To me, it should be based on how much MORE money they make for the company than what it would otherwise make (which by the way is what the classical capitalist economists would say it should be in a free market. They call it the "marginal product.").
I'll grant you that it's really difficult to determine that, but the point I'm making is that the numbers these guys get really have nothing to do with that no matter how you look at them. A company can lose a ton of money while the CEO makes off like a bandit. The Exxon CEO bases his shocking compensation package on what the company earned, as though it was totally his doing... No recognition for the fact that the market was just up. That's a profit that should go into the stockholder's pockets, for their foresight to invest in a market that is about to explode.
Like I said, the only possible explanation I can give for this is that the corporate laws are written to put control of the company in management rather than in the stockholders. Some states, especially Delaware, have made a fortune off of writing laws that are designed to give management more control vis a vis the shareholders. The end result is that management incorporates in DE, and gets to pay itself whatever it wants.
At what point does a nominally conservative poster believe that private enterprises cannot conduct business in a manner they see fit without interference from outside interests?
All of your points are correct...and obvious. Maybe the way many publicly held entities operate is news to you, but not to others. Either way, it's not your business - unless you're an investor or other stakeholder.
Instead of moaning/groaning about what you can't control.......