@Captain The rule main reason for having CEO's isn't that they do importent work but to have someone to point at if something goes wrong/ something illegal comes to daylight.
But that's just my inexperienced view of that topic.
I think you mixed things up here.
Power decides who makes decisions. Your salary is just a secondary indicator that you had the power to organise a high salary for yourself.
It is not necessary and people who say they need higher salary to be taken seriously are just framing their jealousy and feelings of inadequacy this way. It's not about their perception, it's about their skewed values of self-worth as promoted by the system they work in.
@juliana but the robots in I, robot (2004) were the good guys. It was the AI network that was the bad
capitalists: see the profit motive is good because it helps to cut the redundancies and waste from how we do things
society: okay we can replace CEOs with AIs and save tons of money
capitalists: no see....
The single reason CEOs are so expensive is that they have the final word on any decision and nobody can tell them no when they raise their own salary. Over time they just keept and keep on raising.
Every reason given beyond that is just an excuse.
In theory the board can replace the CEO, but that is often fraught with dangers. Also getting a reasonable priced replacement has become unusual and thus risky.
Companies with modern orgstructure less often overpay their CEOs.
It would be much better if the following view would be broadly adopted:
If CEO salary were an inverse measure of how much trust a CEO has in the company they are running, respectively the future duration of their job.
If the company or their job has less of a future, they usually try to raise salaries as fast as possible (of course there are some constraints) to get as much money as they can before the ship sinks.
Mozilla comes to mind here.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!