> This article doesn't really seem to acknowledge the fact that many executives have, and continue to be, compensated incredibly well for very incredibly poor p

> This article doesn't really seem to acknowledge the fact that many executives have, and continue to be, compensated incredibly well for very incredibly poor performance. Think of it like being the coach of the St. Louis Rams. Your team performs poorly, and you get paid well. Ultimately, if it's your fault, firing makes more sense than a pay cut. > The argument the argument makes that companies need to pay so much money to maintain top talent seems like an argument in favor of regulation. If there's a salary cap, then they might lose some top talent to startups (or the legal profession, or ...). Devil's advocate.