> There's not an average employee that has that pedigree and access to take over the job. Either this is a tautology or citation needed here. So far the argume

> There's not an average employee that has that pedigree and access to take over the job. Either this is a tautology or citation needed here. So far the argument for this has been that they bring in the big bucks so of course they deserve high compensation. The empirical evidence so far is that they have the title so they get high compensation, and their performance has little to no affect on that compensation. Risk is normally commensurate with reward, thus if we are observing that there is little to no difference in reward, there must be no little to no risk. I would need to see concrete proof that an exec was worth this high pay beyond, "well what if they weren't there, maybe it would be worse!?!?" Before I believed the argument again