Detailed Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Problem:Executive Pay by the Numbers 
  
 Here are the 200 most highly-paid chief executives at U.S. public companies in 2013. The list, compiled by Equilar, an executive compensation data firm, includes only those companies with revenue over $1 billion that had reported through May 31 of this year. Compensation comprises salary, cash bonuses, perks and other forms of cash, and stock and stock options. ||||| Photo by Danny Moloshok/Reuters 
  
 It’s not exactly news that CEOs of big companies get paid a lot of money. And everyone knows that the pay gap between the big executives and the average Joe has been growing. The surprise revealed in a great new database of executive compensation—compiled by Equilar on behalf of the New York Times and covering U.S. firms with more than $1 billion in revenue—is the striking lack of method to the madness: America’s CEOs are paid a lot largely because other American CEOs are also paid a lot. 
  
 Philippe Dauman of Viacom, for example, is a very rich man—which is what you’d assume about the CEO of a major media firm, with the 100th highest amount of revenue of any publicly traded American company. Dauman brought in $33.4 million in salary, bonuses, perks, stock, and options in 2012. Nice work if you can get it. But then again, there’s Leslie Moonves of CBS. He’s also a very rich man. Given Dauman’s wealth, that’s exactly what you’d expect of the CEO of another large American media company. What you might not expect is that, even though Moonves’ firm is just two spots ahead of Dauman’s on the revenue rank order, Moonves made nearly twice what Dauman did last year: $60.3 million. 
  
 Lurking between Moonves and Dauman on the executive pay list is Disney’s Robert Iger, who brought in $37.1 million in 2012. Disney, which is more than twice as big as CBS or Viacom, had $42.3 billion in 2012 revenue, and its stock did better than the other companies in 2012, too. 
  
 Advertisement 
  
  
  
 So is Iger underpaid? Or perhaps Moonves is overpaid? Nobody knows. 
  
 It would be wrong to say that compensation for America’s chief executives is handed out randomly, but there’s certainly no clear link to corporate performance, and even the link to corporate size is surprisingly vague. But there are patterns. Despite the seemingly scattershot nature of the pay packages for Dauman, Moonves, and Iger, the one thing they have in common is that they’re all very well-paid—not just compared to the average American, but compared to the average CEO. And that’s the case throughout the media industry, where executive pay is high compared to what you see in other sectors. 
  
 This reflects the fact that nobody really knows how to judge a CEO’s worth. Since the executive is hired by a board of directors that’s theoretically accountable to a company’s shareholders, it seems like CEO pay should have something to do with stock price. But nobody wants a CEO to focus exclusively on short-term stock issues and ignore the firm’s long-term strategic position. And even if you do focus on share prices, what’s the relevant issue? Absolute return? Returns relative to the market as a whole? Returns relative to the sector? Tim Cook’s compensation at Apple was recently restructured to emphasize Apple’s share price relative to the S&P 500, which in some ways hitches him less to how well Apple fares against its competition than to how investors view the technology sector as a whole. There’s enough ambiguity that you could argue a given case in many different ways. 
  
 In practice, norms tend to dominate. Media CEOs are very highly paid because so are other media CEOs. Nationality matters, too. On the one hand, it might seem strange that John Watson of oil giant Chevron was paid “only” $22.3 million in 2012—less than the CEOs of CBS or Viacom, even though his company is much bigger than either. On the other hand, compare Watson to the CEO of the similarly sized French oil giant Total S.A.: poor Christophe de Margerie earned a mere $3 million in 2011 (the most recent year for which numbers are available). That same year, Watson brought home $18.1 million. The reason for this is both mysterious and epically clear—American chief executives are systematically better paid than CEOs from continental Europe or Japan. CEOs of U.K., Canadian, and other Anglophone firms tend to earn at close to American levels. 
  
 Advertisement 
  
  
  
 These kind of local differences matter so much because, as Ray Fisman has explained for Slate, executive compensation decisions are typically made by peer group comparisons. Media CEOs are compared to other media CEOs and oil executives to other oilmen. 
  
 American executives argue—conveniently enough—that their compensation should be compared to what other American executives are paid. This argument has tended to be persuasive to American boards, which—conveniently enough—are made up primarily of American corporate executives. And big American investment management firms—also led by American corporate executives—likewise think this makes sense. Which is all quite nice, but if you tried convincing one of these very same executives that he shouldn’t replace an American factory worker with a cheaper Chinese one, he would laugh you out of the room. 
  
