[barrkel]

By the same logic, CEOs shouldn't be paid much, since they can't create much value themselves, they can only leverage other people's work. If they want to be paid well, they should strike out on their own and do stuff themselves.

[gaius]

The CEO, unless they are also the founder, is just an employee too. They are not a risk-taker or an innovator, they are just a manager. Everyone forgets that. Maybe they could be paid 10x as much as an entry-level employer but 100 or 500 or 1000x is insane

[lordnacho]

That's right. People also seem to come up with the point that the manager can make a huge difference to the company, but they forget that can also mean a huge negative difference. Ordinary employees tend not to be able to destroy a company on their own.

[slededit]

Wouldn't that imply you should be far more careful and selective with your choice of CEO since they can do much more damage? If anything I'd use this as an argument to pay as much as you can afford for the "best". Anything less poses significant risk of damage to the company.

[gaius]

If there’s a correlation between CEO pay and company performance it’s yet to be discovered.

[lordnacho]

Depends on how that tradeoff works. If you wanted to push up CEO salaries, certainly. But you could as well see that recruitment due diligence is of limited power.