You're not listening or reading what I am saying. But, I'll try to answer your questions anyway.
If you pay your labor more there's always going to more people wanting to do the job (that's why the labor supply curve slopes up). What I'm talking about was the market (not just a supply curve). I was talking about the market. Where you have wages on the verticle axis and quantity of labor on the horizontal axis. Then you have a demand for labor (the employers) and supply of labor (the potential employees). If there's floors (or ceilings) set in, the market is not efficient because S can not equal D.
Who is "you" in this quote above? The board?
Anyway, I'm sure there's a number of firms that have some staff making more than the CEO. Regardless, that has nothing to do with what I was saying. I was talking about markets and jobs and how government involvement makes things inefficient.
But, getting to your point.... CEO's salaries are most likely set by a board or approved by shareholders. Hence, this body representing some firm is the demand for labor. The CEO's contending for the job are the supply. The market meets at an equilibrium. That's what the CEO is paid. Some CEO's make more because they are more talented. Some make less. God decides those factors. The market sets up the link or match of job and person.
Comments
I'm sure he will manage.
Good point... So a CEO with essentially a high batting avg. will get better pay.
And really who gives a flying fuck about the fans anyway? They'll still buy tickets and $12 beers won't they?
Or
CEO efficiency when offered incentive packages based on labor savings vs. CEO efficiency without incentive packages in a TEAM based corporation.
I believe the economics spin is never holistic enough to satisfy my questions.