Is it possible to hire a CEO for $250,000 a year?

[Ms Music]

Become a CEO. Apparently the median wage is now 9.7 million. That is $4645 per HOUR, folks.

Must be nice to make more in an hour than most of your employees make in an entire month.

http://www.komonews.com/news/business/Median-CEO-pay-rises-to-97-million-in-2012-208492131.html

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Complain to the boards of these companies if you own stock, they make the decisions. Don't blame the CEO. You'd take the money too.

 

[ModusPwnd]

I wouldn't take that job at all. Not a chance. I value my life, time and family far too much.

 

[jim hardy]

It's the Looting of America.

courtesy http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/ItalyPopes.htm

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." ~ Aesop

see also http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/03/26/can-it-happen-here-n1548498/page/full

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

I was expecting this to be an add advocating for how stay-at-home mom's can make thousands of dollars at home while on the internet. Turns out there is no spam-bot that I can ridicule

But yeah, corporations are incredibly corrupt. Old news, unfortunately.

 

[daveyrocket]

So, what salary do you think is fair for a CEO of a major corporation?

 

[jim hardy]

So, what salary do you think is fair for a CEO of a major corporation?

Myself, i'd take their organization chart and multiply what they pay a line level worker by how many layers of management are in between line and CEO .

A good CEO draws his org chart upside down; that is, apex(him) on the bottom and line level workers at top just one step below customer base.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

So, what salary do you think is fair for a CEO of a major corporation?

<$9.7million/yr

I would hope that you agree with that, as well.

But of course, a median can be skewed by outliers, like the CEO of CBS, who is making $60.3 million/yr. Regardless, they're making an absurd amount of money that is unreasonable in all accounts. I don't doubt that CEO's of major corporations undertake large amounts of responsibilities and pressure, and ought to be paid adequately, but the absurdity of the prices we're seeing is far more compensation than they ever deserve.

 

[krash661]

<$9.7million/yr

Regardless, they're making an absurd amount of money that is unreasonable in all accounts. ...
.. but the absurdity of the prices we're seeing is far more compensation than they ever deserve.

by what standard ?
what makes it absurd ?
what makes it non deserving ?

and also, why could i not apply your comment to your situation ?

what's the differences from your situation and CEO's ?

sounds a lot like a jealousy thing, IMO.

 

[ModusPwnd]

...but the absurdity of the prices we're seeing is far more compensation than they ever deserve.

The problem is, that is what the rest of the world thinks of us. We have set our minimum wage to be the top 10% highest income on the planet(link). A minimum wage worker in the US consumes more resources than the Earth can support (link). Its easy to cast the criticism up, but your claim of absurdity just as much applies to you and me as it does to them. Thats the problem with arbitrarily deciding those who are richer than you get "more than they deserve". The bulk of humanity makes the same claims against us.

Im happy to support high pay of CEOs in companies I own stocks of. When I do the math, giving them a pay cut and dividing out the saved money does not make much difference compared to the returns I am getting.

 

[MarneMath]

Complain to the boards of these companies if you own stock, they make the decisions. Don't blame the CEO. You'd take the money too.

The thing is I don't believe any stockholder who owns significant amount of stock in any company will ever be motivated enough to complain about CEO pay. I started my career in the business sector and one of the things you learn quickly is that image is nearly as important as the actual product. If company A pays their CEO 10 million per year and company B pays their CEO 10.5 million per year, and company A and B both are fighting for market share, the message company B is sending to investors is, "hey, look at us, we're obviously doing so much better than company A because we can afford to pay our CEO more!" It's really a stupid game of keeping up with the Joneses.

 

[Evo]

What kills me is that it seems like a CEO can all but completely destroy a company and still make off with a severance bonus of $20 million when the shareholders vote them out.

Here is a list of the most overpaid CEOs, based on poor performance.

http://www.businessinsider.com/25-most-overpaid-ceos-2010-10?op=1

 

[Ms Music]

I was expecting this to be an add advocating for how stay-at-home mom's can make thousands of dollars at home while on the internet. Turns out there is no spam-bot that I can ridicule

Sorry AntiFreeze, does this make you feel any better? http://wpmu.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/trackback-spam.jpg

"hey, look at us, we're obviously doing so much better than company A because we can afford to pay our CEO more!" It's really a stupid game of keeping up with the Joneses.

