3 ms·

That's if you're looking just at compensation. However, a exec can make one decision that can save / make a company millions or billions of dollars. In that per

That's if you're looking just at compensation. However, a exec can make one decision that can save / make a company millions or billions of dollars. In that perspective, a few million dollar salary seems like a bargain. A secretary is not often in the same position. It's just like selling a product. If you base it off "cost" - you set yourself in a hole to start with. But, if you base it off the value you can create / save, then you have leverage to make more money.

nhaehnle 13y ago
However, a exec can make one decision that can save / make a company millions or billions of dollars. I understand how the current situation is justified. Two questions though: 1. How much of that is down to the skill of the exec? A sibling comment addressed this problem as well: If there are many people who have roughly the same likeliness-of-success, but comparatively much fewer positions for such people to fill, then income basically becomes a lottery. Lotteries are not a basis for a system that achieves distributive justice. 2. Taking an additional step back, how reasonable is it to have people in such powerful positions in the first place? After centuries (actually, millenia) of experience, we decided that by and large, concentrating too much power into few hands is a bad idea in politics. Especially with large corporations, where the boundary between political and business positions becomes rather fuzzy, it is reasonable to ask whether the same lessons apply there as well?
Someone 13y ago
"a exec can make one decision that can save / make a company millions or billions of dollars. In that perspective, a few million dollar salary seems like a bargain." That's only true if there's nobody else who could perform equally well for a lower price. Problem is how to assess that. To play safe, boards typically go for 'proven' winners (where 'proven' may mean 'got lucky a few times when a 50:50 or even bad decision won the jackpot due to an earthquake/economic turmoil/...). Those 'proven' winners typically have inflated egos (it's hard not to think you're brilliant if everything you do turns into gold), and start thinking they are worth more than they are. In a sense, there's a dissimilar similarity with salaries for sportsmen who play offensive vs ones who play defense. The former score, the later blunder, and that is reflected in their egos and their salaries. Nobody knows who is more decisive in making the team win matches. And yes, the above is just an opinion. AFAIK, there is no good way to measure whether exec A is better than exec B for job C.

nhaehnle 13y ago

However, a exec can make one decision that can save / make a company millions or billions of dollars. I understand how the current situation is justified. Two questions though: 1. How much of that is down to the skill of the exec? A sibling comment addressed this problem as well: If there are many people who have roughly the same likeliness-of-success, but comparatively much fewer positions for such people to fill, then income basically becomes a lottery. Lotteries are not a basis for a system that achieves distributive justice. 2. Taking an additional step back, how reasonable is it to have people in such powerful positions in the first place? After centuries (actually, millenia) of experience, we decided that by and large, concentrating too much power into few hands is a bad idea in politics. Especially with large corporations, where the boundary between political and business positions becomes rather fuzzy, it is reasonable to ask whether the same lessons apply there as well?

Someone 13y ago

"a exec can make one decision that can save / make a company millions or billions of dollars. In that perspective, a few million dollar salary seems like a bargain." That's only true if there's nobody else who could perform equally well for a lower price. Problem is how to assess that. To play safe, boards typically go for 'proven' winners (where 'proven' may mean 'got lucky a few times when a 50:50 or even bad decision won the jackpot due to an earthquake/economic turmoil/...). Those 'proven' winners typically have inflated egos (it's hard not to think you're brilliant if everything you do turns into gold), and start thinking they are worth more than they are. In a sense, there's a dissimilar similarity with salaries for sportsmen who play offensive vs ones who play defense. The former score, the later blunder, and that is reflected in their egos and their salaries. Nobody knows who is more decisive in making the team win matches. And yes, the above is just an opinion. AFAIK, there is no good way to measure whether exec A is better than exec B for job C.