|
pan, a company with only 1000 workers likely won't be paying its CEO $10million in comp. You need to have revenues of several billions to be in that sort of league. That's why your example doesn't make sense.
Roachboy, I think you're oversimplifying (besides calling me "neoliberal," which is kinda funny). I don't think it's capital that creates wealth. Capital can't do noodlysquat without labor because you can't eat money and someone has to run the machines. But labor can't do much on its own either. Capitalism is a cooperative venture - both segments contribute their bit and take out of it what they can in a fair exchange of value. They allocate risks and rewards among themselves according to the market.
Pan, I'm curious - what is the reason for your objection - do you think CEOs should make less simply because they make a lot and you don't think anyone should make that much money? Or do you think most CEOs don't earn their compensation? The approach you would take to the issue will vary depending on your answer. If it's the first, then basically you're advocating some variant of socialism. If it's the second, then it's an issue for the board and shareholders to address - it's their money and their fiduciary obligations that are on the line. In a free country, people are allowed to do stupid things, like pay a mediocre CEO more than s/he is worth. It might not be wise, but it's really not your problem. The fallacy in your reasoning is that you assume any reduction in the CEO's pay would go to the employees. Not so. It might go to investments, new equipment, cash for stock buybacks, shareholder dividends or other corporate purposes. You can't assume that the CEO's pay comes out of other workers' pockets - you simply don't know which pocket it comes from.
|