I agree. Compensation should be determined by the value of the product produced. CEO salaries are higher than their workers by a factor of 100s. Now is a CEO’s work really worth 300 times more than that of their workers? Given all the failed banks and companies that came groveling to the federal government begging for handouts, sorry, bailouts, I rather doubt it. As for the celebrity class even doctors don’t make as much as they do and a doctor’s work is far more valuable to the community than anything Lady Gag Me could produce.
The root of this problem is America’s blind idolatry of the rich, regardless of how they made their money. Some, like doctors, worked hard and studied for years to gain their wealth. Others, like Paris Hilton or Lady BlahBlah, were born into it and/or were lucky that enough of the American public was stupid enough to buy the tripe they were selling.
I partially agree with you, but your point also illustrates an argument for exhorbitant CEO pay.
If an organization's failure (AIG, for example) would result in the complete unraveling of a giant sector of the world economy, I would think the CEO should be compensated handsomely; wildly, even, in comparison to the admin assistant working in Claims on the 3rd floor.
Very few people out there get paid "what they are worth", whether that worth is defined by their contributions to the company or the potential they bring on the front end.
Generally speaking, people are paid for the role they play. The company values roles in different ways, and compensates accordingly.
We have this idolatry for rich people who are famous celebrities, but these same people (the idolizers) hate anyone who runs a business and makes a few bucks.
There has to be a balance. CEO’s should make a lot of money, otherwise why put up with the demands of being a CEO? However, I do have a problem with it not being mostly tied to profit and performance, etc and a previous posters mention of many CEO’s forgetting their roots and losing their patriotism.