 Apologists for this arrangement, such as the University of Chicago’s Steven Kaplan, argue that pay for U.S. CEOs has merely risen in line with pay for other kinds of very highly compensated individuals. Others dispute this math, but one might also dispute its relevance. It is true to some extent that America’s unusually well-paid CEOs are matched by an unusually large and aggressive financial sector and an unusually lucrative legal profession. Compared to the United States, continental Europe and Japan rely much less on lawsuits and much more on preventative regulation. They’re also much less gung-ho about the nonbank financial institutions—hedge funds and private equity shops—that provide for a very large share of the non-CEO element of the superrich. |||||
Solution:
It's not exactly breaking news that CEOs make a ton of money. But as Matthew Yglesias at Slate looked through a new database of CEO pay, he also noticed that CEOs' paydays are incredibly arbitrary; there's "certainly no clear link to corporate performance." But there are some constants, like this fascinating one: American CEOs get paid wildly more than their counterparts overseas. Chevron CEO John Watson, for instance, makes $22.3 million, while the head of a similarly sized French oil giant makes only $3 million. American CEOs argue that their pay should be compared to other American CEOs, which is fine by most American boards, "which—conveniently enough—are made up primarily of American corporate executives. … Which is all quite nice, but if you tried convincing one of these very same executives that he shouldn't replace an American factory worker with a cheaper Chinese one, he would laugh you out of the room." CEO pay is a sea of "nonsensical gaps," with compensation chugging ever higher. This should worry us, writes Yglesias. Click for his full column, which specially zeroes in on media CEOs.
Detailed Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Problem:Executive Pay by the Numbers 
  
 Here are the 200 most highly-paid chief executives at U.S. public companies in 2013. The list, compiled by Equilar, an executive compensation data firm, includes only those companies with revenue over $1 billion that had reported through May 31 of this year. Compensation comprises salary, cash bonuses, perks and other forms of cash, and stock and stock options. ||||| Photo by Danny Moloshok/Reuters 
  
 It’s not exactly news that CEOs of big companies get paid a lot of money. And everyone knows that the pay gap between the big executives and the average Joe has been growing. The surprise revealed in a great new database of executive compensation—compiled by Equilar on behalf of the New York Times and covering U.S. firms with more than $1 billion in revenue—is the striking lack of method to the madness: America’s CEOs are paid a lot largely because other American CEOs are also paid a lot. 
  
 Philippe Dauman of Viacom, for example, is a very rich man—which is what you’d assume about the CEO of a major media firm, with the 100th highest amount of revenue of any publicly traded American company. Dauman brought in $33.4 million in salary, bonuses, perks, stock, and options in 2012. Nice work if you can get it. But then again, there’s Leslie Moonves of CBS. He’s also a very rich man. Given Dauman’s wealth, that’s exactly what you’d expect of the CEO of another large American media company. What you might not expect is that, even though Moonves’ firm is just two spots ahead of Dauman’s on the revenue rank order, Moonves made nearly twice what Dauman did last year: $60.3 million. 
  
 Lurking between Moonves and Dauman on the executive pay list is Disney’s Robert Iger, who brought in $37.1 million in 2012. Disney, which is more than twice as big as CBS or Viacom, had $42.3 billion in 2012 revenue, and its stock did better than the other companies in 2012, too. 
  
 Advertisement 
  
  
  
 So is Iger underpaid? Or perhaps Moonves is overpaid? Nobody knows. 
  
 It would be wrong to say that compensation for America’s chief executives is handed out randomly, but there’s certainly no clear link to corporate performance, and even the link to corporate size is surprisingly vague. But there are patterns. Despite the seemingly scattershot nature of the pay packages for Dauman, Moonves, and Iger, the one thing they have in common is that they’re all very well-paid—not just compared to the average American, but compared to the average CEO. And that’s the case throughout the media industry, where executive pay is high compared to what you see in other sectors. 
  
 This reflects the fact that nobody really knows how to judge a CEO’s worth. Since the executive is hired by a board of directors that’s theoretically accountable to a company’s shareholders, it seems like CEO pay should have something to do with stock price. But nobody wants a CEO to focus exclusively on short-term stock issues and ignore the firm’s long-term strategic position. And even if you do focus on share prices, what’s the relevant issue? Absolute return? Returns relative to the market as a whole? Returns relative to the sector? Tim Cook’s compensation at Apple was recently restructured to emphasize Apple’s share price relative to the S&P 500, which in some ways hitches him less to how well Apple fares against its competition than to how investors view the technology sector as a whole. There’s enough ambiguity that you could argue a given case in many different ways. 
  
 In practice, norms tend to dominate. Media CEOs are very highly paid because so are other media CEOs. Nationality matters, too. On the one hand, it might seem strange that John Watson of oil giant Chevron was paid “only” $22.3 million in 2012—less than the CEOs of CBS or Viacom, even though his company is much bigger than either. On the other hand, compare Watson to the CEO of the similarly sized French oil giant Total S.A.: poor Christophe de Margerie earned a mere $3 million in 2011 (the most recent year for which numbers are available). That same year, Watson brought home $18.1 million. The reason for this is both mysterious and epically clear—American chief executives are systematically better paid than CEOs from continental Europe or Japan. CEOs of U.K., Canadian, and other Anglophone firms tend to earn at close to American levels. 
  
 Advertisement 
  
  
  
 These kind of local differences matter so much because, as Ray Fisman has explained for Slate, executive compensation decisions are typically made by peer group comparisons. Media CEOs are compared to other media CEOs and oil executives to other oilmen. 
  
 American executives argue—conveniently enough—that their compensation should be compared to what other American executives are paid. This argument has tended to be persuasive to American boards, which—conveniently enough—are made up primarily of American corporate executives. And big American investment management firms—also led by American corporate executives—likewise think this makes sense. Which is all quite nice, but if you tried convincing one of these very same executives that he shouldn’t replace an American factory worker with a cheaper Chinese one, he would laugh you out of the room. 
  
 Apologists for this arrangement, such as the University of Chicago’s Steven Kaplan, argue that pay for U.S. CEOs has merely risen in line with pay for other kinds of very highly compensated individuals. Others dispute this math, but one might also dispute its relevance. It is true to some extent that America’s unusually well-paid CEOs are matched by an unusually large and aggressive financial sector and an unusually lucrative legal profession. Compared to the United States, continental Europe and Japan rely much less on lawsuits and much more on preventative regulation. They’re also much less gung-ho about the nonbank financial institutions—hedge funds and private equity shops—that provide for a very large share of the non-CEO element of the superrich. |||||
Solution:
user
It's not exactly breaking news that CEOs make a ton of money. But as Matthew Yglesias at Slate looked through a new database of CEO pay, he also noticed that CEOs' paydays are incredibly arbitrary; there's "certainly no clear link to corporate performance." But there are some constants, like this fascinating one: American CEOs get paid wildly more than their counterparts overseas. Chevron CEO John Watson, for instance, makes $22.3 million, while the head of a similarly sized French oil giant makes only $3 million. American CEOs argue that their pay should be compared to other American CEOs, which is fine by most American boards, "which—conveniently enough—are made up primarily of American corporate executives. … Which is all quite nice, but if you tried convincing one of these very same executives that he shouldn't replace an American factory worker with a cheaper Chinese one, he would laugh you out of the room." CEO pay is a sea of "nonsensical gaps," with compensation chugging ever higher. This should worry us, writes Yglesias. Click for his full column, which specially zeroes in on media CEOs.
assistant
Detailed Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Problem:Executive Pay by the Numbers 
  
 Here are the 200 most highly-paid chief executives at U.S. public companies in 2013. The list, compiled by Equilar, an executive compensation data firm, includes only those companies with revenue over $1 billion that had reported through May 31 of this year. Compensation comprises salary, cash bonuses, perks and other forms of cash, and stock and stock options. ||||| Photo by Danny Moloshok/Reuters 
  
 It’s not exactly news that CEOs of big companies get paid a lot of money. And everyone knows that the pay gap between the big executives and the average Joe has been growing. The surprise revealed in a great new database of executive compensation—compiled by Equilar on behalf of the New York Times and covering U.S. firms with more than $1 billion in revenue—is the striking lack of method to the madness: America’s CEOs are paid a lot largely because other American CEOs are also paid a lot. 
  
 Philippe Dauman of Viacom, for example, is a very rich man—which is what you’d assume about the CEO of a major media firm, with the 100th highest amount of revenue of any publicly traded American company. Dauman brought in $33.4 million in salary, bonuses, perks, stock, and options in 2012. Nice work if you can get it. But then again, there’s Leslie Moonves of CBS. He’s also a very rich man. Given Dauman’s wealth, that’s exactly what you’d expect of the CEO of another large American media company. What you might not expect is that, even though Moonves’ firm is just two spots ahead of Dauman’s on the revenue rank order, Moonves made nearly twice what Dauman did last year: $60.3 million. 
  
