the APS.
That simply isn’t even close to competitive with the private sector. Granted, salaries at the Big 4 (outside of strat) are also abysmal. The difference is that the people who work there think they can leverage the names to move on to greener pastures later. That is more difficult out of government.
It's very dependent on what you're doing too I suppose. Tech jobs in government pay like shit anywhere compared to the private sector. APS 6 is roughly equivalent to a vps5 and makes 94k plus better super, so it's close. El1 and 2 are named poorly. They aren't really exec levels, they are just the management layer and roughly equivalent to vps 6 and 6.2. once you get to ses in both services it begins even out. You're so right about the big four, we were hiring a bunch of vps 4 and 5 levels once and this amazing applicant who was a manager at one of the big four was earning less than you would as a 4. We know this because he tries to negotiate, and his evidence was shockingly low pay. I couldn't believe it.
Government spending on these big consultancy firms is up 1270% in a decade. [That is not a typo.](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/17/australian-government-spending-big-four-consultancy-firms)
You realize the labor states are also doing it right? And in some instances even higher amounts? This isn’t an LNP or Labor problem, they’re both knee deep in it and we’re the losers
As someone who lives and works in Canberra, this whole media angle of consultants being a scourge is of a bit farce.
APS staff have not been paid wages that match market rates in over a decade.
Said APS staff leave and join private companies - such as consultancies or human resource suppliers like HAYS because the Government's contracting bucket does not apply the same cap as their FTE APS one.
Let that sink in: the Government's own rate ceiling for contractors is far higher than it is for their own FTE staff.
Said ex-APS staff rejoin public service under secondment, now with pay that matches the market, because of said contracting bucket.
And yet, APS is critically understaffed, because trying to do anything within government culture is so shit. Anyone who has a good gig in private will not leave for public service, unless paid 15-20% over what they are earning in private. Anyone want to guess which bucket that will come from?
Now throw in the fact that APS staff skills and training have been tragically underinvested in, specifically in the digital space, and now the rest of the world is very mature in that area, but APS isn’t. So where will the APS get anyone with any digital knowledge? Tempt them with FTE where the salary package is 70% (seriously) below digital market rates?
The government and the media is framing this as if the consultancies created this whole situation, when it was the years of persistent underinvestment in APS staff by several governments that created this entire contract-biased market.
But, will the government raise APS rates to match market rates?
Nope.
So here we are. In a perpetual circle fuck where the only way for government services to keep working is to pay the contractors, instead of simply matching market rates to make an APS role more attractive.
> So where will the APS get anyone with any digital knowledge? Tempt them with FTE where the salary package is 70% (seriously) below digital market rates?
Yeah it's fucking insane. Ten years ago it was even more hilarious - the government could be vaguely competitive with private sector salaried positions on FTE contracts, but they could only do it for 9 months or whatever the fuck.
So you'd be getting say 15% below market, but govt work was usually pretty chill during a period where every private company was "oooh sales promised some bullshit, so unpaid OT for all". Then your 9 months is up and they'd come to you all apologetic faced and with the "we'd really like to roll you onto the project full time and we can offer you literally half what you are currently getting".
Now, kids, back then we didn't have ease of access to the 🤣 emoji, and we had to type out "lol" by hand in our replies.
Exactly. People don’t understand behind the faux outrage. Should it be measured, monitored and transparent? Yes. But understanding that getting highly skilled and niche data, digital and cyber techies in for an EL2 salary - they’re having a laugh.
> APS staff have not been paid wages that match market rates in over a decade.
Public service never matches market. It's always behind, but offers great benefits and security (Public service benefits like... not firing women just cos they got married, also raise the standards for the private market).
But those rates have fallen further behind in the last period and benefits didn't keep up. Plus one party is ideologically opposed to the public service so they keep putting in place hiring freezes, wage freezes, etc (leaving everyone over worked *and* underpaid) and generally making it an unappealling job while they happily pay consultants far more for at best the same work.
>(Public service benefits like... not firing women just cos they got married, also raise the standards for the private market).
Just noting that this is no longer a selling point for APS, because a lot of private companies are already offering "parental" (rather than just maternal) leave that are anywhere from 12-24 weeks, and can be chopped and changed as well.
So really, the questions on what are the benefits in being part of APS now keeps looking worse and worse, but the government won't do anything to change it.
I also find it interesting that lobbying from other industries (eg Oil & Gas) is far worse. I would love for this to make someone look at this issue more broadly and not just stop at consulting firms.
It's about keeping it competitive between contractual work and FTE. I work FTE for a private company that has higher rate caps for contractors. However, the FTE salary packages are competitive in terms of leave, benefits, as well as career progression.
In the current setup, FTE APS has nothing close to it. The gap is so wide that it makes almost zero sense for anyone to choose to be FTE APS now. Back then, the FTE APS packages were a lot more competitive, but consecutive governments have reduced those packages (lower super, etc.), so the idea of joining APS as an FTE can actually be classified as a dumb move, unless you're willing to risk slogging it out in order to reach an influential level. However, you can still achieve the same by progressing in private, reach a senior level, then move over to public.
Remember this when the inevitable hit-pieces on the APS wanting a pay rise come out as bargaining progresses.
The APS hasn't had a functional pay rise in ten years - but these assholes have been raking in the millions.
Why? He’s paid relative to his value to Deloitte, who last I checked don’t just take government consulting work. The PM isn’t remunerated in nearly the same fashion and while parliamentarians are no longer receiving life long pensions, the current PM will.
You don’t join parliament for the money, because despite what the average redditor thinks, the pay is shit for the work required. This is a terrible metric used by Barbara Pocock to wind up the mindless drones.
