comment: >
  
  Do they? Not sure a company makes any financial impact if their laborers don’t, you know, produce with their labor.
context: To /u/flydrip, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.
  In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
  
  Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
  Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
  Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.
  Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
  
  Please also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track.  Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do. >
  
  What would change your view? Arguments about monoliths are inherently flawed. 
  Some CEOs are underpaid and some are over paid and is true of every job. I've met some CEOs that work 4 days weeks and earn $450k/yr. Some CEOs work 365 days and will have zero comp. 
  Can you provide a specific CEO that you think represents your view? >
  
  I believe most people target the notable high earners and media trends. Cook, Zuckerberg, Musk, Bezos, etc. Nobody talks much about the CEO of Colgate toothpaste. Toothpaste prices are not outrageous and they save everyones teeth and cut medical costs by millions every year. Or Steven Preston, CEO of Goodwill who has over $1mil salary but is part of a great organization and even gives back to the local community he lives in, served in office, etc.
  These people no doubt make millions but I would never say that they are greedy bastards. The end result of their company is a good service and helpful product. For most "average" non-media hyped CEOs... I see no issue why they can't earn what they earn. >
  
  
  I believe many of the same people who love to hate executives also don't have nearly the same work ethic or overall potential as someone in that high position.
  
  This is a little like people arguing that movie reviewers can't have valid opinions because they're not filmmakers themselves, or that restaurant reviewers can't criticize food unless they are chefs themselves. 
  
  I believe most people wouldn't last a week being in CEO or in most executive positions.
  
  We could make the same claim about people who teach in public schools, or garbagemen, or lumberjacks, or 911 operators, none of whom get paid even remotely the same wages.
  
  The same people who complain about CEOs are the same people who would never even want to live the life of a CEO (ie no weekends, basically no life, traveling constantly, running conferences, etc.)
  
  Again, a food critic doesn't need to work as a chef in a restaurant kitchen to judge whether food is good or bad. They don't need to run their own restaurant to evaluate whether the quality of the goods being offered match the price being charged. 
  And that's the issue here: are CEOs generating an appropriate amount of value for their companies relative to the compensation they receive? 
  
  In my opinion, the real people you should envy are the WFH employees who move their mouse every 20 minutes to keep their computer awake while pulling in $80k+ doing absolutely nothing/bare minimum. 
  
  It's not an either/or. We can do both. In fact, a lot of the people who argue that CEO compensation is vastly overstated relative to the value they add also argue that much of corporate management is unnecessary and fails to add value as well. >
  
  
  Again, a food critic doesn't need to work as a chef in a restaurant kitchen to judge whether food is good or bad. They don't need to run their own restaurant to evaluate whether the quality of the goods being offered match the price being charged. 
  
  I'm not saying that they need to. I'm saying that no food critic would want to (if the food critic is our CEO), or also be capable of, producing the same quality ouput as the chef.
  
  In fact, a lot of the people who argue that CEO compensation is vastly overstated relative to the value they add also argue that much of corporate management is unnecessary and fails to add value as well. 
  
  I would say I'm not so much referring to upper management here as I am comparing a hard working plumber to a WFH excel sheet conessiour. I actually do think upper management can be a joke, even more so than any CEO usually. I appreciate many CEOs more because they're often busier and more disciplined. >
  
  
  I'm saying that no food critic would want to... or also be capable of, producing the same quality ouput as the chef.
  
  But does that mean the food critic is wrong? Does it mean that food critics can't honestly, accurately, and/or fairly criticize food, just because they're not also chefs?
  If a movie reviewer can offer a legitimate criticism of a movie without being a filmmaker, and a food reviewer can offer a legitimate criticism of a restaurant without being a chef, then why can't economists or columnists or financial analysists offer valid critiques of CEO compensation? 
  Your position seems to be "CEOs deserve their pay... because everyone who criticizes them couldn't be CEOs" and that's... not how criticism works. 
  You haven't actually made any arguments to justify CEO compensation. You've just made ad hominem attacks on people who criticize them. >
  
  
  Does it mean that food critics can't honestly, accurately, and/or fairly criticize food, just because they're not also chefs?
  
