I'd have to disagree with your point about CEO's having rare skills. CEOs appear to not be rated against anything. you have giant failures like Yahoo under Mayer or the executives at Toys R Us giving themselves bonuses as they are going through bankruptcy. Instead of not getting compensated for their failure they are getting amounts of money that most Americans could retire in.
When the business does well people say it's due to the CEO, but when they fail people argue about how bad it might have been. There's no way to know. It seems more like a scam vs investors or employees than some measurements skill that actually merits compensation
> When the business does well people say it's due to the CEO, but when they fail people argue about how bad it might have been.
Do you have any data to back that up? In the meantime I'd rather believe the null hypothesis that CEOs are blamed for bad performance just as often as they are commended for successful results.
This is exactly the argument I am talking about. It's fine that we can't judge CEOs, but then why are they taking home millions of dollars?
If we can't judge them for failures then we shouldn't be able to judge them for successes as well and they shouldn't be able to pull out the "rare skills" argument
They are taking home millions of dollars because the owners of those companies want to pay them as much, and they have the final say over how much to pay.
When the business does well people say it's due to the CEO, but when they fail people argue about how bad it might have been. There's no way to know. It seems more like a scam vs investors or employees than some measurements skill that actually merits compensation