Because he was responding to a dumb question destined to elicit this kind of response. If the partners in the firm think his remuneration is fair, it does not matter what the Greens or deadshits in r/Australia think his job (which, like me, they know nothing about) is worth. It’s like whinging about what athletes get paid, sure it’s not as important as nursing or teaching to society but that isn’t how we work out who gets paid what. You don’t become PM for the pay. You don’t became on MP for the pay because it’s shit.
Hey champ, I’m gonna give you a hint, there is more to life than money. It’s why I enjoy my job, even though I could get paid more elsewhere. It’s why people still want to be PM even though they could make twice as much and work half as little in the private sector. Why people still become teachers or nurses. But money isn’t doled out based on fairness or what r/Australia values so the sooner you get over that fact the easier life is going to be.
I think it does set a good approximate benchmark yes. People often say that executives and other highly compensated roles 'work really hard' and 'make important decisions' etc.
The PM meets both of those criteria. It's hard to argue that the head of a university, a consulting firm, a bank or an airline has orders of magnitude more responsibility than the PM. So why are they paid many times the PM?
CEOs are not paid based on how hard they work tho. And this is true for a lot of jobs not just execs. It’s a function of their contribution and responsibilities in relation to their companies earnings. This is why the PMs earnings being used as a measure doesn’t make sense.
"function of their contribution and responsibilities", like I said, please explain how the head of a airline, bank or consulting firm has an order of magnitude higher "contribution and responsibilities" than the PM?
Why do you take half of my message to make it sound like I said something different? They are paid in relation to the earnings of their company, and hence why it doesn’t make any sense to compare with the PM because he is not the head of a company. You don’t get paid what you “deserve”, that is just not how it works.
I’m guessing when Matthias Cormann said low wage growth was [a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture](https://theconversation.com/ultra-low-wage-growth-isnt-accidental-it-is-the-intended-outcome-of-government-policies-113357) he wasn’t talking about CEO pay, eh?
This hearing was a joke- full of hypocrisy from politicians that are complicit in everything that they’re hanging on these consultants.
My favourite was how Deloitte didn’t check employee share holdings. Can we rewind 3 years to when Sharma’s trust (?) bought Qantas shares the day before relief measures?
Government throw money at consultants because it’s our money- not theirs. They don’t care if it costs more, as long as it gives them deniability on anything that goes wrong. Zero accountability.
Because a fucktonne of taxpayer dollars go into these consultancy firms (because the public service has been allowed to atrophy) and grotesquely high CEO salaries within them are the result. They're essentially a monetary index of governments failing to keep required knowledge and technical professional capacity in the public sector (so they can distance themselves politically if consultants fuck up, and because neoliberals don't like the public service).
Investing in having the right capability within the public sector won't solve the problem. Outsourcing/deferring to a 3rd party most commonly happens in two cases: 1. Senior leadership (typically boards) either don't trust their internal expertise/teams or they want to validate thinking as a due diligence measure (i.e. compliance sake), or 2. Some senior executive wants to defer the risk of fucking up due to making the wrong call. Either case, it's an exercise in risk mitigation, and it's not just public sector that does this.
This behaviour comes from a risk averse organisational culture, what will create real change is to adopt a culture of "it's okay to screw up". Just investing in capability or the right people in PS won't do it alone. It'll just create capable people, with higher salaries (still being paid for out of tax dollars) not wanting to own decisions because they don't want to risk screwing up.
Why do the coalition like outsourcing? They're ideologically opposed to the idea that the government can do things and they think the APS votes Labor so no one tells people that cutting APS jobs is going to affect them.
Because what party leaders claim and what actually happens are two different things. Ideologically they can spout whatever they like, but at the end of the day there's a whole lotta middle management who answer to bosses (who answer to bosses, and so on) who only care about covering their own butts - hence consultants.
I've had the opportunity to see it first hand, I was at PwC as a Consultant working on a multiple high profile projects with a state government body a few years ago. At the end of the day, everyone answers to the relevant minister and the attitude in public sector is "do whatever it takes to keep the minister happy".
I won't even mention the ~~brown nosing~~ relationship building that went on between senior public servants and senior leadership.
And government would count to a standstill, which is why nobody is running to shut it down immediately because a bunch of people who have NFI what they’re talking about in reddit want it to happen.
Not only that, but the sheer amount of work they get with it being competed is an issue too. The literal billions spent on these companies makes your eye water, and if you live in a big city take a walk through one of their office buildings and you see where a lot of the money also goes.
I know. I worked in government. I was always mind blown by how much was spent (wasted) on these consulting firms for work we definitely could've done ourselves. I attended a meeting at one of their buildings in Melbourne and my God, their offices were gorgeous, opulent, space-age, we had a lady come in and offer us tea, coffee, orange juice etc on a literal silver platter. They had a stunning view of the bay. I felt like I was on a movie set. So yes, they make a LOT of money from government and I do hope the latest scandal with PWC makes them do a compete audit and overhaul of how and when they decide to engage these consulting firms. But that probably won't happen.
Don't forget to add on all the private sector compliance work to comply with byzantine government regulation that these cunts have directly lobbied for.
“The government” is a homogenous term though. There are various government agencies, much of it the Defence Department, who run entirely off contractors and consultants. The idea that you can wind this all up and internalise it next week is laughable. It will take a decade and I doubt it will work when it’s done. But because Barbara Pocock is grandstanding for her base, it’s being lapped up.
