comment: >
  
  
  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.
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.