[michaelt]

CEO pay is certainly way too high, I agree.

But look at any big corporation, take the CEO's total compensation and divide it by the number of employees. The CEO of IBM earns an obscene $16.5 million per year - but divide that by IBM's 288,300 employees and it's $60 per employee per year. Wal-mart's CEO makes $25.31 million, but it's only $12 per employee per year.

Even if we redistributed the CEO's entire salary to workers, $60/year isn't going to do much to close the gap between rich and poor.

[yterdy]

This is quite an arbitrary metric.

[CoastalCoder]

I find GP's metric useful.

It helps address the question: wouldn't the company perform better if we did other things with that excess money?

[yterdy]

>wouldn't the company perform better if we did other things with that excess money?

Of course. That's not what CEO pay/employee does, though; it trivializes the massive (over)compensation by putting it in seemingly-small terms. What we need to be analyzing CEO pay in terms of is 1) How much a person needs in order to live decently and with dignity in one's particular area, and 2) How much better than the "average" CEO any give one performs (to determine incentive pay). Certain entities, institutions, and groups have cartel-ized executive positions as a class and bid up their compensation, decoupled from real value.

Another view: $60/employee doesn't seem like a lot, but if you remove the employees making over the median, or $100k, or some other resaonable cut-off, something tells me that the lowest-paid employees would see a meaningful increase in their take-home. GGP is purposely being reductive in a way that makes rethinking the issue more silly than it actually is.