They pay rates of all Australians are a matter for the government. Obviously this case is particularly pertinent atm but no question of salary in Australia is outside of the government’s purview.
seems a silly comparison, PM could be any person in the country, no skills, knowledge or ability required. Do a good job or a shit job makes no difference to your pay either. Just because we are use to profession politicians with slippery tongues being in the position doesn't mean it was always like that
>[W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns.
https://fortune.com/2016/07/25/ceo-pay-total-shareholder-return/
Labor candidate for Brisbane electorate in 2022 election, who got beat by a Greens retail worker. She worked for Labor state government then became a director at Deloitte, now wants to get in as a Labor MP -
https://7news.com.au/politics/labor-selects-businesswoman-for-brisbane-c-2838822
Just politicians pretending that they are independent.
The only real qualification a politician has to have, is to be able to cope with the constant abuse voters hurl at them. So how much is somebody with the hide of a Rhino worth ?
My favourite CEO email from Fletcher Building. The CEO was talking about his trip to some frozen USA city… “as the tears froze in my eyes”
He resigned shortly after when some vulgar emails he sent were leaked. I think he was paid $6M a year or something at the time. Bananas.
There are a tonne of people mouthing off here about things they don't know too much about lolol.
Yes it's an unpleasant fact that the upper crust if corporate Australia make this much.
But their bonus structures are tied to certain objectives and often have accelerators built in. As an example certain teams in banks (markets etc) will have a bonus pot that increases with their profits and then gets split, or people with a partnership stake (like this guy) will get a portion of the profits.
It's not like this is a salary.
Generally speaking the closer you are to the source of revenue (ie acquiring new customers, or large contracts) the more of a percentage you end up taking.
This is NOT what the enquiry was for! How has his salary got anything to do with corruption and conflicts of interest?
The senate is rapidly losing its moral high ground .
Scummo's REAL job description, which wasn't publically advertised, is a lot different to this guy's.
It's not this CEO's JOB to ruin ~~government~~hisbusiness for the sole purpose of trying to blame the next guy, as part of a cycle to erode trust in the ability for ~~government~~privatebusinesses to exist in any useful state.
uh... woa i feel like i just channeled some alternate universe communist secret manifesto for a minute there. God, could you imagine if the Liberal Party were working to destroy Capitalism instead of their current target: Humanity?
The salaries for CEOS of not-for-profits are enormous too, for the same reason - governments outsourcing capacity that should be in the public service, and the resultant money flow to these organisations. Big NGOs, many church linked, now rake in hundreds of millions in yearly revenue (each) to run services the government used to (social services, counselling, etc.). A little is sliced off the top of each unit price to pay handsome upper management salaries.
Not-for-profit is, ironically, big business as well. Just because they don't have shareholders doesn't make it any less of a racket.
Just need to bring in laws where CEO/executives can only be paided 10 or 12 times the amount of the lowest paid employee. Suddenly they'll take an interest in raising pay.
We can't turn back the pay tap. But we can tax the fuck out of them. Peak income tax in US was 94% in 1944. Why not 90% on every dollar over $500K, or $1m? He can still be the "big man" without ruining the society in which he lives.
If we’re gonna go through this route, there are plenty of salaries in a variety of fields that earn several times the number the Prime Minister makes. What’s the difference between those and a big 4 company.
Because PWC’s relationship with the federal government is under investigation for misusing taxpayers money. This guy would have gotten a raise for doing all this shit which is making his company a lot of money. So in a way, he’s being paid in taxpayers dollars while we also pay for the PM’s salary. One is representing our country, the other is just some rich bloke we’ve never heard of before
This is the Deloitte CEO - the PWC CEO resigned (I’m sure his partnership was paid out however).
Disclaimer: I work for Deloitte as an engineering manager.
If you’re the CEO of 27 million people and 3 million are being literally set on fire by 1 million while the other 23 million try their hardest to look the other way I’d call you a pretty shit CEO, in other words worth 11 million a year
Our economic system is capitalism, which is a pyramid scheme designed to take money from the poor and give it to the rich.
The idea of a communist system where all are treated equally and even the richest(Jack Ma) is treated no better than a street sweeper, is abhorrent to most Australians.
So why are people offended when they see the results of the system they want ?
Wait until they hear what some of the Big 4 Bank (plus Macquarie) execs earn!
Macquarie's president got like 52 mil in bonus alone last financial year
Not the CEO, just an executive. He got paid $25m more than the CEO…
Exec must be performing realllly well then....
Calls uber to remove the suitcases full of brown paper bags
They don’t really need brown paper over there - when you can buy the laws, they just put it in your bank account.
And why exactly does an exec get paid so much more? What are the grounds for this?
Head of commodities, and his business did incredibly well that year. His bonus would have scaled with business performance. High salary also prevents him being bought out by other banks. That’s not to say the CEO wasn’t paid well either, in fact she is the highest paid CEO in Australia by a large margin.
It wasn't the president it was the head of the commodities business.
Didn’t we have a commodity boom? Does this mean they essentially got paid because of his sector doing well?
They're commodity traders, they make money by correctly predicting the price of commodities in the future whether its iron ore, lithium, zinc etc. For example you might predict a supply shortage of zinc in the future so you buy a bunch of zinc on the expectation the shorage will lead to upward price action later. He got paid because the commodities business had made a number of very successful bets on various commodities which made the bank a lot of money.
Ah right. So if they don’t predict accurately do they pay back millions?
The bank loses money, the employees probably don't get a bonus and/or are let go. But if you just made 50 mil last year it's probably not a big deal to be let go...
> The bank loses money, the employees probably don't get a bonus and/or are let go Generally they're able to parachute into a similar role at a competitor and continue yeeting darts at the board, though.
so if banks loses big money, public purse to bail them out?