This is my thought also. Is it fair if the company is healthy? Wouldn't it make the company look even better if the employees were paid more than the average joe?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Sure it's ridiculous, but if you don't like it, discontinue use of that companies products. Otherwise it's none of your business. But no one will, because no one REALLY cares, they just like to complain and are jealous.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This is my thought also. Is it fair if the company is healthy? Wouldn't it make the company look even better if the employees were paid more than the average joe?

Business is about money. A company doesn't care if it looks good if it's broke and shareholders wouldn't be happy if profits are being left at the table because a CEO wants the company to "look" good.

 

[WannabeNewton]

If the people complaining were given the same opportunity to take the substantial salary, they would most probably take up the offer without a second's hesitation. People complain about the amount of money others make until they themselves have the opportunity to make that much, and suddenly the practice of manipulating people in the name of corporate greed is no longer a bad thing. This is nothing more than jealousy rearing its ugly head. When it comes to how people make money, smart business trumps ethics - money earnt legally is money earnt legally.

 

[krash661]

Sure it's ridiculous, but if you don't like it, discontinue use of that companies products. Otherwise it's none of your business. But no one will, because no one REALLY cares, they just like to complain and are jealous.

exactly.

 

[krash661]

If the people complaining were given the same opportunity to take the substantial salary, they would most probably take up the offer without a second's hesitation. People complain about the amount of money others make until they themselves have the opportunity to make that much, and suddenly the practice of manipulating people in the name of corporate greed is no longer a bad thing. This is nothing more than jealousy rearing its ugly head. When it comes to how people make money, smart business trumps ethics - money earnt legally is money earnt legally.

exactly.

 

[Nikitin]

The problem is, that is what the rest of the world thinks of us. We have set our minimum wage to be the top 10% highest income on the planet(link). A minimum wage worker in the US consumes more resources than the Earth can support (link). Its easy to cast the criticism up, but your claim of absurdity just as much applies to you and me as it does to them. Thats the problem with arbitrarily deciding those who are richer than you get "more than they deserve". The bulk of humanity makes the same claims against us.

Im happy to support high pay of CEOs in companies I own stocks of. When I do the math, giving them a pay cut and dividing out the saved money does not make much difference compared to the returns I am getting.

The obvious difference being the "bulk of humanity" do not produce anywhere near as much value as "us". These CEO wages are greatly demotivating to employees, it is far more than anyone can reasonably spend in a year and are probably the result of backhand deals which hurt a company's profitability.

Only way to justify this would be by explaining how American CEOs generate 20 times more value than European CEOs.

 

[BobG]

Become a CEO. Apparently the median wage is now 9.7 million. That is $4645 per HOUR, folks.

Must be nice to make more in an hour than most of your employees make in an entire month.

http://www.komonews.com/news/business/Median-CEO-pay-rises-to-97-million-in-2012-208492131.html

So you're assuming CEO's work 40 hours a week? That assumption might be the first flaw in your calculations. The second flaw is whether pay/hour is even relevant for a CEO.

Evo's list is more relevant. For a CEO, you should be getting paid for results; not for the hours you put in.

Most Underpaid CEO's

Most of these guys make less than the median, which makes sense, but it's the performance of their company that really makes them underpaid. Some of them make more than the median salary.

Most underpaid: Jeff Bezos, who makes less than $2 million a year.

Second most underpaid: Steve Jobs, who makes $1 a year. In other words, in comparison to Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs is overpaid at even $1 a year!

Yes, it's hard to believe that a single dollar per year wouldn't automatically make a CEO the most underpaid, but Jeff Bezos's Amazon performed better than Apple. The performance is more important than the actual salary by time you reach CEO level. (This is also the danger of accepting absurdly low compensation as a CEO. Do you really want to hear people say that at $1 a year, you're overpaid in comparison to even one other CEO?)

And, by the way, outliers would skew the mean salary; not the median salary.

 

[ModusPwnd]

The obvious difference being the "bulk of humanity" do not produce anywhere near as much value as "us".

That's the same argument that is used to justify high CEO wages. It cuts both ways.

 

[krash661]

So you're assuming CEO's work 40 hours a week? That assumption might be the first flaw in your calculations. The second flaw is whether pay/hour is even relevant for a CEO.

Evo's list is more relevant. For a CEO, you should be getting paid for results; not for the hours you put in.

Most Underpaid CEO's

Most of these guys make less than the median, which makes sense, but it's the performance of their company that really makes them underpaid. Some of them make more than the median salary.

Most underpaid: Jeff Bezos, who makes less than $2 million a year.

Second most underpaid: Steve Jobs, who makes $1 a year. In other words, in comparison to Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs is overpaid at even $1 a year!

