Is high pay rewarding failure?

It's difficult to see any real justification for the huge - and increasing - disparity between the highest earners in the UK and the rest.

The High Pay Commission - set up by a pressure group - says the difference between what top executives and average workers earn has been building for 30 years.

Richard Evans, president of PepsiCo in the UK and Irish Republic, sought to justify the enormous salaries to top executives to the BBC by saying that the UK has to be competitive with the rest of the world.

But one wonders whether it does and if it is. Does it have to be competitive with the rest of the world? And is it?

I haven't got the figures to answer that question.

What I would say is that salaries at such a level should be commensurate with the success or failure of the compnay they are running. I am all for incentivising success. But given the dismal failure of many companies' share prices in recent years (often chosen as a general indicator), that should surely mean that salaries should have fallen recently.

Why do we continue to reward failure?

That's certainly a good incentive for top executives: "I can screw this company and this country and still get paid hugely. What a fine vehicle for competition this country is!"