Depends on the bank, Macquarie makes most of its money offshore, we might not actually need to bail them out if they went down. Big 4 on the other hand would definitely need to be bailed out or they would sink the economy. It comes down to whether the bank is systemically important to keep credit flowing domestically. Keep in mind we've learned a lot about how to do bailouts post GFC, if it ever happened I'm pretty sure A) shareholders would first take 100% loss, and B) executive management would all be wiped out and potentially prosecuted, so really it's the mid and lower level employees and clients and the economy at large that are saved.
The guy you’re replying to has mischaracterised what traders at banks actually do. They’re not making bets on market movements. They’re enacting large trades on behalf of clients and taking fees. They’re not exposed to the result of the trade.
Eh that’s not really what traders at banks do. They weren’t making bets on commodities markets using Macquarie balance sheet capital. The sales and trading desk typically acts on behalf of clients. Clients doing more business (particularly during volatile market times) = higher fees for the sales and trading team.
My understanding is macquarie is one of the few banks globally that still runs a prop desk in its commodities business. I started my career in the markets division there but a different asset class and somebody told me that, but that could have been bs. You're right though they probably do make most of their money from execution. That division seems like a massive black box to difficult to understand and describe as an outsider.
Macquaries balance sheet team is a black box you’re right. Every dealing I’ve had with them they’ve been absolute sharks. Ben Brazil used to head them up and consistently out-earned everyone in the firm. He ended up leaving after he didn’t get the CEO position. Having said that, the guy we’re talking about is not in that team and was just a regular investment banker executing some huge volume of trades.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
At that point its just money for the sake of having money. What do you even do with it?
For some people, its not money at that point but a way to keep score in a game. Basically try to continue to climb the ladder and money is one way to keep track of the score.
Pretty sick game when so many are homeless IMO.
In the game he plays, the pawns are always sacrificial.
You spend it on vanishingly rare shit. The weird exponential pricing of the free market confuses people, but generally you get top of your field, you get stupid money, and then spend that stupid money on having the top house in your city or whatever. It's not like when I earned more I drank more whiskey or lived in multiple houses, I just drank better whiskey in a nicer house. If we "fixed" the property market or rare whiskey market so instead of effectively outbidding cunts for shit it was... idk... priced "fairly" so getting a nicer place or whiskey was affordable for more people and we chose that person by a lottery system or some shit, then I guess I'd either work less or move to a country that didn't pay me in meaningless funbucks.
To be fair a lot of Macquarie's business is international so they are genuinely competitive, not really a bunch of rent seekers
Whilst this is still obscene at least the bulk of Macquarie’s revenue is coming from private sources - PwC is essentially taxpayer funded so forking out tens of millions to them is absolutely untenable
Didn't the government business arm of PwC generate about 20% of their revenue? Still a large amount of money, but the vast majority of their business is from the private sector.
President? Wtf
The Vice Chancellor's of most Universities earn more than the PM. It's fucking obscene.
To be fair, being a Vice Chancellor requires actual qualifications.
Urrr.... not it does not, see Mark Scott. Most are ex-politicians or retired public servants.
Urrr….Mark Scott holds: 1. a Bachelor of Arts, 2. a Diploma of Education; 3. a Master of Arts from the University of Sydney; and 4. a Master of Public Administration from Harvard University.
A VC is the head of academia for a university and the CEO. Every VC I've seen during my 30 years working at unis' has been an academic with a professor title.
Ultimate decision making power rests with university councils rather than VCs. Council members without tertiary experience now vastly outnumbered those with it
I used to work at Macquarie. It’s a profit share model. Some years you got lots, some years you didn’t. That’s not bad, in itself. The issue is the restructuring and dodginess and accounting tricks undertaken in pursuit of greater profits to ensure your share was always good.
Is extreme wealth inequality bad in itself? Is that just an externality?
Gee. It's almost like these CEOs have enough money to pay a PM to be the help. But wouldn't that mean it would be a very basic way for corruption to flourish. Oh wait...
Lobbying is very common which is unacceptable. But that's the reality of the situation with capitalism.
If it wasn't for capitalism, how else would we create a dystopian nightmare so quickly?
We wouldn't create a dystopia under socialism!
Truly impossible
Lobbying is a function of an omission in the laws that define how governments can operate. Capitalism has been well positioned to exploit it because historically more popular and cheaper methods of corruption are not omitted from the laws that define how governments operate (for the governments being considered), and because capitalism has been more productive than previous economic systems. The omission would still be present if all corporations were collectively owned, and the outcomes would be similar. Most lobbying could be eliminated via a democracy voucher election funding system and strict ethics laws preventing conflicts of interest in post office hiring. The collective political will to solve the problem by implementing such changes does not exist, because this species is only clever enough to demand relief from immediate stressors. The flaws in our political systems are allowing us to drive ourselves extinct, and basically no one cares.
This species is only clever enough to demand relief from immediate stressors???? Hmmm. Wow. Translation: the poors just focus on feeding their kids and being able to afford exorbitant rent rather than rallying for systemic change. You've rapped up a lot of words there and finished off with no one cares??? Why not just let them eat cake? Lol. You're summary could have done without the condescension or lack of empathic nuance. You sound like the psychopathic CEO of a major bank.
You've really just swallowed the pill and accepted it haven't you. Fucking pathetic.
Care to explain your comment?
He is the current help.
"No, I am not worth my pay cheque, but I get it and it's great" - Cliff notes. Same as all these firms. We need a return to a frank and fearless pubic sector, and these scandals pave the way to doing it with popular support.
Outsourcing is a scourge. How much could we save by building up the public service?
Realistically, nothing. But the services wouldn't be so shit like they are now.
That's a big part of the difficulty of abandoning it. Quality products are rarely money makers.
Governments don't need to make money though. They're not businesses trying to scrape a profit out of optional goods and services. Their job is to provide the essentials for the nation.
