3 ms·
Where "well paid" is synonymous with being "commensurately paid", yes, of course. Clearly many people do not believe they are being commensurately paid. The onl
by happytoexplain 6y ago
Where "well paid" is synonymous with being "commensurately paid", yes, of course. Clearly many people do not believe they are being commensurately paid. The only defense I ever see is pointing at these many people and claiming they simply do not understand how hard being a CEO is, or how much value rests on their decisions. In the face of the overwhelmingly enormous incomes, which continue to become more overwhelmingly enormous, while worker pay growth continues to trickle, halt, or even reverse, the finger-pointing argument seems weak, to put it lightly.
- fairity 6y agoYes, the primary argument is that without such high CEO pay, companies would perform materially worse due to the consequences of poorer CEO decision making. You seem to be pointing out that the gap between CEO and average employee pay is increasing, which while true, doesn't seem to address the primary argument. In fact, it may be true that, on average, employee pay will decrease by lowering CEO pay (if, in fact, it's true that overall company performance suffers as a result). It's hard to find supporting evidence for or against the primary argument because you can't split test a CEO, but there are definitely examples of almost identical businesses, where one succeeded and the other failed purely due to execution. And, one can make an argument that the difference in execution is largely due to the CEO. One such example is Blue Apron vs Hello Fresh.