4 ms·

$500,000 is a lot of money, I don't want to minimize that, but it would not be the highest paid job on the market. There's a number of roles in medicine, law, f

$500,000 is a lot of money, I don't want to minimize that, but it would not be the highest paid job on the market. There's a number of roles in medicine, law, finance, and nowadays software that pay more for fewer managerial duties. There really isn't much room to argue for cutting executive pay without arguing that it's unimportant to get the best people in executive roles. And that's an argument you can certainly have, but it seems strange to make it a precondition to fixing the healthcare system, when cutting executive pay would resolve only a small fraction of the problem.

AngryData 11mo ago
And all of those things listed requires far more skill set/experience or education to achieve. You would be hard pressed to identify c-suite skills of any established corporation that can't be found in abundance among lower employees if anybody bothered to look instead of doing the 95% networking and politics games that most c-suite are chosen from.
dangus 11mo ago
It would be the highest paid job on the market if the law limited executive pay. Maybe this idea is sacrilege to the hyper-capitalist brain but it is entirely reasonable to limit personal salary and assets because income inequality has known and proven negative impacts on society. No one person should make a salary greater than ~$1 million/year nor should they be able to control more than ~$100 million in assets. Prove me wrong on that concept. What possible reason could an individual have to require such excessive wealth? As far as your second paragraph, your argument is that we can’t fix one piece of a multi-faceted problem without fixing the other pieces, which is logically weak. Paying executives less would make non-zero progress toward cost reduction.