I feel like it should have to be no more than a percent higher than the lowest paid employee
I can tell it’s the feelings part of you that is saying this, because the thinking part might instead realize that CEOs aren’t even compensated in that way.
Bezos, for instance, only “earns” $80,000/year. That’s his paycheck.
Most CEOS get the bulk of their compensation through stock, though there are many other lesser forms as well. (Cars, jets, homes, etc.)
I was merely offering a max out for a CEO’s maximum salary. Obviously starting factors like family wealth and investment ownership play a role, but those are harder to moderate on a legal level.
If the lowest paid employee becomes 50% better, nothing at the macro scale changes.
If the CEO becomes a fraction better, the effect is multiplied throughout the company.
What does a CEO “becoming better” mean?
An employee becoming better means that they yield more sales or better product
- Being an excellent speaker
- Selecting proper leadership
- Having industry connections
If your leadership is 1% better than your competitor, that could be the threshold needed to wipe your competitor out of the market, increasing company profit margins by hundreds of percent.
To draw a parallel, think about school grades. Going from 60 to 70% is insignificant. Going from 70 to 80% is a little more interesting. But going from 96 to 97? That has significantly more meaning than 66 to 67.
Those end numbers matter. A CEO being a tiny bit better has a huge impact.
Fixing the CEOs pay isn’t going to do anything for a plethora of reasons. Late stage capitalism is simply a failure and it shows.
this kind of thinking is only satisfactory for a company if the CEO is terrible to begin with, or if the company has no interest in the professional growth of the employees. Training the people who maintain your product only ensures that you are delivering better product.
You can schmooze and talk all you want, but it’s not going to mean anything if you’re selling crap that no one can maintain well
Yea so we agree here. That’s where a good CEO picking good leadership comes in, and why it’s so essential and worthwhile to pay for one that can do that
I suspect rich influential people of actively keeping “their inner circle” small so that “access to influential people” is such a scarce valuable resource that they can then sell at exorbitant prices (salaries) to companies.
Companies should hire a CEO Executive Officer to decide that
Hi. I’m the new CEO. Here to determine the pay of CEOs
So what will it be?
I’d say no more than 5x the salary of the lowest paid employee in the country in which they live.
Why not lowest revenue of anyone in the country ? It would create an incentive to really create jobs and care about poverty ! If we need CEOs at all…
Or we could push it tan internatinnal rule too. If the question is about ethics and not concrete reachable political goals.
Sure no problem!
(Makes 150M/yr in stock)
Switzerland voted on a 12x initiative a few years ago: https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerlands-112-initiative-why-executives-are-worried-2013-11
Unfortunately it got rejected after big companies threatened to fire their employees and leave Switzerland if this was accepted, that this would destroy the economy, and so on…
Others disagree. According to World Radio Switzerland, Novartis, Nestle, Bobst, and SBB sent thousands of employees letters asking them to vote no to the 1:12 initiative, arguing that it would make Switzerland a less desirable place to do business. Earlier this year the CEO of commodities giant GlencoreXstrata said the company would consider leaving Switzerland if the law passed. “I can’t believe that Switzerland would cause such great harm to its economy,” Ivan Glasenberg said in an interview with the SonntagsZeitung. “And I say that not just as the head of a company, but as a Swiss citizen.”
“not just as the head of a company but as a rich dude with a €400k/Yr cocaine habit that I can’t afford to support if this law passes”
All of these companies would still be able to make loads of profit in Switzerland even if this law passed, seems like a game of corporate chicken and the Swiss general public blinked first
So the company just hires people through an agency instead, so they can keep the current salaries?
Voted for by the workers.
Ideally, the same as any other worker. And that pay should be enough to cover, you know, living and supporting a family.
A CEO is a title directly associated with the corporate structure. Corporations are pure capitalist entities designed to be the most optimal way for a company to serve investor interests. Ideally, a CEO should not exist for this reason, as investors shouldn’t either.
CEOs should be paid in exclusively in ligma.
A cynical economist who the ceo is forbidden from influencing.
two-thirds vote by employees?
2/3 voting is tyranical. It results in minority rule when a 2/3 agreement can’t be reached.
Oh ok, how about ranked choice then?
Ranked choice is good
its settled then
ceos shouldnt exist
