What a weird argument. So your saying that the compensation is entirely based on supply and demand. That’s a fair starting point for a position sure. But you ar

What a weird argument. So your saying that the compensation is entirely based on supply and demand. That’s a fair starting point for a position sure. But you are then claiming that compensation is too high given the supply and demand… so which is it? Is it supply and demand or isn’t it supply and demand? > Companies go with the high dollar rockstar CEOs for the same reason they select IBM or Oracle and pay up the nose for substandard results. I get that your just projecting annoyance. But you do understand that plenty of companies chose to go with oracle and Java and turn a huge profit without issue right? I mean sure you could argue that company X could have saved money if they chose Haskel and Postgres, but for some reason all the major stable companies didn’t bet the company on a gamble of saving a couple of bucks in the tech stack and it worked out fine for them. It’s a very IT centric view to believe that the most important decision a company makes is weather they chose one or another tech stack and that the most important point is the cost. Exactly the kind of narrow focus that would have a CEO derail a company and wondering why no one is joining the new “social media platform” or what have you, even though he’s using much better tech than the competitor who just chose oracle and then focused on the real important focus points for his company. And it might be hard to believe, but in any given company you’lol likely find 999 out of 1000 people with similar clouded judgement and biased views that could potentially kill the company, and the. You have the 1 CEO making all the decisions that you clearly disagree with, who’s “just some overpaid rockstar” but still the company not only survives, it grows. That’s worth a lot to a board, who ultimately set the pay range they are willing to pay to have that person at the captains seat.