Funny that these little diatribes always choose to compare the income of CEOs with average workers. CEO is of course a hated term for a hated man - the boss. And after Ken Lay and a series of high profile financial fraud cases it is somewhat synonymous with "crook".
I'd like the article re-written using these other overpaid individuals:
NBA Player salaries have risen 245% faster than average workers.
First tier Hollywood Stars have seen income increase 330% faster than average workers.
Successful World Tour of Poker players have seen income rise 1034% faster than average workers.
Thankfully in our country it still means something to work hard and achieve things. Whether in the realm of tossing a little ball through a hoop, pretending to have emotions and faking sex, or being a really good poker player. Given the huge premium paid to "the best" at these trivial pursuits the fact that a CEO (most of whom have advanced degrees and years of experience unlike those listed above) who runs a company that likely provides essential goods and services is paid a premium upsets me not at all.
I'm with you on this....it's a stupid comparison...the level of responsibility to the company is totally differnent between the two positions.
Cute comparisons.
The problem is, corporate CEO's are supposed to be fiduciaries acting on behalf of the stockholders. The rapid escalation in their pay packages is a sign of weak corporate governance. Unlike NBA players and actors, who have to deliver value to someone else, corporate CEO's often manage to make themselves unaccountable to anyone for performance. Like World Series of Poker players, they are out for themselves only, and that is *not* how a capitalist economy functions optimally.
Quite frankly, I long for the days when CEO's had the attitude of Jay Gould: "The public be damned, I work for my stockholders" instead of the attitude of today's CEO's which seems to by "I got mine". Enron was but an extreme example.
Also you were great in "Nacho Libre."