I worked for a Fortune 500 company in the early 2000s that had what I called a "plantation" mentality. The pay was banded in such a way that your first three or four promotions might move you from making $21k a year to about $25k - very little movement. Once you became a supervisor, your pay jumped to about $35k. Managers went to $45k. Once you became an officer, the starting pay jumped to over $100k - before bonuses, negotiations, etc. The top executives in the company were making quarterly bonuses in the seven-figure range. Problem was, you generally had to have ten or twelve years of service to even *think* about moving into a managerial slot, and the company absolutely refused, as a matter of policy, to hire any managers from outside the company.
The executives were certainly worth more than I was to the company, and thus should be compensated at a far higher rate than me. However, paying your hardworking employees a pittance while voting huge bonuses to yourself is still a crappy deal for the employee.
Is the Pope Catholic?
Simply, the Jack Welchs' have no special business acumen that warrants them receiving ridiculous salaries. Michael Eisner does not deserve a dollar in compensation for every person who enters one of the Disney parks. Those funds could go to the stockholders or, gawd forbid, could be given back to the consumer in the way of lower prices.
I don't know if CEO's are overpaid, but I'm beginning to get the idea that some college professors are.
Not only yes but HELL yes.
Walter Williams BUMPUS!
This is an irrational question assuming that the boards are free of overt coersion in deciding on executive compensation. It's like asking if "The Lord of the Rings" did too well.