If this was true, don't you think some business somewhere would have figured it out? It' naive to think businesses and their stock holders don't do what's in their best interest.
The board sets the CEO salary-- not the mom-and-pop value investors, and not the traders who are shareholders one hour and short the company the next. Who's on the board? The CEO's friends, many of whom are CEOs in other companies, in which the aforesaid CEO a board member. So, invariably, they vote up each others' compensation. They get away with this because, although the CEO salaries don't need to be that high, it's not especially relevant to the company's success or failure whether it pays the CEO $500k or $5M per year. From a large company's perspective, that's chump change.
When making most of these decisions you will know partial information (which is in contrast to hacking where you likely can know all information available and understand it completely in many cases).
If you're doing anything interesting in technology, partial information is a permanent state. APIs and languages change, new libraries are built, and it's impossible to keep an intimate knowledge of everything that might be useful to the next project.
You are telling me 1-10% of capable people can do that? Or would want to do that for less than a million dollars a year.
I said that at least 1% of the population has the capacity to do the job. I didn't say that I'm in that 1-10%-- although I probably am-- and I didn't say that I have the social connections necessary to get a F-500 CEO position-- I don't.
There's a difference between being able to do a job and being able to get the job. I will agree with you so far as that far fewer than 1% of the population can get a F-500 CEO position, but that's not because they lack the necessary competence.
The board sets the CEO salary-- not the mom-and-pop value investors, and not the traders who are shareholders one hour and short the company the next. Who's on the board? The CEO's friends, many of whom are CEOs in other companies, in which the aforesaid CEO a board member. So, invariably, they vote up each others' compensation. They get away with this because, although the CEO salaries don't need to be that high, it's not especially relevant to the company's success or failure whether it pays the CEO $500k or $5M per year. From a large company's perspective, that's chump change.
It's difficult job. Emotionally, physically, mentally.
Sure it is. So are a lot of jobs.
When making most of these decisions you will know partial information (which is in contrast to hacking where you likely can know all information available and understand it completely in many cases).
If you're doing anything interesting in technology, partial information is a permanent state. APIs and languages change, new libraries are built, and it's impossible to keep an intimate knowledge of everything that might be useful to the next project.
You are telling me 1-10% of capable people can do that? Or would want to do that for less than a million dollars a year.
Yes, and yes.