One of the most popular American sitcoms, Friends, is enjoying a revival thanks to being made available on Netflix in January. Now a new generation of fans is laughing at the exploits of Joey, Chandler, Ross, Rachel, Monica and Phoebe as they live in downtown New York, grow into adulthood and drink a lot of coffee.
Over the course of the show, each character has their highs and lows when it comes to their careers. Monica is a great chef, though is reduced to working at a ‘50s diner. Joey falls on tough times after being killed off from Days of Our Lives, and Chandler quits his job at (wait, where does he work, again?) and joins the competitive world of unpaid internships.
This got us thinking, which of the characters did best by the time the show ends? Who had the most impressive career and who is still struggling to get by? We combed through all 236 episodes of the show and teamed up with James Calder from Distinct Recruitment to estimate the wages for each character and see who came out on top:
Looks like Joey, despite his unstable career through many of the earlier seasons, was the highest earner. After being hired back to Days of Our Lives and sharing a film with legendary actor Richard Crosby (Gary Oldman), Joey is riding high when the show comes to an end. He had quite the journey getting there, too, as he racked up 17 different jobs in total. No doubt he had more than a couple of loans from Chandler while slumming it as a cologne sampler, Christmas tree salesman and even, briefly, a gladiator model at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas.
While Joey earns the most, we can’t overlook Rachel’s transformation through the show – starting as a coffee house waitress and ending up as a merchandising manager at Ralph Lauren. Chandler had the biggest fall from grace, leaving his job in data analysis and data configuration to become a junior advertising copywriter.
We’re all guilty of it – we’re trying to stay frugal and save every penny, but something comes along that tempts us a little too much. During our research, we found more than a few examples of the Friends gang splashing out and buying something outrageous. Who can forget Rachel’s cat, Mrs. Whiskerson, the boat Joey accidentally buys at a charity auction, or the leather pants that left Ross in a tight spot during a date? Being the lowest earner of the group, Phoebe was also the most sensible with her money, only spending $240 in her attempts to get Rachel to move back in with her.
(Source: giffgaff)
It’s a discussion that has been ongoing since business was a thing. Why should the boss be paid more than his/her employees? Here Chris Abbass, co-founder of Talentful, delves deep into the considerations to make when posing this question.
As the founder of a fast-growing business, I can attest to the levels of stress, sacrifice and sleepless nights executives go through to build and run their companies. At an executive level, you are expected to be available 24hrs a day and have a huge amount of responsibility for the successes, but also any failures your business may go through. Further, individuals who set up businesses take on an immense amount of risk – they have much less security, and put themselves at risk of potential failure if the business does not go to plan, which can greatly damage their reputation.
When it comes to CEOs and those at C level positions, though they did not start the business, they have the success of it resting on their shoulders. We have seen many individuals at executive level get fired for things that have gone wrong without the bat of an eyelash. Executives are in positions with the highest risk and are held accountable for anything that goes wrong or right in the organisation. Because of this, I believe that their pay should be reflective of their successes and failures.
Pay, at the executive level, should always be in line with how well the business is doing, how successful they are, and how much value the individual is bringing the business. If the business is performing well this should be reflected in executive pay. Conversely, if an organisation’s performance is very bumpy and inconsistent, then CEOs should not be taking home huge pay checks and bonuses.
An example of when executive pay has gone tremendously wrong was during the economic crisis when big bankers were taking home massive bonuses while firms were failing and people were losing their jobs and homes. As a business founder, I believe this is unacceptable and suggests individuals taking advantage of their position and thus their pay. This should never happen, but on the other hand, if banks and institutions are doing very well and are creating a lot of money for the economy, then executives undoubtedly deserve their large pay checks and bonuses. Overall, executive pay should reflect on how well the individual is doing. If you are making losses for the business and are putting your employees out of jobs, you should not be taking home a massive salary.
Executive pay should be an accurate reflection of the amount of work and pressure the individual takes on and should be proportionate to the size and profitability of the business. If a company is losing money, then this should be reflected in executive pay, and conversely, if the company is over-performing those at the top should reap the rewards.
The time of true financial freedom has likely already arrived for those born on or before 1st September 1953 (Baby Boomers), but the future is not looking so bright for the Millennial generation (born between the early 80s up to 00s), who will face a more expensive and far longer financial struggle – according to a new study.
The study, which was carried out by retirement finance specialists Age Partnership, set out to find the true age of ‘financial freedom’ for the Millennial generation – with some interesting stats uncovered along the way.
Millennials (otherwise known as Generation Y) who began work at 21 and spend their younger years saving for a deposit, do not take out a mortgage until they reach an average age of 30. And to make matters worse, once they have a mortgage they will then spend 50% of their entire monthly income on bills!
Taking a look at earnings, the average wage for a Baby Boomer started at £10,140.96 in their first job aged 19, and were given an average 1.9% pay increase year on year, resulting in average lifetime earnings of £599,429.42.
This is comparable to today's Millennials, who have experienced a starting wage of £13,533.12 on average at the age of 21, with yearly pay increases of 3.7%, earning them up to £1,803,718.11 in their working lives.
Those born between 1940 and 1964 usually took out their first mortgage at the age of 22, with houses at the time costing around £4,975 at the start of the 1970s. According to the study, mortgages taken out by Baby Boomers typically took 33 years to pay off.
This is a huge difference to Generation Y, who battle housing costs of upwards of £220,000 on average, and who do not take out a mortgage until the age of 30. It may sound like the Baby Boomer generation had it easy when buying a home, but they were faced with fluctuating high mortgage interest rates of up to 16%, whilst Millennials are currently enjoying lows of around 4%.
Research also showed the average age of a first-time mum in 1980 was 23.5 years old, compared to Millennials who are waiting until they reach on average 28.6. The cost of raising a child who reached adulthood in 2003 was £140,398, whilst the starting costs for Millennials having children in 2013 begins at £222,458 taking into account factors such as childcare, holidays, hobbies and food, and we are yet to see how the economy will shape the true amount spent once these children reach age 21 in 2034.
By the time parents reached 51 and a half, most Baby Boomers offspring had moved out and become financially independent. This compares to the age of 58.6 for Millennials parents, as it is predicted that their children will be living at home until the age of 30 (at least), further increasing the cost of having children for Millennials, from an already hefty 25.2% of lifetime income.
Age Partnership's study revealed that the general age of retirement for Baby Boomers was 59.6 years old, but unfortunately Millennials won't be retiring until the age of 68. Not only that, but Generation Y also incur an additional cost of travelling for work, which can add up to a grand total of £90,826 over their entire working life.
All of this combined means that the Millennial generation will have paid off their mortgage, finished shelling out for their children, and finally retired, just one week before they reach the ripe old age of 70 – if they're lucky! Meaning 70 is the age of financial freedom for the Millennials.
Tim Loy, chief executive at Age Partnership, commented: "Retirement can be an opportunity to live the way you have dreamed about all your working life, whether that be taking up an interesting hobby, or travelling the world. Juggling finances as we come across necessary obstacles in our lives can be challenging, which is why it’s important for people to have access to information which will help them to make informed decisions about their future.
"Having a good idea of when you will be financially free can help you to enjoy your retirement to the fullest, getting the best quality from life, which is exactly what we aim for when helping our customers."
(Source: Age Partnership)
Employees of UK small businesses are working an average of eight extra hours unpaid every week at work and home - worth £1.6bn* to the UK’s SMEs - according to new research** from Paymentsense, Europe’s leading card payment supplier. Worryingly, 16% of those surveyed work even more hours, with younger workers (aged 18-24) averaging 11 extra unpaid hours every week.
The main reason for SME workers doing so many extra hours is to keep up with the volume of work (58%), followed by pressure from their manager (30%) and, more positively, 28% wanting the business to do well. However, this is leading to nearly half of people (42%) feeling more stressed, and over a third (37%) feeling taken for granted by their employer.
Managers might take note that 36% of SME staff said they rarely, or never, got credit from their bosses for putting in the extra hours. What’s more, almost a third of them (29%) have considered leaving for another job or changing career completely as a result of the frequent unpaid overtime. A further quarter (26%) would consider starting their own business, or going freelance (16%), to escape their current roles.
