> It's a miserable job unless you really enjoy it because everyone will (and should) blame you when things go wrong
The idea that intelligence or hard work or danger justify executive pay defies common sense.
People keep arguing it because they can't think of something better, and there must be some reason for a persistent feature of reality.
But maybe a better explanation is simply that CEOs are being bribed, not to deliberately, neglectfully, or ideologically, wreck everything.
If your job is to steer a huge ship, then the job might not be that difficult, but someone underpaid, and unmotivated could easily have tremendous impact on everybody else.
And if money is the tool that you have, then you want people whose loyalty can be bought - possibly implying they have a neurotic attachment to money as a scorekeeping method.
Of course that often doesn't work, but you can't stop trying.
> The idea that intelligence or hard work or danger justify executive pay defies common sense.
> People keep arguing it because they can't think of something better, and there must be some reason for a persistent feature of reality.
By definition, common sense is not going to apply when it comes to running a modern nation or multi-national corporation. There is nothing common about what it takes to do these things successfully.
> But maybe a better explanation is simply that CEOs are being bribed, not to deliberately, neglectfully, or ideologically, wreck everything.
A thought-provoking idea but not sure it really comports with reality? CEOs almost always report to a board who can and will fire them for poor performance.
If you were looking for a figure who is "being bribed, not to deliberately, neglectfully, or ideologically, wreck everything" then you'd be looking for the chairman of the board and large investors with highly concentrated positions.
Of course, with any of these folks, reputation travels far, so the idea of them being bribed not to wreck everything is prima facie laughable; the reason they don't "want to wreck everything" is because they are looking to max their "society ELO" score. Social credit already exists and applies to people at this echelon of society.
>CEOs almost always report to a board who can and will fire them for poor performance
Maybe? It's not an infallible deterrent and it doesn't remove the incentive to avoid the consequences of bad management in the first place.
>If you were looking for a figure who is "being bribed, not to deliberately, neglectfully, or ideologically, wreck everything" then you'd be looking for the chairman of the board and large investors with highly concentrated positions.
I have no idea what you mean. How are they bribed and how would they "wreck everything"?
>idea of them being bribed not to wreck everything is prima facie laughable; the reason they don't "want to wreck everything" is because they are looking to max their "society ELO" score
Who says that can't be done by destroying a company? All you have to do is convince yourself that the world would be better off, and that you're not afraid of the consequences to yourself.
The idea that intelligence or hard work or danger justify executive pay defies common sense.
People keep arguing it because they can't think of something better, and there must be some reason for a persistent feature of reality.
But maybe a better explanation is simply that CEOs are being bribed, not to deliberately, neglectfully, or ideologically, wreck everything.
If your job is to steer a huge ship, then the job might not be that difficult, but someone underpaid, and unmotivated could easily have tremendous impact on everybody else.
And if money is the tool that you have, then you want people whose loyalty can be bought - possibly implying they have a neurotic attachment to money as a scorekeeping method.
Of course that often doesn't work, but you can't stop trying.