[pytester]

>This is what the job is worth, if you want someone competent and responsible for thousands of employees and billions in revenue. Nobody is doing that for $1m/year when one wrong decision could end up costing 1000x more than their salary

I'll do it.

It's not like that one wrong decision ends up affecting them. Even if they get fired (which they often don't), they can exercise golden parachutes that will pay out many multiples of how much an average earner gets in a lifetime.

It's a job that gets paid a lot of money because the people who do it come from a fairly tight knit community that looks out for each other, not because of merit (CEO pay actually correlates slightly negatively with performance). Being an alumnus of McKinsey is actually one of the ways to enter that community.

[VvR-Ox]

I'll do it for half $1m/year! ;-P

You are totally right about the "golden parachute".

The nice thing about being in upper management is that none of your decisions has any negative consequences for yourself and in the end you will just have more money and some more enemies who will probably not even attack you.

It is always about "vitamin b" because that is how certain networks like (financial) elites work.

I always wonder how average people try to defend the rich and argue that it is totally justified that they earn something like one year of salary in a month or even more.

Think about all the big issues we have and how we could tackle them with all the money that now is inherited and shoved around to make more money out of nothing just to be even wealthier.

It is just absurd to me and that people are actually kind of ok with this takes away most of the hope I have for our global future because if these people prevail it might as well look like the "hunger games" here some day.

[logicchains]

>I always wonder how average people try to defend the rich and argue that it is totally justified that they earn something like one year of salary in a month or even more.

I'm one of those "average" people. CEOs are paid that much because they found some other people willing to pay them that much, and I'm not arrogant enough to presume my preferences for how the people paying them should spend their money are superior to their own preferences.

Look at it as empathy. Would I like it if somebody came and started telling me how to spend my money? Hell no! Then why should I wish that upon whomever's paying CEOs?

[manigandham]

> "how average people try to defend the rich"

It's pretty simple when you realize the majority of the rich started as average people.

Wealth is relative, you're likely better off than 95% of the planet. Should we reduce your salary because of what a rural farmer makes in China?

[chrisweekly]

"vitamin b"?

[manigandham]

What's your track record for handling that kind of position? It's not the money, it's the competence, knowledge and experience that matters. And if you actually have all that then you wouldn't be asking for $1m/year.

It's a tight knit community because there are only a few individuals who get to that level of management and can be selected from to lead (and are even open to a new position in the first place).

The golden parachutes are to offset a bad tenure from hurting their future prospects. There are several CEOs who aren't hired anymore (or anywhere near that level) because of their past performance and they lose their earning potential.