3 ms·

That didn't used to be the only job of the CEO, though. CEO pay used to be roughly 4 times the pay of the average worker, not 30 to 40 times the pay. It also us

That didn't used to be the only job of the CEO, though. CEO pay used to be roughly 4 times the pay of the average worker, not 30 to 40 times the pay. It also used to be the CEO's job to ensure the health of his company in the form of the health of his workforce including their ability to stay in the middle class. Publicly traded companies end up being driven by perverse short-term incentives.

WalterBright 3y ago
> CEO pay used to be roughly 4 times the pay of the average worker, not 30 to 40 times the pay. When you have $100 billion subject to his decisions, do you really want to cheap out and not get the best you can find? Take a look at Nadella's reign at Microsoft. The value of the company increase ONE THOUSAND PERCENT under his leadership. As a long term MSFT shareholder, I have no problem with his compensation. Besides, his compensation is coming out of MY pocket, not the employees. The shareholders pay his salary. > Publicly traded companies end up being driven by perverse short-term incentives. They don't grow if they are driven by short-term incentives, they collapse. Do you really think that companies grow into the S&P500 by sabotaging their prospects? > including their ability to stay in the middle class Worker pay was and is determined by the Law of Supply & Demand, not some expectation of the CEO.