Clare Dimond, a leading business coach and author of 'Free Choice' said: “With a smaller number of staff, the contribution of every employee in an SME is critical. Employers that value the time, creativity and mental clarity of each individual will see the impact on their bottom line and staff retention rates.
“Directors can role model good mental health behaviour for their teams. Avoiding stressful thinking, spending time exercising or with family and creating a culture of strong relationships, and individual contributions, make for a healthy, inspired career and home life.”
Guy Moreve, Head of Marketing at Paymentsense commented: “We know from working with over 50,000 of the UK’s small businesses that SMEs are constantly challenged to balance the often-unpredictable demands of growth, with looking after hardworking staff - especially in potentially uncertain economic times.
“Keeping employees happy should be a priority, given its impact on productivity levels. The good news is that perks don’t have to cost a fortune. Our own research has shown that an early Friday finish, the chance to work flexible hours, and a free day off here and there: for birthdays, duvet days or to help with moving house are the amongst most sought-after benefits.”
‘Can you just…?’ Top 8 reasons SME staff work late unexpectedly
- Last minute request from client or customer (39%)
- Last minute request from boss (37%)
- Meetings overrunning at the end of the day (34%)
- Keeping up with admin (32%)
- Attending meetings at client or customer locations (24%)
- Equipment or computers playing up (21%)
- Manager’s poor time management (20%)
- Their own poor time management (19%)
* Average UK salary of c.£27K, equal to around £104 per day (average of 260 working days per annum). 15.7m UK SME workers according to FSB figures.
** Research undertaken from July 4-5, 2017 amongst 1,000 UK SME employees.
(Source: Paymentsense)
With wage inflation stagnating below the rate of increased property prices, it has become very difficult to get a firm foothold on the London property ladder. Many people have therefore been forced into the private rental sector; signified by nearly one in three London household’s renting privately.
Despite the tremendous growth for the sector itself, the increased demand has driven up private rental values. Especially in London, where the average rent for a one bedroom property is a substantial £1,329 per month.
Sellhousefast.uk analysed data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS), revealing that single tenant’s in 25 of London’s 32 boroughs are sacrificing more than 50% of their monthly salary (after income and council tax deductions) on rent for their one bedroom property.
Single tenants living in a one bedroom property in Kensington and Chelsea are sacrificing an astonishing 85% of their monthly salary on rent – the highest out of all the London boroughs.
Single tenants in Kensington and Chelsea are then closely followed by those in Hackney – who give up 81% of their monthly salary to pay for rent on their one bedroom property. In third place is Westminster, where single tenants use up 79% of their monthly salary to pay rent for their one bedroom property.
Single tenants in Bromley as well as Havering, sacrifice the joint lowest percentage of their monthly salary on renting their one bedroom properties in London at 42%. Redbridge (49%), Merton (49%) Richmond upon Thames (48%) and Bexley (43%) are the other London boroughs where single tenants sacrifice less than 50% of their monthly salary on a one bedroom property.
Sellhousefast.uk asked a couple of single tenants living in a one bedroom property in London about their experience of renting.
Jessica, 26, has been renting a one bedroom property in Southwark for the last two years: ‘I am giving up a lot of my monthly income on renting a one bedroom in Southwark. It’s frustrating but I only tolerate it due to the convenience of living a short distance away from my workplace. It’s ideal as I start early and finish late most days. The biggest benefit is that it eradicates any time that I would lose through commuting if I lived outside the area. A lot of my colleagues are also currently doing the same thing as me. Whilst most are unhappy about giving up such a huge proportion of their salary on rent each month, it’s ok for the short-term. But in the long-run, it isn’t sustainable, as I wouldn’t be able to secure a deposit for a property of my own.’
Chris, 29, has been renting a one bedroom property in Hounslow for the last four-years: ‘Rent in London is truly extortionate. For the past three years, over half my monthly salary has gone on covering rent. On top of that, I have to pay for my food, utilities and travel every month – so I am not left with much to save, let alone enjoy any leisure activities. With me nearing thirty I want to settle down with my partner and this tiny one bedroom flat is certainly not going to suffice for the both of us. We have started to look at bigger properties in Hounslow, as we both work in the area. With rental prices as they are in London, it might be an uphill struggle for us’.