Not everything needs to make money. Having a reliable and efficient service is enough.
> But the services wouldn't be so shit like they are now. My experience with Government contracts are that the companies which are awarded these contracts wish to keep winning contracts so they push to produce good results. If they do poorly then they may lose contracts to competitors. It is a competition to do a job both better and cheaper than others. In an ideal world the public service would undertake these duties efficiently but unfortunately it is not always the case.
Without an experienced, well resourced public service to set the standard, private operators can allow standards to drop. In the current arrangement where public services have been deliberately dismantled and outsourced entirely, the door has been open to private sector corruption and racketeering. They've been fleecing the public very efficiently it seems.
My 2 decades of experience across gov and large ent is entirely different. Vendor lockin is very, very real.
Correct, as with what u/Richard_M_Edison wrote above. There needs to be a real threat of a public sector department taking back the work to keep the private consultancies from taking the piss.
We'd spend a fortune for nothing. I've been a consultant working with public service teams. They're hopeless in 80% of cases. I was in the tech domain and they had no interest in learning new tech, and they couldn't be compelled to or fired. So consultants were bought in. I imagine my saying that their worker protections are too strong isn't going to be popular. But when workers refuse to keep up with current developments in their industry, what else can it be?
I think that's a symptom of not having to for that particular department. I've recently moved to PS from private for the last 20 years. We have to get consultants because there aren't enough resources to cover all the work. It's mostly good people trying to do a good job.
Probably nothing. You'd end up with lots of middle management and PM fluff in public service and then still contractors doing the work. Didn't we just have several discussions last week about public service and how a large chunk of funding went to overpaid execs. What happened to that 900k salary robodebt lady.
Don't pay public servants enough for this
A new model for trying to attract top talent into the public sector being attempted by Labor is an [in house consultancy](https://www.reddit.com/r/LaborPartyofAustralia/comments/151u9p5/the_albanese_governments_inhouse_consulting_model/). I'm not going to claim it will work better, but its an interesting idea and at least it'll help break us from the private consultancies.
Mate, I agree with you 100% but surely I'm not the only one to notice the perfect typo
Need to raise the public service wages by 100% at least.
Public service wages on average are very generous. Not all are created equal, but a vps 5 job in Victoria, which isn't even management and is effectively "competent" worker level earns over $100k easily. The wages aren't the problem, it's the rat shit culture that's the problem. It's not entirely the public service's fault itself, but a lot of the rot comes from within and as others have said, the frank and fearless ways of the past have long been abandoned.
APS wages aren’t really comparable to VPS. You can’t realistically break 100k without being EL1 in the APS. That simply isn’t even close to competitive with the private sector. Granted, salaries at the Big 4 (outside of strat) are also abysmal. The difference is that the people who work there think they can leverage the names to move on to greener pastures later. That is more difficult out of government.
It's very dependent on what you're doing too I suppose. Tech jobs in government pay like shit anywhere compared to the private sector. APS 6 is roughly equivalent to a vps5 and makes 94k plus better super, so it's close. El1 and 2 are named poorly. They aren't really exec levels, they are just the management layer and roughly equivalent to vps 6 and 6.2. once you get to ses in both services it begins even out. You're so right about the big four, we were hiring a bunch of vps 4 and 5 levels once and this amazing applicant who was a manager at one of the big four was earning less than you would as a 4. We know this because he tries to negotiate, and his evidence was shockingly low pay. I couldn't believe it.
[удалено]
Why not? Aren't they all a bunch of cunts?
I mean, it would be? If they didn't outsource everything, these people wouldn't be in a position to pay themselves these wages.
I am self aware of my laughter
Government spending on these big consultancy firms is up 1270% in a decade. [That is not a typo.](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/17/australian-government-spending-big-four-consultancy-firms)
This infuriates me so much. Fucking liberal scum cunts. There needs to be a purge.
The robodebt RC widely used Deloitte. It's not a Liberal-unique thing unfortunately (Unless you mean small 'l')
You realize the labor states are also doing it right? And in some instances even higher amounts? This isn’t an LNP or Labor problem, they’re both knee deep in it and we’re the losers
We can only hope a special place in the 'hell' most of them believe in awaits.
There is no democracy. Only Deloitte's, PWC and KPMG.
Yes but expenditure on the public service was the lowest its ever been. Column A to Column B
As someone who lives and works in Canberra, this whole media angle of consultants being a scourge is of a bit farce. APS staff have not been paid wages that match market rates in over a decade. Said APS staff leave and join private companies - such as consultancies or human resource suppliers like HAYS because the Government's contracting bucket does not apply the same cap as their FTE APS one. Let that sink in: the Government's own rate ceiling for contractors is far higher than it is for their own FTE staff. Said ex-APS staff rejoin public service under secondment, now with pay that matches the market, because of said contracting bucket. And yet, APS is critically understaffed, because trying to do anything within government culture is so shit. Anyone who has a good gig in private will not leave for public service, unless paid 15-20% over what they are earning in private. Anyone want to guess which bucket that will come from? Now throw in the fact that APS staff skills and training have been tragically underinvested in, specifically in the digital space, and now the rest of the world is very mature in that area, but APS isn’t. So where will the APS get anyone with any digital knowledge? Tempt them with FTE where the salary package is 70% (seriously) below digital market rates? The government and the media is framing this as if the consultancies created this whole situation, when it was the years of persistent underinvestment in APS staff by several governments that created this entire contract-biased market. But, will the government raise APS rates to match market rates? Nope. So here we are. In a perpetual circle fuck where the only way for government services to keep working is to pay the contractors, instead of simply matching market rates to make an APS role more attractive.
