comment: >
  
  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.
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.