4 ms·

Probably, mostly Jobs. Very few CEOs have that kind of exquisite vision and be able to execute on it. Remember, Jobs’ choices were controversial. No stylus!

by dpweb 9y ago

Probably, mostly Jobs. Very few CEOs have that kind of exquisite vision and be able to execute on it. Remember, Jobs’ choices were controversial. No stylus! The question in determining the fairness of a 1000x CEO pay is, to what extent the success is attributible to that CEO. It WIDELY varies. Some CEOs inherit money machines. People don’t realise, pay, for the masses who dont participate in stock or profit sharing, is ONLY a function of market rates for your role and your salary negotiation.

pmoriarty 9y ago
"The question in determining the fairness of a 1000x CEO pay is, to what extent the success is attributible to that CEO. It WIDELY varies. Some CEOs inherit money machines." Fairness is a question of ethics, not a question of how much money a company is making. An ethical decision might actually cost the company money, but still be the right thing to do. Distributing the profits of the company more equitably among its employees is arguably the right thing to do, whether or not it results in a greater profit for the company. That said, with CEO salaries being as astronomical as they are, it's doubtful whether paying them substantially less so that the rest of the employees will be paid more will result in any serious negative impact on the company's profits. Even a tenth of an astronomical salary is still an astronomical salary, and there'll always be supremely qualified people lining up around the block to take those jobs.
- davrosthedalek 9y ago
  I don't believe that is true. If your company is sufficiently away from its market optimum, i.e. optimal long term profit, another company will outperform, and you will be forced out of the market. Then, all your employees have no job anymore. Not sure that is ethical. It is therefor the charge of the political system to set boundary conditions to shape the optimal point to be ethical (and, at the same time, capable to survive in the world) That's, for example, the idea behind social market economy as in Germany.

by dpweb 9y ago

pmoriarty 9y ago

"The question in determining the fairness of a 1000x CEO pay is, to what extent the success is attributible to that CEO. It WIDELY varies. Some CEOs inherit money machines." Fairness is a question of ethics, not a question of how much money a company is making. An ethical decision might actually cost the company money, but still be the right thing to do. Distributing the profits of the company more equitably among its employees is arguably the right thing to do, whether or not it results in a greater profit for the company. That said, with CEO salaries being as astronomical as they are, it's doubtful whether paying them substantially less so that the rest of the employees will be paid more will result in any serious negative impact on the company's profits. Even a tenth of an astronomical salary is still an astronomical salary, and there'll always be supremely qualified people lining up around the block to take those jobs.

davrosthedalek 9y ago
I don't believe that is true. If your company is sufficiently away from its market optimum, i.e. optimal long term profit, another company will outperform, and you will be forced out of the market. Then, all your employees have no job anymore. Not sure that is ethical. It is therefor the charge of the political system to set boundary conditions to shape the optimal point to be ethical (and, at the same time, capable to survive in the world) That's, for example, the idea behind social market economy as in Germany.