Most of the Google guy’s compensation is tied to performance through stocks.
I may not like their politics, but they are earning their money by creating a service the public is freely choosing in mass. If ‘living like a sultan’ is the choice they make off the reward of that, good for them.
The defense of the lavish compensation of top execs being used to whip up class resentment in this country is essentially based on the notion that this level of compensation is needed to attract the talent necessary to make the big decisions correctly.
In which case it shouldn’t be difficult to show that the higher the execs’ compensation the more successful the company. Yet I’ve never seen or heard of such a study.
Interesting factoid. In the US armed forces, the ratio of compensation between an entry level guy and the very top salary of a four-star is about 13:1. As opposed to ratios in the hundreds found at many large companies.
Which pretty much blows a hole in the notion that massive compensation packages are essential to attract and retain good decision makers.
Now obviously the military is unique. While I don’t want government to get involved in deciding how much individuals are worth on the free market, I think the question is entirely appropriate for discussion.
Just ran across an interesting article on the issue.
http://www.payscale.com/about.asp?pg=news&sub=blog&item=29