Robby Du Toit, Managing Director of Sell House Fast commented: “Demand has consistently exceeded supply over the last few years, Londoner’s have unfortunately been caught up in a very competitive property market where prices haven’t always reflected fair value. This notion is demonstrated through this research whereby private rental prices in London are certainly overstretching single tenants; to the extent they must sacrifice over half their monthly salary. For those single tenants with ambitions to climb up the property ladder – their intentions are painfully jeopardised, as they can’t set aside a sufficient amount each month to save up for a deposit or explore better alternatives. It’s not only distressing for them but worrying for the property market as a whole – where the ‘generation rent’ notion is truly continuing too spiral further.”
(Source: Sellhousefast)
Looking at data form the past few months, Tim Kellet, Director at Paydata here explains to Finance Monthly the ins and outs of pay rises, wages and bonuses, as well as growth across the nation and the increasing lack of skilled labour supply across several sectors.
Once a quarter we run an extended version of our monthly PAYstats pay and labour market statistics publication.
We began running these quarterly updates six years ago, to summarise and add commentary to key statistics that are relevant to HR and Reward. The data was already in the public domain across different sources, but by producing a document containing everything it made it more accessible, and easier for our customers to digest. The information provided within the report is extremely valuable, providing a comprehensive overview of the current economy, in relation pay and reward decisions.
This spring, and the months leading up to it, has been somewhat of an uncertain time; the Chancellor of the Exchequer has delivered his first, and last, spring budget statement and Article 50 has been triggered. With Brexit looming, it doesn’t appear as if the UK will be experiencing true stability for some time – there is also an avalanche of changes in HR and Employment law that businesses must contend with.
April has brought with it the introduction of the Apprenticeship Levy, increases in minimum wage, the immigration skills charge, the formal beginning of gender pay reporting as well as changes in taxation and increases in redundancy, sick and family-related pay.
When these changes are coupled with the macro-economic issues and the protracted negotiations that will determine our ongoing relationship with the EU, not to mention the rest of the world, uncertainty prevails.
Already, we are witnessing above target inflation; the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecasted that CPI inflation will rise to 2.4% this year. The rising cost of food, alcohol and clothing along with miscellaneous good and services are a big contributor to the changes. Overall growth is likely to slow as households adjust their spending to a lower income growth due to the 18% fall in sterling.
Despite the turbulent background, little out of the ordinary appears to be happening in terms of pay awards. The extended period of pay movement continues, annual regular pay growth within the private sector had declined to 2.6% by January of this year. Steadily, this is starting to be overtaken by higher levels of inflation, eroding the true value of pay rises. Meanwhile, the productivity problem persists and uncertainties with regards to the markets are doing little to appease an underlying sense that there may yet be darker times ahead.
While the unemployment rate has fallen below 5%, and the employment rate reaching 74.6%, wage growth has remained weak. It is now thought that the unemployment rate can decrease further before wage pressures build to a point where they are sufficient to keep inflation at the 2% target over the medium term.
Bonus payments have also been weaker than expected, and the reports that are being issued from the financial sector on the size of the bonus payments, are likely to make little contribution to overall pay growth in 2017.
There are also significant concerns regarding the supply of suitable people for the labour-market and the availability of EU nationals currently working in the UK. Alongside this, the supply of permanent candidates fell severely in March, although the rate of reduction had weakened since February’s 13-month peak. Similarly, the availability of interim and short-term staff fell at a rate that was the quickest recorded since the beginning of 2016.
This quarter’s CIPD net employment balance (which measures the difference between the proportion of employers who expect to increase staff levels and those who expect to decrease staff levels) has increased by one point to 23%.
Employers in the UK report fair hiring prospects between now and June; 87% forecast no change, while 8% expect to increase staffing levels and 3% expect to decrease – the Net Employment Outlook is 5%.
