However, a exec can make one decision that can save / make a company millions or billions of dollars.
I understand how the current situation is justified. Two questions though:
1. How much of that is down to the skill of the exec? A sibling comment addressed this problem as well: If there are many people who have roughly the same likeliness-of-success, but comparatively much fewer positions for such people to fill, then income basically becomes a lottery. Lotteries are not a basis for a system that achieves distributive justice.
2. Taking an additional step back, how reasonable is it to have people in such powerful positions in the first place? After centuries (actually, millenia) of experience, we decided that by and large, concentrating too much power into few hands is a bad idea in politics. Especially with large corporations, where the boundary between political and business positions becomes rather fuzzy, it is reasonable to ask whether the same lessons apply there as well?
I understand how the current situation is justified. Two questions though:
1. How much of that is down to the skill of the exec? A sibling comment addressed this problem as well: If there are many people who have roughly the same likeliness-of-success, but comparatively much fewer positions for such people to fill, then income basically becomes a lottery. Lotteries are not a basis for a system that achieves distributive justice.
2. Taking an additional step back, how reasonable is it to have people in such powerful positions in the first place? After centuries (actually, millenia) of experience, we decided that by and large, concentrating too much power into few hands is a bad idea in politics. Especially with large corporations, where the boundary between political and business positions becomes rather fuzzy, it is reasonable to ask whether the same lessons apply there as well?