  Frankly, yes.  If one does not understand the process - at least somewhat- , one cannot meaningfully criticize it. One can make observations, but they are ignorant ones.
  For example:  A farmer might bitch and moan about agricultural regulations - "Why can't I just spray all my food with insecticide? Those damn bureaucrats telling me what to do!!"  But the farmer doesn't know (or doesn't want to know) that that insecticide will cause (for example) the local bee population to die, and that means no pollination, and no new crops.  They are correct about it being inconvenient to them, but they are ignorant of the bigger picture.
  In the same way, a person who is completely ignorant about cooking is not in a position to criticize a chef in any meaningful way.  They may say 'I don't like this food', and that's valid.  But they cannot say 'you did a bad job cooking this', without knowing at least a little bit about cooking.
  And, more to the point, a person who is ignorant about what a CEO does, and how to do it, cannot criticize the CEO and their salary.  They may say "I don't like the fact you make so much money", and that's valid.  But they cannot say 'the CEO didn't earn their salary'... when they don't even know what a CEO does.
  In short, you need to be familiar with something before you can criticize it. >
  
  Does it seem at all odd to you that when I asked you about food critics, you responding by only talking about people who are "completely ignorant about cooking"? 
  Likewise, your example assumes that farmers, people who make their livelihood based on growing food, are somehow ignorant of what pollination is or the role it plays in crop growth. That's a profoundly ignorant and insulting view of the agriculture industry, both as a whole and the individuals who work in it. 
  I'm really not sure what to say here, except that your defense seems to be either "CEOs are mysterious creatures that no one else can understand" or "all outsider criticism is fundamentally invalid", neither of which are even remotely true. 
  
  But they cannot say 'you did a bad job cooking this', without knowing at least a little bit about cooking.
  
  I do not need to know anything at all about cooking to know if a steak is tough and overcooked. I don't need to know anything at all about making chocolate to tell that Palmer's chocolate is awful, and Hershey's is only slightly better. 
  
  a person who is ignorant about what a CEO does, and how to do it, cannot criticize the CEO and their salary. 
  
  Edward Lampert took over as CEO for Sears in 2010. The chain had 3500 stores. Eight years later, it had 50. 
  Tell me, what part of being a CEO do I need to know in order for my criticism of his leadership causing a company with $55 million in annual revenue to file bankruptcy less than a decade later? Do I need to have a detailed, scholarly understanding of the role of a chief executive officer to point out that 3500 > 50? >
  
  I think you're missing a crucial component of this issue.  It's not the amount of money that CEO's make that's the problem, it's the amount of money they make relative to their low wage workers.
  I agree, most people wouldn't last a week being a CEO.  But I also think most businesses run by highly paid CEO's would go out of business if the minimum wage employees who worked there all quit and replacements couldn't be found.  If the business is dependent on low-wage workers, the highly paid CEO wouldn't have a business to run if it wasn't for those low-wage workers. >
  
  
  I agree, most people wouldn't last a week being a CEO.  But I also think most businesses run by highly paid CEO's would go out of business if the minimum wage employees who worked there all quit and replacements couldn't be found.  If the business is dependent on low-wage workers, the highly paid CEO wouldn't have a business to run if it wasn't for those low-wage workers.
  
  True but business does not run on 'what is right'. Minimum wage employees are plenty and can be replaced easily. It is supply and demand, if workers were difficult to find they would be payed much more. Moral correctness is irrelevant, its just a system. >
  
  Yes, but OP seems to think that the complaints about CEO salary has to do with envy.  This isn't true.  The complaints are fundamentally rooted in morality, not envy. >
  
  I’ve noticed that a lot of the “you’re just jealous of their success” type of arguments seem to completely miss the point why people are upset about these small few people hoarding more wealth than they could ever possibly spend. >
  
  Exactly, the problem is not that some people make a lot of money.  The problem is that some people have more money than they could reasonably spend in a lifetime while their own employees struggle to afford food, shelter, and medical care.  It's not the wealth that's the problem, it's wealth in contrast to poverty. >
  
  If I was to be put on an NBA team. They would literally be better off running the floor with 4 people. If the NBA mandated that I had to be on the floor. The team would perform poorly whenever I was on the floor.
  Meanwhile Lebron James will be an asset on any team.
  How do you determine the ratio between our productivity? It's infinite. My contribution is a net negative and his is a major positive. It's not 1:1000 its not 1:10000. It's 1:infinity.
  Therefore a meritocratic system is bound to have major disparities like this. There is a ton of demand for Lebron James like services and extremely low supply. >
  
