> The idea that intelligence or hard work or danger justify executive pay defies common sense. > People keep arguing it because they can't think of something b

> The idea that intelligence or hard work or danger justify executive pay defies common sense. > People keep arguing it because they can't think of something better, and there must be some reason for a persistent feature of reality. By definition, common sense is not going to apply when it comes to running a modern nation or multi-national corporation. There is nothing common about what it takes to do these things successfully. > But maybe a better explanation is simply that CEOs are being bribed, not to deliberately, neglectfully, or ideologically, wreck everything. A thought-provoking idea but not sure it really comports with reality? CEOs almost always report to a board who can and will fire them for poor performance. If you were looking for a figure who is "being bribed, not to deliberately, neglectfully, or ideologically, wreck everything" then you'd be looking for the chairman of the board and large investors with highly concentrated positions. Of course, with any of these folks, reputation travels far, so the idea of them being bribed not to wreck everything is prima facie laughable; the reason they don't "want to wreck everything" is because they are looking to max their "society ELO" score. Social credit already exists and applies to people at this echelon of society.