Are huge salaries justified?

Zachary Aldwin Milkshake in the Boardroom
Take for instance the US$230 000 that Premier Service Medical Aid Society boss was earning, this translates to about US$1 500 an hour (working on a forty hour working week). Not a bad income at all even after you take taxes into consideration. If PSMAS was debt free, offering adequate service to its clients that made it a market leader in the field, settling payouts quickly with no shortfalls, paying decent staff salaries to the rest of the organisation; would anyone really care how much he earns?

In such a case would not his performance justify such an income?
A quick search on the internet reveals that incomes in excess of US$1000 an hour are not uncommon, they are however few as very few people are paid that kind of money.

Some professionals that charge that amount (like high-end lawyers and surgeons) have to cover their expenses through their end charges incorporates income from shares, benefits and the occasional book sale.

So you see they are very justified in charging very high charges so as to cover other expenses it’s not like they are lining up their pockets with that money.

So here is the question of the week: What would justify a salary of about US$1 500 an hour?
I want your feedback.

Email me your responses to this informal survey as we want to hear your views on these very huge salaries that some of the top executives are being paid in this country.

Some of you might want to say the president of the United States but bear in mind he earns a basic salary of US$400 000 a year before benefits and other non-presidential incomes from things like book sales.

Here are a few things to consider as you plan your response that can help guide your responses.
How should the income of a top executive of a company relate to employees under him?

Some countries have a very narrow salary spread between top and bottom earners but in this country the gap is just too much and very scary.

Morally should the owner or senior manager or managers of a company earn an hourly income that exceeds the monthly wage of his employees who are struggling to send their children to school simply because they make the high risk decisions?

Certain fields carry inherent risk and should they be rewarded for such, that’s the question I put to you.
Take a landmine clearing agent who runs the daily risk of blowing himself up, or the high crane operator who is supposed to ensure that he does not drop his cargo on the road below or the air traffic controller.

You really do not want an air traffic controller to be pre-occupied with his inability to pay for his child’s education or medical insurance as an aero plane comes in to land.

We live in a world of perceived relative values some of which are rather skewed.
For example teachers, who have the responsibility of educating the next generation, have traditionally been paid less than their worth.
How about the surgeon who is supposed to operate on your brain tumour?

To what extent should performance be related to remuneration?
Take the surgeon example a step further, what would happen if he or she only got paid for a successful outcome (now I know most surgeons are not in it just for the money but the example is too good to pass up)?

Now for another perspective on the question. Personalise it. What would you need to do to be worth a US$1 500 an hour?
Perhaps that is too far out for you.

Many professionals in Zimbabwe work on a fee scale between US$50 to US$200 an hour (before expenses).
So if US$1 000 is too far out for you to imagine ask what you would need to do to net US$200 an hour.
What would you need to change?

Where could you see extra sources of income that tick in without you having to work on then (investments, book sales, rental income, that sort of thing)?

Now this probably won’t be an overnight plan mind you but it is worth a thought, especially if it is the sort of thought that makes you a better person.

I look forward to reading your emails.