  But with your NBA example, it's worth noting that the game doesn't happen without players like LeBron, but also doesn't happen without staff like janitors to clean and maintain the facilities.  Does this mean that janitors should get the same pay as Lebron?  No, of course not, but if LeBron is literally making hundreds of millions and the janitors are struggling to make ends meet maybe the janitors should get a little bit more even if that means LeBron only makes tens of millions or whatever. >
  
  The janitors have their job because of guys like Lebron.
  Meanwhile you can find janitors literally anywhere.
  The scarcity is the key. Anyone can be a janitor. Only Lebron can be Lebron. >
  
  
  The scarcity is the key. Anyone can be a janitor. Only Lebron can be Lebron.
  
  Yes that is an argument for why janitors should not make as much as Lebron James.  That is not a great argument for why janitors should not be paid a living wage while James and NBA executives rake in hundreds of millions. >
  
  Let's focus on Lebron.
  Let's say California put in a law (cause they would) that states you can not be paid more than $1,000,000 a year salary. 
  What would happen to all of their professional teams? They would all suck. Likely just leave town. All those janitors would be screwed.
  This happens in large samples in much broader economics as well. If you try to force a company to overpay abundant talent and thus underpay the scarce talent. They just move somewhere without those restrictions. Which hurts the entire economy. That is just how humans operate. It's the achilees heel of socialism. People are greedy, especially the talented effective one's. >
  
  
  I believe most people wouldn't last a week being in CEO or in most executive positions. There are exceptions, sure, but a majority wouldn't last. They would not have the skillset that was either learned or handed down to those executives through years of training and experience.
  
  How do you know this, though? What evidence exists that could be used to determine this? >
  
  Simple supply and demand
  If companies could just insert any average Joe into that position and just pay them $100,000 a year or something. They would do just that.
  Turns out that you need talent in that position. And talent is very expensive. You have to pay a ton of $ to lure that talent away from your competition. Which is how you get the ridiculous salaries.
  Think about several NBA teams trying to lure away Lebron James. If they could just pay Joe Blow 1/1000th of the $ to get the same level of production you really think they'd bother with Lebron? >
  
  I guess I’m curious what you believe the taskload of a CEO is, and why most people couldn’t do it? Some people certainly aren’t cut out for that kind of organization and leadership, and that’s fine. But what makes you think that they deserve up to 300x more of a salary than the people doing the labor? >
  
  
  I guess I’m curious what you believe the taskload of a CEO is, and why most people couldn’t do it?
  
  I think it's mostly about most people don't have the nessary skills. They could be obtained but just making a random person CEO would likely have negative consequences. The pay is generally overkill but a CEO having a bad day can definitely do more damage then say the janitor having one. So a balancing of risk and responsibility. >
  
  
  move their mouse every 20 minutes to keep their computer awake while pulling in $80k+ doing absolutely nothing/bare minimum. At least CEOs do more than that.
  
  The CEO at my last company couldn't open an email on his phone. He'd hand it to his assistant who would read it to him aloud, and then type his response for him. Then he'd go to 2-3 15 minute meetings. Then he'd go play golf all day. He loved talking about how lazy people were these days, and how none of them could do what he did, and if he died, the entire business would fold up Atlas Shrugged style. He had a heart attack one Tuesday morning on the gold course during working hours, and was in the hospital for over a month. The overall productivity of the office went up when he was literally absent and doing nothing. 
  
  I believe most people wouldn't last a week being in CEO or in most executive positions
  
  Most CEO's wouldn't last a day on the shop floor. >
  
  What do you believe justifies the fact that CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,460% since 1978? CEOs were paid 399 times as much as a typical worker in 2021
  Do you think that CEO's are 400x more important than the workers who produce the products they profit from? >
  
  In the large organizations, absolutely so. One CEO. Tens or hundreds of thousands of employees. >
  
  I think Elon Musk has done a wonderful job recently at proving CEOs aren’t smarter or more capable than other people. >
  
  But I'd argue he does prove the point that it's worth while to have a good CEO. A bad CEO (Musk in this case) can destroy a business. If musk lost 20b of value for twitter, then it would have been money well spent to pay a CEO 19B if they wouldn't have done that etc. The company still comes out ahead, which is how we get to the current scenarios. 
  If CEO A would provide 5B in value, and CEO B would provide 1B in value, then paying CEO A 4B would still be the economical decision >
  