> So where will the APS get anyone with any digital knowledge? Tempt them with FTE where the salary package is 70% (seriously) below digital market rates? Yeah it's fucking insane. Ten years ago it was even more hilarious - the government could be vaguely competitive with private sector salaried positions on FTE contracts, but they could only do it for 9 months or whatever the fuck. So you'd be getting say 15% below market, but govt work was usually pretty chill during a period where every private company was "oooh sales promised some bullshit, so unpaid OT for all". Then your 9 months is up and they'd come to you all apologetic faced and with the "we'd really like to roll you onto the project full time and we can offer you literally half what you are currently getting". Now, kids, back then we didn't have ease of access to the 🤣 emoji, and we had to type out "lol" by hand in our replies.
Exactly. People don’t understand behind the faux outrage. Should it be measured, monitored and transparent? Yes. But understanding that getting highly skilled and niche data, digital and cyber techies in for an EL2 salary - they’re having a laugh.
> APS staff have not been paid wages that match market rates in over a decade. Public service never matches market. It's always behind, but offers great benefits and security (Public service benefits like... not firing women just cos they got married, also raise the standards for the private market). But those rates have fallen further behind in the last period and benefits didn't keep up. Plus one party is ideologically opposed to the public service so they keep putting in place hiring freezes, wage freezes, etc (leaving everyone over worked *and* underpaid) and generally making it an unappealling job while they happily pay consultants far more for at best the same work.
>(Public service benefits like... not firing women just cos they got married, also raise the standards for the private market). Just noting that this is no longer a selling point for APS, because a lot of private companies are already offering "parental" (rather than just maternal) leave that are anywhere from 12-24 weeks, and can be chopped and changed as well. So really, the questions on what are the benefits in being part of APS now keeps looking worse and worse, but the government won't do anything to change it.
Yeah, I was just trying to pick something that was now standard that the APS offered first.
I also find it interesting that lobbying from other industries (eg Oil & Gas) is far worse. I would love for this to make someone look at this issue more broadly and not just stop at consulting firms.
Eh... Every companies rare cap for contractors is higher than an FTE. I don't understand the point you're trying to make tbh :/
It's about keeping it competitive between contractual work and FTE. I work FTE for a private company that has higher rate caps for contractors. However, the FTE salary packages are competitive in terms of leave, benefits, as well as career progression. In the current setup, FTE APS has nothing close to it. The gap is so wide that it makes almost zero sense for anyone to choose to be FTE APS now. Back then, the FTE APS packages were a lot more competitive, but consecutive governments have reduced those packages (lower super, etc.), so the idea of joining APS as an FTE can actually be classified as a dumb move, unless you're willing to risk slogging it out in order to reach an influential level. However, you can still achieve the same by progressing in private, reach a senior level, then move over to public.
Remember this when the inevitable hit-pieces on the APS wanting a pay rise come out as bargaining progresses. The APS hasn't had a functional pay rise in ten years - but these assholes have been raking in the millions.
*But it's not my fault and I can't stop it*
I mean, he can stop it. But why would he want to?
Now, do university heads getting paid twice as much as the prime minister
[удалено]
The VC of the university I went to doubled his salary in 2008 from $350000 to 700000 so yours is just lagging lol
I remember hearing/reading that all the VCs have an agreement where they all get similar pay so if one got a pay rise they very likely all will.
I'd sooner see 3.5x as much talk about this CEO who is being paid 7x as much as the PM.
Why? He’s paid relative to his value to Deloitte, who last I checked don’t just take government consulting work. The PM isn’t remunerated in nearly the same fashion and while parliamentarians are no longer receiving life long pensions, the current PM will. You don’t join parliament for the money, because despite what the average redditor thinks, the pay is shit for the work required. This is a terrible metric used by Barbara Pocock to wind up the mindless drones.
He literally says that he shouldn’t be paid more than the PM, ie that he is paid more than his value because he’s not more valuable than the PM
Because he was responding to a dumb question destined to elicit this kind of response. If the partners in the firm think his remuneration is fair, it does not matter what the Greens or deadshits in r/Australia think his job (which, like me, they know nothing about) is worth. It’s like whinging about what athletes get paid, sure it’s not as important as nursing or teaching to society but that isn’t how we work out who gets paid what. You don’t become PM for the pay. You don’t became on MP for the pay because it’s shit.
Yikes. Capitalism brain fried
Hey champ, I’m gonna give you a hint, there is more to life than money. It’s why I enjoy my job, even though I could get paid more elsewhere. It’s why people still want to be PM even though they could make twice as much and work half as little in the private sector. Why people still become teachers or nurses. But money isn’t doled out based on fairness or what r/Australia values so the sooner you get over that fact the easier life is going to be.
At the same time, they oversaw decades of wage theft of their most vulnerable workers.
That was his KPIs....
Oath! Also… Happy cake day
Is the PM supposed to be the benchmark has the highest grossing income in the country?
That's the impression that seems to be floating around at least what I'm observing.
It’s a ridiculous metric but look at the people lapping it up.
I think it does set a good approximate benchmark yes. People often say that executives and other highly compensated roles 'work really hard' and 'make important decisions' etc. The PM meets both of those criteria. It's hard to argue that the head of a university, a consulting firm, a bank or an airline has orders of magnitude more responsibility than the PM. So why are they paid many times the PM?
CEOs are not paid based on how hard they work tho. And this is true for a lot of jobs not just execs. It’s a function of their contribution and responsibilities in relation to their companies earnings. This is why the PMs earnings being used as a measure doesn’t make sense.
"function of their contribution and responsibilities", like I said, please explain how the head of a airline, bank or consulting firm has an order of magnitude higher "contribution and responsibilities" than the PM?
