Hacker News Reader

Comment by lazyjones | Hacker News Reader

> No one can actually work enough hours, or create enough value, to equate to £10m

It's a tiresome discussion. Why do we always bring up CEO compensations, but never Hollywood actors', professional athletes' or even painters' (or art traders' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._5,_1948)?

Salaries don't need outside validation by people why have no idea what the job involves, but try to assign some "value" to it anyway. It's a free market and CEOs don't get hired if they have outrageous demands and there are better candidates available.

View on HN

> Why do we always bring up CEO compensations, but never Hollywood actors',

Do you mean that whenever we discuss CEO remuneration we must also add a parenthetical remark to the effect that the discussion most likely also applies to a list of other categories of person?

If so then I think we can simply petition HN to add such a declaration to the terms and conditions of the web site, for instance:

- Any discussion of remuneration of any entity receiving more than 1MUSD per year is deemed to include all other categories of entity where at least one member of that category receives at least that amount.

If not then we must litter our discussions with pointless qualifications. Perhaps it doesn't matter, a lot of the comments, this one included, do not advance the discussion so their content doesn't matter.

> Why do we always bring up CEO compensations...

I certainly bring up professional athlete salaries. Given that they produce absolutely nothing of value beyond a marketing opportunity, they're all overpaid for very little real work. It's not like they're curing cancer. Actors? Memorize some lines, and have lesser-paid minions tell you how they should be repeated.

All that's really happened is that a class of people have managed to market themselves to a section of the population - sports stars, actors, CEOs and politicians. They've made themselves superstars, and unfortunately, sufficient numbers of people believe in the legends that they can ask for whatever excess they like and get it.

> They've made themselves superstars, and unfortunately, sufficient numbers of people believe in the legends that they can ask for whatever excess they like and get it.

So, if that's true, they are compensated for excelling at self-marketing, i.e. for having a valuable (in our society) skill and not for others' perception of "created value"? I personally have no problems with that and don't find it objectionable.

If having Jack Nicholson in your movie guarantees at least $20 million more in box office revenue than someone nobody has ever heard of, they're creating value.

Likewise, a professional athlete plays on a sports team. That sports team generates millions of dollars a year in television contracts. Hundreds of people are employed both at the stadiums at which they play as well as at the television stations that air the games. Millions more are made from merchandising, jerseys, hats, etc from the sports team. Hundreds more are employed making and selling those products.

And yes, they also become marketing machines. Yet that marketing machine sells products and people are employed at those companies that make and sell those products.

The ripple-on effect of a super-star professional athlete like Michael Jordon or LeBron James generates wealth for tens of thousands of people.

>Why do we always bring up CEO compensations, but never Hollywood actors', professional athletes' or even painters

I hear you, but there's usually a magnitude difference between these occupations and the highest paid CEOs.

> there's usually a magnitude difference between these occupations and the highest paid CEOs.

Is there?

According to http://incomefile.com/richest/top-10-highest-paid-ceos-chief... , https://www.forbes.com/actors/#22dd8ef340fe and https://www.forbes.com/athletes/list/ it's the same range, approx. $20m-$100m.

While I think the are seriously overpaid, actors/athletes have to fight to stay relevant - they may fall out of favor at any time. CEOs make loads of money regardless of their performance. CEOs are rarely hired by open-market competitions, but rather by peer (read: boys' club) referral.

Once a CEO, always a CEO. Even if you blow up a few companies, you can always run for President (Carly Fiorina and many others)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com