Yes, it's hard to believe that a single dollar per year wouldn't automatically make a CEO the most underpaid, but Jeff Bezos's Amazon performed better than Apple. The performance is more important than the actual salary by time you reach CEO level. (This is also the danger of accepting absurdly low compensation as a CEO. Do you really want to hear people say that at $1 a year, you're overpaid in comparison to even one other CEO?)

And, by the way, outliers would skew the mean salary; not the median salary.

exactly,
and also, most CEo's do not have a life.

 

[Evo]

exactly,
and also, most CEo's do not have a life.

I've known CEOs that worked fewer hours a week than me and had quite a great life. Which CEOs don't have a life? By whose standards?

 

[edward]

exactly,
and also, most CEo's do not have a life.

Are you sure of that statement. They have the life they choose. Most people don't have that option.

 

[russ_watters]

These CEO wages are greatly demotivating to employees...

Do you have proof of that?

...it is far more than anyone can reasonably spend in a year...

So what? Who are you to tell me what I can/can be allowed to spend in a year?

...and are probably the result of backhand deals which hurt a company's profitability.

You are assuming that the rich must be corrupt! Yikes.

Only way to justify this would be by explaining how American CEOs generate 20 times more value than European CEOs.

Since when does supply and demand care about justification? Heck, it would make more sense to look at it the other way: people should explain why European CEOs are worth 20 times less. After all, it is Europe that endeavors to artificially hold down those pay rates. The US just let's market forces have more say.

 

[Q_Goest]

I don't think it's a jelousy issue.

There's an expectation that anyone earning $x amount of money should be providing MORE THAN that much value to the company. Being paid more money than the value you bring in isn't fair to other employees.

Are there any studies showing that a typical CEO actually brings value to their company commensurate with what they earn?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think it's a jelousy issue.

There's an expectation that anyone earning $x amount of money should be providing MORE THAN that much value to the company. Being paid more money than the value you bring in isn't fair to other employees.

Are there any studies showing that a typical CEO actually brings value to their company commensurate with what they earn?

None posted, but lacking that, why is the default assumption that they don't? Or worse even, that they are corrupt? Why isn't the default assumption that due to supply and demand, CEOs get paid exactly what they are worth?

Note that "bringing value" is not the same as having value. If a CEO brings only $1 million worth of value to a company but another company offers him $2 million, you'll have to pay him $2 million to keep him. That's value as determined by market forces.

That's an unfortunate wording for your last sentence, by the way...

 

[MarneMath]

I don't think it's a jelousy issue.

There's an expectation that anyone earning $x amount of money should be providing MORE THAN that much value to the company. Being paid more money than the value you bring in isn't fair to other employees.

Are there any studies showing that a typical CEO actually brings value to their company commensurate with what they earn?

I agree with this sentiment.

I think most Americans don't have a problem with wealthy CEO if the company is performing well. What aggravates many people is when a CEO does a poor job and still gets paid millions when they are fired. What boggles a lot of people's minds is the simple question, "how can a CEO or a CFO still get millions after x months on the job and being fired?" While yes, I understanding being a CEO can be stressful and time consuming, I do believe the salary eliminates any room for excuses.

 

[krash661]

the size of the company
matters in my ceo comment.
plus other factors.

 

[Evo]

Off topic posts will be deleted.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

by what standard ?
what makes it absurd ?
what makes it non deserving ?

and also, why could i not apply your comment to your situation ?

what's the differences from your situation and CEO's ?

sounds a lot like a jealousy thing, IMO.

The key to asking questions is to avoid ambiguity and to point out which portions of my text each question applies to. However, I will try my best to adequately answer your vague questions.

1.) The standard from which my claims arise can be found in Jim Hardy's post, namely that CEO's currently make ~125x more than the standard worker in his or her company. But obviously any standard can be arbitrarily chosen to support one's own views, so that was a rather stupid question.

2.) As pointed out above, CEO's making that much more than their workers is, in my opinion, absurd. "Absurd" is simply an adjective that I chose to accompany my description of the salary of CEO's; if you would care to ask me about my actual views, rather than which adjectives I choose to use, I would greatly appreciate it.

3.) Where did I ever imply that you couldn't apply what I am saying to my own situation, and how could you infer the opposite? People in the United States, regardless of occupation, make substantially more than most of the world. This is a sad truth of our economy, and of the state of the rest of the world. Yet, taking my salary, and increasing it by several orders of magnitude, merely increases what negative effects you might attribute to my own income, thus making it more severe and more worthy of discussion and change.

