Effectiveness - the true bottom line?

So, now we know what six-figure sums Boris and Ken earn (Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone, two candidates for Mayor of London, see http://bit.ly/HyWkZ5). That may be interesting, but many commentators seem to be acting as though remuneration is the only "bottom line", and high pay is being spun as a negative. Most companies would consider cost-effectiveness as the true bottom line. In their personal lives most people would strive towards happiness and/or fulfilment, and in their work lives towards job-satisfaction. I consider that voters too are concerned about cost-effectiveness from their elected representatives, and they want society generally to be improved by the political process - social-effectiveness. It is up to the politicians to persuade their electorate how effective they will be in delivering what people want. Once transparency in monetary reward has been achieved, the pay is a distraction. The real political bottom line should be effectiveness, embracing both cost and social components. For an individual, the bottom line includes fulfilment; happiness; job-satisfaction. There are no readily apparent units to quantify these terms, but surely ££s are not an effective substitute measurement either?