0
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 6:30, said:
Tbh no one has convinced me of a good reason why there shouldn't be the gap. However, we could start with experience and knowledge being considerably more prolific in the CEO group in terms of running a business, maintaining a corporate structure, sustaining profit, forging business deals, man management, accumulation of contacts, and that is without the CEO's actual knowledge of how to do the job of say, banking. Manual labour, and I mean, real manual labour, factory production lines, cleaners, farm workers, etc do not require the same levels of knowledge. Ergo they do not receive the same levels of remuneration.
What about engineers? Sure they receive good pay, and what not, but it's no where near what a CEO makes. An engineer with 20-30 years experience is not going to make the same as a CEO, almost regardless of the CEO's experience (long as the company is profitable). My point being the CEO has to consult with these people, who are extremely valuable to the company, in order to make good decisions. He's not going to do it all himself, and probably just works as hard as the engineer. All of the engineers, marketing, etc. are just as important as the CEO. And like most positions CEOs can be replaced. So they're not all that special. Sure they make important decisions for the company, but the company isn't going anywhere without relying on these specially-trained individuals.
I understand we're mostly talking about lower-to-mid class citizens, but even those who have become educated and fairly successful are still way behind in terms of pay compared to the CEOs, which is why it's unfair. That engineer I was talking earlier went through just as much or more training as the CEO and probably knows the company as well as the CEO, at the very least on the technical aspects of the company, yet likely earns a tenth (or less) of what the CEO is making.
