Salaries premised on what definition of GDP?

Dudick wrote:

28% pay cut for PM, 31% cut for entry-level ministers proposed
President will get a 51% paycut
As for the rest, they are still million dollar minister. But the basis for their bonus looks interesting as it will be based on four measures: GDP growth, unemployment rate, real growth in median incomes and real growth in the incomes of the bottom 20 per cent of wage earners.
How to determine real growth?

The word 'real' defining 'growth' as in 'real growth' is an economic device to correct growth for inflation. i.e. suppose that Singapore has a base inflation rate of 5%, and nominal GDP (GDP before correction for inflation rate) grew 5%, then whilst the nominal GDP growth is 5%, the real GDP growth is 0% since it can be safely assumed that the nominal GDP growth of 5% was merely due to inflation (i.e. higher cost of everything due to the relative devaluation of currency in particular circumstances)- a tide raising all the boats.

That said, although I haven't read the full report viewable [here], I believe that pegging the leader's salary to the quality of life improvement in the bottom rung of society is a good thing as a leaders primary role is not to let down any citizen through its control over the economy: the rich however, are generally always able to care for themselves.

Once upon a time in Singapore, it used to be GDP at all costs, though hopefully, as Singapore and the world matures, there can be less corruption (quantitative easing causing dilution in currency values), lower inflation and GDP arising from a happy population, not one with a high GDP like Japan but whose GDP is a measure of the amount of work being done to clean up the Fukushima nuclear disaster damage area and the subsequent cancers that arise from the consequential radiation leak exposure.

My ball park figure would be a PM's salary pegged to the 97th percentile of working Singaporeans annual salary whilst Ministers get something between the 94th onwards. If the non working population is included, then up to <1% above these quoted rates might be reasonable. Reasonably good men would still stand up to be leaders, but that would of course apply to a more ideal situation than the one we are in right now. (Please note that these are only ball park suggestive figures only)

Some pictures about the past (obsession with salaries and GDP) and the last one is of the latest, enjoy:

This image has been resized.Click to view original image

This image has been resized.Click to view original image

This image has been resized.Click to view original image

This image has been resized.Click to view original image

__________________

===============

At:

HWZ:

04Jan2012: Pay review!