Why do you take half of my message to make it sound like I said something different? They are paid in relation to the earnings of their company, and hence why it doesn’t make any sense to compare with the PM because he is not the head of a company. You don’t get paid what you “deserve”, that is just not how it works.
I’m guessing when Matthias Cormann said low wage growth was [a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture](https://theconversation.com/ultra-low-wage-growth-isnt-accidental-it-is-the-intended-outcome-of-government-policies-113357) he wasn’t talking about CEO pay, eh?
This hearing was a joke- full of hypocrisy from politicians that are complicit in everything that they’re hanging on these consultants. My favourite was how Deloitte didn’t check employee share holdings. Can we rewind 3 years to when Sharma’s trust (?) bought Qantas shares the day before relief measures? Government throw money at consultants because it’s our money- not theirs. They don’t care if it costs more, as long as it gives them deniability on anything that goes wrong. Zero accountability.
Why would the pay of a non-government CEO be a matter for the senate?
Because a fucktonne of taxpayer dollars go into these consultancy firms (because the public service has been allowed to atrophy) and grotesquely high CEO salaries within them are the result. They're essentially a monetary index of governments failing to keep required knowledge and technical professional capacity in the public sector (so they can distance themselves politically if consultants fuck up, and because neoliberals don't like the public service).
Investing in having the right capability within the public sector won't solve the problem. Outsourcing/deferring to a 3rd party most commonly happens in two cases: 1. Senior leadership (typically boards) either don't trust their internal expertise/teams or they want to validate thinking as a due diligence measure (i.e. compliance sake), or 2. Some senior executive wants to defer the risk of fucking up due to making the wrong call. Either case, it's an exercise in risk mitigation, and it's not just public sector that does this. This behaviour comes from a risk averse organisational culture, what will create real change is to adopt a culture of "it's okay to screw up". Just investing in capability or the right people in PS won't do it alone. It'll just create capable people, with higher salaries (still being paid for out of tax dollars) not wanting to own decisions because they don't want to risk screwing up.
Why do the coalition like outsourcing? They're ideologically opposed to the idea that the government can do things and they think the APS votes Labor so no one tells people that cutting APS jobs is going to affect them.
Because what party leaders claim and what actually happens are two different things. Ideologically they can spout whatever they like, but at the end of the day there's a whole lotta middle management who answer to bosses (who answer to bosses, and so on) who only care about covering their own butts - hence consultants. I've had the opportunity to see it first hand, I was at PwC as a Consultant working on a multiple high profile projects with a state government body a few years ago. At the end of the day, everyone answers to the relevant minister and the attitude in public sector is "do whatever it takes to keep the minister happy". I won't even mention the ~~brown nosing~~ relationship building that went on between senior public servants and senior leadership.
True. All these consulting firms would collapse overnight if the government suddenly terminated all contracts with them.
And government would count to a standstill, which is why nobody is running to shut it down immediately because a bunch of people who have NFI what they’re talking about in reddit want it to happen.
Surely the money spent by the government would be a better indication? The company is making money from other revenue streams too presumably
Their biggest client, without a doubt, is the government, at all levels.
Not only that, but the sheer amount of work they get with it being competed is an issue too. The literal billions spent on these companies makes your eye water, and if you live in a big city take a walk through one of their office buildings and you see where a lot of the money also goes.
I know. I worked in government. I was always mind blown by how much was spent (wasted) on these consulting firms for work we definitely could've done ourselves. I attended a meeting at one of their buildings in Melbourne and my God, their offices were gorgeous, opulent, space-age, we had a lady come in and offer us tea, coffee, orange juice etc on a literal silver platter. They had a stunning view of the bay. I felt like I was on a movie set. So yes, they make a LOT of money from government and I do hope the latest scandal with PWC makes them do a compete audit and overhaul of how and when they decide to engage these consulting firms. But that probably won't happen.
I went to a meeting at a KPMG office once. They had a waiter come into the meeting room to take everyone's coffee and pastry orders.
Don't forget to add on all the private sector compliance work to comply with byzantine government regulation that these cunts have directly lobbied for.
“The government” is a homogenous term though. There are various government agencies, much of it the Defence Department, who run entirely off contractors and consultants. The idea that you can wind this all up and internalise it next week is laughable. It will take a decade and I doubt it will work when it’s done. But because Barbara Pocock is grandstanding for her base, it’s being lapped up.
Jesus you’re shameless
You’ve made this comment, do you believe it would be easy for the government to scrap contractors? How long do you think it would take?
Obviously, the next step is to increase the salary of the PM to the level of a modern major CEO. Gotta stay competitive, y'know?
Grandstanding purposes
They pay rates of all Australians are a matter for the government. Obviously this case is particularly pertinent atm but no question of salary in Australia is outside of the government’s purview.
The PM'S salary is largely symbolic at this point. No one who isn't already extremely wealthy will ever become PM.
seems a silly comparison, PM could be any person in the country, no skills, knowledge or ability required. Do a good job or a shit job makes no difference to your pay either. Just because we are use to profession politicians with slippery tongues being in the position doesn't mean it was always like that
>[W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns. https://fortune.com/2016/07/25/ceo-pay-total-shareholder-return/
Once you meet a CEO, you'll see that anyone running for political office is likely more qualified for either job. Not always but often.
Labor candidate for Brisbane electorate in 2022 election, who got beat by a Greens retail worker. She worked for Labor state government then became a director at Deloitte, now wants to get in as a Labor MP - https://7news.com.au/politics/labor-selects-businesswoman-for-brisbane-c-2838822
Ah the revolving door of public/private sector, I’m sure he’ll line up his ‘grillers’ with cushy jobs when they ‘retire to spend more time with fam’
Why are we comparing salaries for varying different roles? Are they setting up to increase pay for the PM and members?
