5 ms·
I don't understand the animus towards CEO pay. It can easily be applied to any major celebrity or athlete. If anyone could do what they do, they'd be paid acc
by Nrsolis 9y ago
I don't understand the animus towards CEO pay. It can easily be applied to any major celebrity or athlete.
If anyone could do what they do, they'd be paid accordingly.
The market (via the shareholders) sets the rate of pay. Why the general public cares about one and not the other is beyond me.
- maxerickson 9y agoMy post questions the ability of the market to price CEO value a lot more than it expresses outrage. Athletes and celebrities are different, their pay is a natural consequence of gathering lots of attention. A more rational species would substitute cheaper entertainment.
- bkanber 9y ago> Athletes and celebrities are different, their pay is a natural consequence of gathering lots of attention. And a Fortune 500 CEO's pay is a natural consequence of being a Fortune 500 CEO. There are only 500 of them. This is the top of the game, just like pro athletes. > A more rational species would substitute cheaper entertainment. But we aren't, and we don't.
- jimbokun 9y ago"If anyone could do what they do, they'd be paid accordingly." This is not at all self evident. There is a lot of reporting suggesting CEO compensation is not really tied to the best interests of share holders. As cited elsewhere in this thread: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2005ltr.pdf http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2005ltr.pdf