LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
Text Post: What job is totally overpaid? posted by kiltman
  • hingeattack

    I disagree. The CEO may not have a terribly important job, but say you take away one CEO, that's a much bigger deal than taking away any one worker. While the workers are collectively far more important than the boss, the boss is more difficult to replace and more important than one worker in most cases.

    • Bastou (edited 2 years ago)

      I'm not objecting to a higher salary for CEOs (compared to their employees), but between 250 and 1000 times their average employee's salary seems really excessive to me. But of course, that is all a question of opinion.

      And in my hypothetical suggestion, I didn't say one by one, I said all at once. Of course each of them, taken individually, are replaceable and it's normal that the CEO makes more than all of them. But I'm talking about proportions, here.