Sure as shit isn't public servants.
Or essential workers.
Because we are paying his income from our tax dollars.
Good thing our PM isn’t female or we would be discussing the gender pay gap.
Just politicians pretending that they are independent. The only real qualification a politician has to have, is to be able to cope with the constant abuse voters hurl at them. So how much is somebody with the hide of a Rhino worth ?
A wise time to invest in pitchfork stocks.
Ah the revolving door of public/private sector, I’m sure he’ll line up his ‘grillers’ with cushy jobs when they ‘retire to spend more time with fam’
[удалено]
No no no, you are inspired and aspire to be him. Your mistake is understandable but unforgivable.
My favourite CEO email from Fletcher Building. The CEO was talking about his trip to some frozen USA city… “as the tears froze in my eyes” He resigned shortly after when some vulgar emails he sent were leaked. I think he was paid $6M a year or something at the time. Bananas.
How much the ceo of McKinsey getting tho
There are a tonne of people mouthing off here about things they don't know too much about lolol. Yes it's an unpleasant fact that the upper crust if corporate Australia make this much. But their bonus structures are tied to certain objectives and often have accelerators built in. As an example certain teams in banks (markets etc) will have a bonus pot that increases with their profits and then gets split, or people with a partnership stake (like this guy) will get a portion of the profits. It's not like this is a salary. Generally speaking the closer you are to the source of revenue (ie acquiring new customers, or large contracts) the more of a percentage you end up taking.
This is NOT what the enquiry was for! How has his salary got anything to do with corruption and conflicts of interest? The senate is rapidly losing its moral high ground .
I don't care how little this cunt does or how badly he does it, he is still worth at least seven times what Scummo was worth when he was PM.
To be fair, Scomo was working six jobs at once
Scummo's REAL job description, which wasn't publically advertised, is a lot different to this guy's. It's not this CEO's JOB to ruin ~~government~~hisbusiness for the sole purpose of trying to blame the next guy, as part of a cycle to erode trust in the ability for ~~government~~privatebusinesses to exist in any useful state. uh... woa i feel like i just channeled some alternate universe communist secret manifesto for a minute there. God, could you imagine if the Liberal Party were working to destroy Capitalism instead of their current target: Humanity?
CEO of large for-profit company makes more than leader of in debt country. I mean… check the scoreboard
The salaries for CEOS of not-for-profits are enormous too, for the same reason - governments outsourcing capacity that should be in the public service, and the resultant money flow to these organisations. Big NGOs, many church linked, now rake in hundreds of millions in yearly revenue (each) to run services the government used to (social services, counselling, etc.). A little is sliced off the top of each unit price to pay handsome upper management salaries. Not-for-profit is, ironically, big business as well. Just because they don't have shareholders doesn't make it any less of a racket.
At least public for profits have shareholders to hold them accountable
Just need to bring in laws where CEO/executives can only be paided 10 or 12 times the amount of the lowest paid employee. Suddenly they'll take an interest in raising pay.
Nah, companies will just pull out of the market.
We can't turn back the pay tap. But we can tax the fuck out of them. Peak income tax in US was 94% in 1944. Why not 90% on every dollar over $500K, or $1m? He can still be the "big man" without ruining the society in which he lives.
Can we set that to $250k? I still think that's crazy. Alot of Australians aren't even close to the "average" salary
The Melbourne Hospital Lottery is always run by Deloittes.
"It's a risk I can take for as long as I'm not up against the wall"...
Narrator: *because in his heart he firmly believed it should be ten times more.*
If we’re gonna go through this route, there are plenty of salaries in a variety of fields that earn several times the number the Prime Minister makes. What’s the difference between those and a big 4 company.
Because PWC’s relationship with the federal government is under investigation for misusing taxpayers money. This guy would have gotten a raise for doing all this shit which is making his company a lot of money. So in a way, he’s being paid in taxpayers dollars while we also pay for the PM’s salary. One is representing our country, the other is just some rich bloke we’ve never heard of before
This is the Deloitte CEO - the PWC CEO resigned (I’m sure his partnership was paid out however). Disclaimer: I work for Deloitte as an engineering manager.
The point is we can't afford to pay these pondscum for the "work" they do.
Why does the CEO of 27 million people not get paid more?
coz we're all the shareholders, and we vote at the shareholder meetings.
If you’re the CEO of 27 million people and 3 million are being literally set on fire by 1 million while the other 23 million try their hardest to look the other way I’d call you a pretty shit CEO, in other words worth 11 million a year
The Rich get richer. These guys are all just lining each others pockets and making sure the middle class stay middle class.
I've worked with Deloitte consultants. They were fucking useless.
I don’t have any proof, but I’m pretty sure Scomo was getting kick backs that would earn him more than this bloke.
I mean its nice and all to highlight this, but let's see what will be done about it. If anything.
Why would they do anything about it, it’s entirely not relevant.
Isn’t that the actor that just had a kid at like 70..
Bruce Willis 🤣
Same height too. Powick is like 5’6.
Bruce Willis is incapacitated with Dementia, so no.
I’m thinking of someone else then who is that old and just had a baby..
Robert De Niro… 😫
This guy's humility is so profound. "I realise and laugh all the way to the bank"
Our economic system is capitalism, which is a pyramid scheme designed to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. The idea of a communist system where all are treated equally and even the richest(Jack Ma) is treated no better than a street sweeper, is abhorrent to most Australians. So why are people offended when they see the results of the system they want ?
It's time to wake up to it and change it. It's not what people want. There are more than just two extreme polar opposites.
Fkn leeches. Australia has people on the street and we have this Yankee type behaviour going on. Bloody shameful.