[TopQuark]

OK, I understand you better.

The CEO doesn't produce anything.

That is a common misconception of services. He renders a service to the firm, wihhc is perishable but critical.

He is the person responsible for the high level management/financing /marketing/operations/personel/....
of the entire organization, AND the livelihood of all the employees. Exactly. He must therefore be paid considerably more than Michael Jordan, but he is not.

[optimistically_conservative]

So, the athlete/actor comparison is not valid.

But it is so a CEO can be paid more than the actor/athlete.

And if the profitability of the company, or stock value declines, retain this talent with increased stock options (albeit at a lower option price) and guaranteed base salary/bonuses.

But if the solvability of the corporation means sacrificing the producers of the product, that's ok to maintain the status of the CEO.

And if the productivity of the remaining producers can't make up for it, declare bankruptcy, collect your contracted golden parachute, and move to your protected multi-million dollar mansion in Florida or Texas.

I'm starting to see the light....

[optimistically_conservative]

He must therefore be paid considerably more than Michael Jordan, but he is not.

If he is Michael Jordan's CEO, and the team's profitability allows a considerable payment, then by all means.

Someday, let's discuss the employment practices at SAIC as a comparison.