 Lurking between Moonves and Dauman on the executive pay list is Disney’s Robert Iger, who brought in $37.1 million in 2012. Disney, which is more than twice as big as CBS or Viacom, had $42.3 billion in 2012 revenue, and its stock did better than the other companies in 2012, too. 
  
 Advertisement 
  
  
  
 So is Iger underpaid? Or perhaps Moonves is overpaid? Nobody knows. 
  
 It would be wrong to say that compensation for America’s chief executives is handed out randomly, but there’s certainly no clear link to corporate performance, and even the link to corporate size is surprisingly vague. But there are patterns. Despite the seemingly scattershot nature of the pay packages for Dauman, Moonves, and Iger, the one thing they have in common is that they’re all very well-paid—not just compared to the average American, but compared to the average CEO. And that’s the case throughout the media industry, where executive pay is high compared to what you see in other sectors. 
  
 This reflects the fact that nobody really knows how to judge a CEO’s worth. Since the executive is hired by a board of directors that’s theoretically accountable to a company’s shareholders, it seems like CEO pay should have something to do with stock price. But nobody wants a CEO to focus exclusively on short-term stock issues and ignore the firm’s long-term strategic position. And even if you do focus on share prices, what’s the relevant issue? Absolute return? Returns relative to the market as a whole? Returns relative to the sector? Tim Cook’s compensation at Apple was recently restructured to emphasize Apple’s share price relative to the S&P 500, which in some ways hitches him less to how well Apple fares against its competition than to how investors view the technology sector as a whole. There’s enough ambiguity that you could argue a given case in many different ways. 
  
 In practice, norms tend to dominate. Media CEOs are very highly paid because so are other media CEOs. Nationality matters, too. On the one hand, it might seem strange that John Watson of oil giant Chevron was paid “only” $22.3 million in 2012—less than the CEOs of CBS or Viacom, even though his company is much bigger than either. On the other hand, compare Watson to the CEO of the similarly sized French oil giant Total S.A.: poor Christophe de Margerie earned a mere $3 million in 2011 (the most recent year for which numbers are available). That same year, Watson brought home $18.1 million. The reason for this is both mysterious and epically clear—American chief executives are systematically better paid than CEOs from continental Europe or Japan. CEOs of U.K., Canadian, and other Anglophone firms tend to earn at close to American levels. 
  
 Advertisement 
  
  
  
 These kind of local differences matter so much because, as Ray Fisman has explained for Slate, executive compensation decisions are typically made by peer group comparisons. Media CEOs are compared to other media CEOs and oil executives to other oilmen. 
  
 American executives argue—conveniently enough—that their compensation should be compared to what other American executives are paid. This argument has tended to be persuasive to American boards, which—conveniently enough—are made up primarily of American corporate executives. And big American investment management firms—also led by American corporate executives—likewise think this makes sense. Which is all quite nice, but if you tried convincing one of these very same executives that he shouldn’t replace an American factory worker with a cheaper Chinese one, he would laugh you out of the room. 
  
 Apologists for this arrangement, such as the University of Chicago’s Steven Kaplan, argue that pay for U.S. CEOs has merely risen in line with pay for other kinds of very highly compensated individuals. Others dispute this math, but one might also dispute its relevance. It is true to some extent that America’s unusually well-paid CEOs are matched by an unusually large and aggressive financial sector and an unusually lucrative legal profession. Compared to the United States, continental Europe and Japan rely much less on lawsuits and much more on preventative regulation. They’re also much less gung-ho about the nonbank financial institutions—hedge funds and private equity shops—that provide for a very large share of the non-CEO element of the superrich. |||||
Solution:
It's not exactly breaking news that CEOs make a ton of money. But as Matthew Yglesias at Slate looked through a new database of CEO pay, he also noticed that CEOs' paydays are incredibly arbitrary; there's "certainly no clear link to corporate performance." But there are some constants, like this fascinating one: American CEOs get paid wildly more than their counterparts overseas. Chevron CEO John Watson, for instance, makes $22.3 million, while the head of a similarly sized French oil giant makes only $3 million. American CEOs argue that their pay should be compared to other American CEOs, which is fine by most American boards, "which—conveniently enough—are made up primarily of American corporate executives. … Which is all quite nice, but if you tried convincing one of these very same executives that he shouldn't replace an American factory worker with a cheaper Chinese one, he would laugh you out of the room." CEO pay is a sea of "nonsensical gaps," with compensation chugging ever higher. This should worry us, writes Yglesias. Click for his full column, which specially zeroes in on media CEOs.