[legitster]

No, I'm aware. It's just $39 million a year is not actually a salacious number. It's actually a semi-reasonable salary given the size and performance of the company in question.

If only compensation for the 0.1% stopped there. But unfortunately, the distribution of income pretty closely follows the Pareto principle.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Your claim requires the belief that $39M is a reasonable compensation rate for anything at all.

I dispute that.

However, I also acknowledge that I don't have a solid proposal to deal with how to distribute vast revenue/profits within organizations that successfully raise them. Mostly I think it indicates they should be charging customers/clients less, but I'm not a proponent of any sort of simplistic "maximimum salary" rules.

[drawkward]

I find it morally repugnant that anyone makes $39 million in a year.

[happytoexplain]

I find it hyper salacious. Driving a boat twice as big doesn't make you inherently deserving of double the pay, just as investing double the money doesn't make you inherently deserving of double the return. And the oft-cited accountability of leadership over large machines does not come even an additional 5% closer to validating that salary.

I am of course speaking from a human context, which I realize is not the context normally used when talking about these things. You're utterly right: It's not salacious in the capitalistic context from which we have yet to find a viable escape.

[disqard]

I'm with you -- that much yearly income is more than enough to retire on, after one year.

Yes, one can argue that the world is (today) set up such that these numbers aren't huge, to which my response would be that today's world is badly mis-calibrated along the axis of income inequality.