Data from Manpower’s Employment Outlook Survey, shows that in seven of the nine industry sectors, staffing levels are expected to increase throughout the second quarter of 2017. Employers within the construction sector report decent hiring plans with a Net Employment Outlook of 12%. Similar gains are also expected in the manufacturing, utilities and finance and business sectors, while employers in the agriculture sector are reporting uncertain hiring prospects.
The Chief Executive of the Recruitment & Employment, Kevin Green explains further: “Finding people to do the jobs on offer is rapidly becoming employers’ biggest headache and many are reporting an increasing number of white-collar jobs as hard to fill, including the IT and financial sectors. Shortages of appropriately skilled, willing and able candidates was a problem before the referendum. Our concern is that Brexit will make the problem worse, particularly if onerous restrictions are imposed on people coming from the EU to work. Also, economic uncertainty about future prospects is having a detrimental effect on employees’ willingness to risk a career move at this time, which seems to be driving down candidate availability. This shrinking pool of available candidates means that businesses are boosting the starting salaries and hourly rates they are prepared to offer to the right candidate.”
Over the past year, and in recent news, we’ve seen a consensus that the pay of corporate executives is ‘too high’, and investors, fund managers and shareholders are increasingly ready to take firm action against plans to boost the remuneration of top bosses.
More recently, David Cumming, Head of Equities at Standard Life, a UK investment firm, said his company "could not justify" pay going any higher. He told the BBC that investors must do more to signal their unhappiness.
"We continue to see too many proposals that would bring a substantial increase [in pay], and we have to signal that we are not happy with that,” he said.
This week, Finance Monthly’s Your Thoughts looks closer at this topic, and hears the views of Martin Pratt, Partner in the Employment Law Team at Gordon Dadds, surrounding the matter.
The High Pay Centre think-tank calculated that the median FTSE 100 CEO had managed to clock up the £28,200 2017 UK average earnings by lunchtime on Wednesday 4th January 2017. A week later Blackrock wrote to public company chiefs threatening to veto excessive pay or pension proposals. This month, top Standard Life fund manager David Cumming said that his firm “could not justify” top executive pay going any higher. Theresa May’s government has issued a Green Paper with ideas to curb it.
That there is a problem with unjustifiable pay inequality between those at the top and those at the bottom of our largest companies, now seems widely accepted. What is not so widely agreed upon is what to do about it.
When launching her campaign for the Conservative Party leadership last July, Theresa May put forward one surprisingly, and ironically, European proposal to deal with the issue - workers representation on boards.
The proposal for workers in the boardroom, German style, was notably absent from November’s Green Paper on the topic. Another proposal touted at May’s leadership launch, binding shareholder votes on remuneration, was actually introduced by the coalition in 2013 for listed companies, with a requirement for a vote on pay policies every three years. The Green Paper suggests that since 2013, not a single FTSE 100 remuneration policy has been rejected by shareholders. That is not a great advert for shareholder activism. Perhaps shareholders have not, thus far, agreed with the consensus that executive pay is problematic.
The comments by Blackrock and others mean executive pay proposals may not get an easy ride from institutional investors next time. But that is not certain. The Green Paper makes proposals making shareholder oversight more meaningful, but the fragmented membership of listed companies makes concerted shareholder action to curb pay difficult.
The Green Paper makes much of a transparency requirement – forcing companies to publish the differential between their highest and lowest paid employees. This “name and shame” approach seems to rely upon the idea that companies will be so embarrassed by the pay gap between top and bottom that they will do something about it. That is, at best, a speculative assumption. At worst it will stoke the fires of resentment and negativity about corporate “fat cats” without actually dealing with the underlying problem.
All of the policy solutions put forward thus far are tinkering around the edges. If the government genuinely believes there to be a problem, then radical measures are needed to address it. The traditional method of ensuring that the highly paid contribute to the common good is via taxation. That is an anathema to any Conservative administration, but it would at least have the benefit of adding to public coffers, which simply putting an upper cap on salaries, as proposed by Labour, would not.
Or perhaps we are approaching this from the wrong angle. Instead of pushing down the salaries of the highest paid, more attention could be paid to pushing up those of the lowest?
We would also love to hear Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!
