Amazon.com Widgets
  • No responses have been submitted.
  • Executives are overcompensated

    Executives should get high salaries but the compensation they are getting is so disproportionate to what most of the jobs entail. Not only do they get salaries but huge annual bonuses and stock options. If the company performs poorly under their time at the helm, it is possible for them to be let go but even then they get a huge golden parachute which are usually worth millions. It makes no sense.

  • They aren't worth that much

    Compensation packages should be linear and proportional. To think that a VP of Sales or Chief Operating Officer is worth 50 times what a front line salesperson or dockworker gets paid is absurd. They are able to do what they do because of the efforts of the people doing the actual work that drives revenues for the company.

  • No they shouldnt

    Executives can get higher salary than normal employees for the amount of work that they do, for the accountability they hold etc. That doesn't mean that they should get an exponentially high salary. It could spoil the morale of the other normal employees.Hence I dont agree that executives should receive disproportionate compensation

  • No, they don't work 300 times harder than their employees.

    If CEOs are going to make 300 times more than the average worker, they need to work 300 times harder than the average worker. Of course, this is impossible. Executives don't deserve the obscene amount of money they make. It's completely acceptable for a CEO to make more than the average worker, but 300 times more is absurd. If the United States can impose a minimum wage, then it should certainly impose a maximum wage as well.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.