One thing that often seems to be overlooked is that corporations -- and by extension CEOs -- try to maximize profits for investors. But the image of the investor is all too often thought of as "some rich guy". What is left out is people who have 401(k)s and IRAs and other retirement plans. In the process of making a company more profitable, there are also thousands of people who get their retirement income from it who rather enjoy it as well.

The salaries of CEOs are hight to attract the best person, that makes the best decisions for the company. If the company thrives, so do the workers.

There are exceptions of course.

it is not my view that high ceo salaries helps anyone except the ceo. it seems to me that the higher the salary, the more likely it is that there is corruption occuring, that damage is being done to the workers, the populace, and or the environment.

businsess is often used as a means of theft. how can you not know that?

as for attracting the best person, that's an unsupported statement. you have not shown the equation between best and insanely high salaries to exist.

It is no more unsupported then your statement that says "they make alot of money because of corruption"

Answer this: If a CEO made the same amount as a bagger at a grocery store, what incentive would there be to take the job as a CEO? If you have 2 equally paying jobs, people will take the job that requires the least amount of work.

Offering higher salaries attracts more people to the position. Take a look at Google. They supposedly have a lot of work perks and a good work enviroment etc. Because of this they get a lot more resumes which means they have more to pick from. This ensures they will get the best.

Supply and demand also has an effect. How many people are qualified to be a CEO vs customer service rep? When you have skills that are in low supply you will get paid more.

With that said, I hate CEO's that snub the little guy. The reason CEO's can make that much money is because of the worker bees at the bottom doing all the work. Without them, they would be out of business.

Please define 'shared equally'. Obviously, one or more people went to the effort of obtaining those resources; is there any reason they should have done so, unless they expect to be compensated for their efforts before any form of sharing takes place? If not, then why should they bother doing so? Especially as some resources are hazardous to obtain, and impose additional risk upon those who seek to obtain them for use?

> only a few can percolate to the top.
I don't believe that the people who are most successful got that way purely by accident. You guys talk about how lucky the selected few are to hold such high-paying positions but at what cost? The majority of executives worked towards their careers at the cost of families, friends, any sort of social life, etc.

I think that if any one of you decided today that you wanted to give up your entire life for the sake of your career, then in 10 years from now, it wouldn't be [financially-speaking] in vain.

I think that it is fair...

The people that get paid the millions of dollars get that money because they worked hard to get to where they are. Why should they suffer because other people failed to put the same amount effort towards their career?

"Answer this: If a CEO made the same amount as a bagger at a grocery store, what incentive would there be to take the job as a CEO? If you have 2 equally paying jobs, people will take the job that requires the least amount of work."

Wrong. People will take a job that suits their personalities. They will compete for control.

Higher wages are one thing, (I do not believe in socialism) but someone making 50 to 200 times as much as the person sitting outside their office is simply a vulgar display of corporate greed.

There are many more people who are capable of the job than who are paid for it. That is, if you take certain elements out of the picture, such as extreme self-serving behavior and simple greed.

Running a company is not as hard as you want us all to believe. When a company gets big enough to pay the wages we're talking about an there is, after all, a hierarchy of support, the top dog certainly must know how to wheel and deal, and smooze, and understand the business to a great degree.

That's not the issue here, it's the "type" of person who does this that is at issue. Who in the name of God said that the sort of corporations that pay these sorts of wages can be shown to be a "good" thing for mankind anyway?

The entire notion of corporation is ... dare I say it... evil (in a sense). Yes, it's evil because it removes personal responsibility for the actions of the principles. For the most part, they cannot be touched as they plunder and abuse resources and people.

I don't mind someone making $250,000 per year to my $40,000 .. that's not the issue here, and it covers your average executive salary. But when it gets to 1.5 mil, or 12 mil a year, well, that tells me that greed is in charge, and if you look closely you'll see that it doesn't stop with the wage.

And you don't think there's something wrong with that equation? Those are the people you want to reward, people who abandon their families for corporate advancement? These are the people you want influencing government behavior towards the very people that they have abandoned? And you support the notion that they "should" have millions to your thousands?

Whew. I never cease to be amazed at the attraction of the dollar for the majority of the middle class.

This attraction overwhelms all other compassionate regard for and consideration of their fellow man, tainting all values and principles.

I believe that people should be rewarded for their hard work, whatever their passion may be. Not everyone in this world has the ambition or desire to be a family man or housewife and raise 2.5 kids with a minivan, golden retriever, and white picket fence. If that's your passion, that's going to be where your main focus is. If your career is your passion, you're going to excel in that ... not everyone in the world was cut out to raise a family.

People don't need to abandon their families for their work. There are lots of people who don't have families to begin because they have always focused on their careers.

Case in point: Microsoft's 55 year old co-founder and $18 billion dollar man Paul Allen is a never-been-married bachelor. In fact, this is so common that there's actually a Forbes Billionaire Bachelors list of never married men over 40.

> This attraction overwhelms all other compassionate regard for and consideration of their fellow man, tainting all values and principles.

In conclusion, you cannot apply your values and principles to everyone in the world.