The position of CEO and other high ranking offices immediately equates to high bonuses. The U.K particularly has seen itself entrenched in the American 'Kool Aid' of paying astronomically for officers in those exalted positions with the Average Joe earning far far less or what is considered the basic survival wage. Many other countries have not been quick to adopt this practice which sometimes involves paying sign on fees.

A typical mercenary CEO in the U.S has a pay structure that goes as thus: Sign on fee + Annual salary + bonus sharing. These figures sometimes run into several millions.

Take for instance Ana Patricia Botín, the U.K CEO of Satander bank raking home 4.1million pounds in 2011 despite the bank profits plunging 40%.

Another example, is Nokia C.E.O Stephen Elop who was signed on from Microsoft in 2010 with a 6 million dollars compensation with additional 1.4million dollars annually. Since then he has been unable to correct the dwindling fortunes of the company as it lost is market lead to Samsung earlier on in 2012.

Then comes Barclays CEO Robert Diamond who has not denied his banks involvement in the LIBOR scandal. Diamond received 63With 63million pounds to his name in 2010 and an annual 6 million pounds announced in 2011 for 2012.

With rising unemployment and reduced wages of many Americans and Brits alike, should there be a serious reconsideration of what CEOs should take home annually?

Would you suggest the U.S adopt the Nordic style of paying wages where the wage difference between the highest earning office and the lowest is kept to the barest minimum hence not provoking public anger even when the economy is slowing down?

Please share your thoughts