Surely, you mean 'incompetent'. Seriously, there's no magic skill involved in being a CEO. All those people have extensive armies of risk management people, VP's, etc., around them. And the President of the USA only makes, what, $500k/year?? And he runs an organization that is several orders of magnitude more complex than any Fortune 500 company. And it hasn't quite blown up yet either.. You're suggesting that engineers who can put things and people into space, who make less than $200k/year, working for Boeing or NASA, aren't smart enough to run a Fortune 500 company? Lol. That's a good one.
I think the point here is that shitty performance should equal shitty pay, but that doesn't seem to be the case with these banks. They reap the rewards, but offer nothing in return. It has little to do with envy.
It has been scientifically proven there is an inverse correlation between excessive salary and actual performance.
Have you been a CEO of a bank? Have you ran a fortune 500 company for 200k per year? If the engineers were smart enough to run the company they would, if not, then there is a reason. Rex Tillerson is the CEO of Exxon Mobil and he is an engineer and he made $16.7 million in 2007. How about you focus on what you earn and leave others to determine what is the best compensation for themselves.
Yeah there's a reason all right -- most engineers have an eye towards sustainability. But Board of Directors are only interested in what happens in the next quarter or two so they can keep their jobs and cash in their stock options to pay for another yacht. Obviously the two goals are incompatible, hence, the engineers get the boot, while the financial con men get to occupy those chairs. The performance of the banks, and of the US economy more broadly completely speaks for itself -- the compensation paid to those individuals was not worth it at all. If you want an extreme example, look at Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffet, makes, at best, a couple hundred thousand $$ a year in CEO pay, yet look at how well that company performs.
It has to do with nepotism. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. Why do you think the "Skull and Bones" network even exists?
This is a very good point. In practical terms, CEOs aren't overpaid until shareholders say they're overpaid.
And shareholders, in the past decade, have lost well over half the value of their investment in the stock markets. Why aren't shareholders revolting? That's what I don't understand..
if the hulkster made millions selling a form of fantasy fake fighting, then a CEO can get paid selling his dream even if it means cooking the books,,, A-Rod gets paid on what he did in the past and what he promises to do for his team in the future. No CEO gets thrown millions his way for being a chump. Somewhere along the line they made some shit happen and happen good.