I'm not necessarily on the "CEO salaries are sane" side but.. Failure does not mean that salaries should necessarily be low. If you take the argument(s) above

I'm not necessarily on the "CEO salaries are sane" side but.. Failure does not mean that salaries should necessarily be low. If you take the argument(s) above (1% profit increase is worth $100m to a $10b company), it applies equally to negative salaries. When you have such big companies, the best possible CEO is worth a lot (in dollar terms) more than the next best one. I think correct question is are CEOs being selected for these sorts of reasons or are they being selected for other reasons. Is the system corrupt?