  I completely agree. My thing is that CEO’s should be appointed by a board of the workers, not some well-connected angel investors. They should likewise be beholden to the workers.
  I think it’s perfectly fine for a CEO to make a lot more than the average worker, if the workers vote them in and believe that said CEO is worth the salary. Good CEOs certainly have skills that not everyone possesses, and they are invaluable to a growing company, imo.
  It’s really just a matter of how much more they make in relation to the rest of the workers, and if they answer to them. Because say there was a person who was an incredibly charismatic, smart, go-getter who was really good at greasing palms. A smart board would elect him CEO, and pay him enough to succeed. The current ratios are just silly >
  
  
  My thing is that CEO’s should be appointed by a board of the workers, not some well-connected angel investors. They should likewise be beholden to the workers.
  
  Workers are not qualified in what is good or bad for the business. Workers are largely not invested in the business. What would stop this from being "I will double your pay" and run the company into the ground, get debt, workers leave and do it all again etc. 
  I don't want non accountants doing my taxes, why should I want non business savy people electing who runs the company? >
  
  
  Workers are not qualified in what is good or bad for the business.
  
  Sure they are. Have you ever worked at a business? Have you ever had ideas about what would make things better but had no opportunity to affect change? I’m a go-getter so I’ve always tried to show my bosses how to improve things wherever I’ve worked. One place, they insisted they knew what they were doing. I insisted they were wrong. They fired me for being insubordinate and you know what? They closed down weeks later for exactly the reasons I was bringing up. I’ve spoken to so many people in similar situations. People who get told how to do their job incorrectly by superiors who don’t understand what it’s like to actually do the job. Have an open mind, anyways.
  
  Workers are largely not invested in the business.
  
  Exactly. Let’s change that.
  
  What would stop this from being "I will double your pay" and run the company into the ground, get debt, workers leave and do it all again etc.
  
  Why would anyone intentionally destroy their company…
  
  I don't want non accountants doing my taxes, why should I want non business savy people electing who runs the company?
  
  An accountant is a single person, you must know that’s a silly comparison. As for who runs the fishery, for example, why do you care so much about how it’s structured? Is it so difficult to imagine that people can, oh I dunno, be trained in different roles? I just don’t get this myopic sort of thinking >
  
  
  Why would anyone intentionally destroy their company…
  
  Because it's not "their company" it's the company they work for. They have no investment in it with what you're proposing. 
  
  I’m a go-getter so I’ve always tried to show my bosses how to improve things wherever I’ve worked.
  
  Do you show your bosses bosses boss? What about their bosses boss? Do you think factory workers are going to tell the CEO of amazon how AWS should be run? That's their cash cow but it's a small fraction of their workers etc. >
  
  
  Because it's not "their company" it's the company they work for. They have no investment in it with what you're proposing.
  
  Yes they would. You clearly misunderstand me.
  
  Do you show your bosses bosses boss? What about their bosses boss? Do you think factory workers are going to tell the CEO of amazon how AWS should be run? That's their cash cow but it's a small fraction of their workers etc.
  
  No, this is exactly my criticism.
  My goodness man. Please engage sincerely with my comments. >
  
  How did I not do that? 
  
  Yes they would. You clearly misunderstand me.
  
  This is so far from our current reality though. You're talking about socialism then or something? >
  
  What exactly do you think that CEO’s do that justify making hundreds of times more than the typical rank and file worker? >
  
  Make decisions that impact hundreds of thousands of workers, and millions and billions worth of revenue >
  
  And when they defraud their own customers or kill their own customers, but still get to walk away with golden parachutes worth hundreds of millions of dollars, that’s what exactly?
  Seems to me like even when CEO’s fail, they still get taken care of. >
  
  Certainly not the norm, but yes it is a problem. >
  
  Seems far more common for CEOs to get away with everything then it does for them to be held accountable >
  
  Do you genuinely think a CEO works 1,400 times harder than the average person?
  I don’t want to live the life of a CEO. The life CEOs live is a big part of the reason it’s hard to live a good life in America. >
  
  Effort is irrelevant.  CEOs aren't paid 1400 times more than an average employee because they work 1400 times harder.  They're paid 1400 times more than an average employee because their decisions and actions have 1400 times more financial impact on the company.