There has been a lot of buzz about corporate CEOs making to much money, being unfairly compensated, or receiving undeserved bonuses. I would like to stress that I believe it is wrong for a CEO to earn bonuses despite bankrupting a company. What that said however, I get a little tired of individuals setting random limits such as $500k or $300k as the "right" salary for a CEO. I would like to know how these numbers are determined. What seems appropriate to one person is grossly unfair to another. 300k may be “fair” to you, but what about the homeless man who feels that 50k is to much and everyone should make just 25k? Who decides? The government? That worked out really well in Russia. This is the reason that the market is used to determine salaries, it is arbitrary.
I would like to further point out to all of the commenters stating the salaries of other workers are to low. People this is America. You get to choose you profession. If a larger salary was so important to you, or you feel you can "do the CEO's job" then why don't you? Hard work pays in this country, it is the single driving factor that has spurred America to success in the past and it will continue to do so into the future. When innovation and hard work are compensated, then innovation and hard work are encouraged. Quality begets quality.
The truth is, CEOs have incredibly difficult jobs; these positions demand excellence in candidates and the market drives compensation. In the case of companies that are paying bonuses to ineffective CEOs, I think it is safe to say that the market will insure that won't happen again. After all, we are the market.
When a company has a good leader they better pay him/her what they ask and hold on for dear life because any good business knows that a great leader is the single most important determinate as to whether a company will be successful or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment