Exactly. And guess which of those groups is the larger one ?
I think the real problem with CEO positions is that of bad actors. A certain Nokia CEO would could be a good example. Took nokia from bad into disaster and then sold the company to the "real" people who hired him.
A CEO is something you must have and who is an enormous risk if he's a sellout. So one has to give them a lot of money to try to lessen that incentive. It's that simple. It's the same reason you don't underpay the people with their hands on the nuclear weapons triggers.
As Nokia demonstrated (and it's not the only one), even doing that does not yield guarantees.
The problem is the opposite. Coming from one of Europe's quasi-socialist states, rewarding the "deserving" doesn't work. Firstly because you don't know who is deserving and because government committees, well, are were the term "politics" got it's sour taste. All important positions in the EU, for example, are filled, just like congress, with very rich people. Having consulted from them I personally guarantee they are from the "born rich" variety. Coincidence ? No. And those are effectively the only 2 options.
It's far better to go with the option where (you try to make sure) the incentives for the CEO and the people that want to benefit of him are aligned.
> The problem is the opposite. Coming from one of Europe's quasi-socialist states, rewarding the "deserving" doesn't work.
Coming from another one of Europe's quasi-socialist states (Romania), not rewarding the brightest, most capable and hardworking is also bad. Many poor countries have significant brain drain towards the rich/developed ones.
I think the real problem with CEO positions is that of bad actors. A certain Nokia CEO would could be a good example. Took nokia from bad into disaster and then sold the company to the "real" people who hired him.
A CEO is something you must have and who is an enormous risk if he's a sellout. So one has to give them a lot of money to try to lessen that incentive. It's that simple. It's the same reason you don't underpay the people with their hands on the nuclear weapons triggers.
As Nokia demonstrated (and it's not the only one), even doing that does not yield guarantees.
The problem is the opposite. Coming from one of Europe's quasi-socialist states, rewarding the "deserving" doesn't work. Firstly because you don't know who is deserving and because government committees, well, are were the term "politics" got it's sour taste. All important positions in the EU, for example, are filled, just like congress, with very rich people. Having consulted from them I personally guarantee they are from the "born rich" variety. Coincidence ? No. And those are effectively the only 2 options.
It's far better to go with the option where (you try to make sure) the incentives for the CEO and the people that want to benefit of him are aligned.