4.) I feel as though my third response effectively answers your fourth question.

Additionally, your last opinionated response attempts to assume traits about my own personal philosophy from which you have no right in doing. I find money to be evil, decadent, overtly and overly powerful, and I do not contain jealousy towards those with more of it than I, but contempt and pity. Despite all of this, money is undoubtedly useful, and I need it if I ever want to go to college and further my education, which is the only reason I even have a job in high school; my money either goes in the bank, or goes into buying textbooks for myself. I'm not jealous of someone making over nine million dollars a year because I don't need that many textbooks.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

If the people complaining were given the same opportunity to take the substantial salary, they would most probably take up the offer without a second's hesitation ...

Of course. But then almost all of that money would be going towards charities, not a yacht and three homes spread around the world.

 

[PhysicsGente]

If I'm a stockholder and my CEO is making me money I wouldn't care how much he is been paid.

 

[daveyrocket]

CEO's can range in quality from the guys who drove Hostess into the ground to people like Steve Jobs.

Here's a question for you. Imagine you own a company, and you need to hire a CEO. Let's say you could hire Steve Jobs, but he has some other offers. At what salary level would you decide that Steve Jobs isn't worth paying for?

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

CEO's can range in quality from the guys who drove Hostess into the ground to people like Steve Jobs.

Here's a question for you. Imagine you own a company, and you need to hire a CEO. Let's say you could hire Steve Jobs, but he has some other offers. At what salary level would you decide that Steve Jobs isn't worth paying for?

Even post-mortem, that man is probably a more competent CEO than some

 

[jim hardy]

Some statistics on ratio of CEO to worker pay :

http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-You/CEO-to-Worker-Pay-Gap-in-the-United-States/Pay-Gaps-in-the-World

US: 354
CANADA: 206
AUSTRALIA: 93
GERMANY: 147
NETHERLANDS: 76
SWEDEN: 89


the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index top 250 companies are listed by ratio here :
http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/ceo-pay-ratio/
#1 is JCPENNEY: 1,795
#250 is AGILENT : 173

Now those numbers might be a little skewed by comparing very top to very bottom of workforce, while the middle has become much larger due to Parkinson's Laws.
That higher CEO to Rank&File ratio makes good headlines though.

From a study out of academia,
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/ICS/InsightsAndConvenings/upload/May-2011-Pay-p14-16.pdf

3. Multiple of CEO pay to median of top 5 percent of earners has doubled.
It should be no surprise, given the information in Figure 1 and Figure 2, that the median CEO to median worker hourly earnings ratio increased over time — we know the numerator (median CEO pay) has increased much and the denominator (median worker pay) has been relatively flat. This ratio, charted in the red line in Figure 3, has in fact increased from about 75 in 1980 to about 180 today. But notice the other two lines in this figure.
The blue and very steep line is the ratio of CEO pay to those in jobs at the bottom (5th percentile) of the earnings distribution. This ratio increases dramatically from about 150 to about 400 over the past 30 years. This is the ratio we often see publicized in the media.
The third and flattest line (green) in Figure 3 is the ratio of median CEO pay to those in jobs at the top (the 95th percentile) of the hourly earnings distribution — these folks earn more than all but 5 percent of other workers, earning about $48 per hour or about $100,000 per year for full-time workers. Since these workers are also likely, on average, to be in professional jobs requiring high levels of education and skill, this seems like a more even comparison. The ratio of CEO pay to the 95th percentile worker has doubled from about 30 in 1980 to about 60 today — not nearly as much as the other two ratios.

So it looks as if there's a general expansion of the pay scale.
Top is moving away from the bottom, but so is the middle just not so dramatically. Like Hubble's expanding universe - the farther away things are the more quickly they are receding..
We were promised this in the Sputnik days - get yourself an education or get left behind.

Is there a natural limit to it? Must be, when the bottom can no longer support the superstructure.

old jim

 

[Bacle2]

Do you have proof of that?
So what? Who are you to tell me what I can/can be allowed to spend in a year? You are assuming that the rich must be corrupt! Yikes.

Since when does supply and demand care about justification? Heck, it would make more sense to look at it the other way: people should explain why European CEOs are worth 20 times less. After all, it is Europe that endeavors to artificially hold down those pay rates. The US just let's market forces have more say.

But if the increase in salary results from an increase in productivity. Why would the market
reward only, or at least mostly, the CEO's for that increase in productivity? Is there reason to believe that the increase in productivity and output is due mostly to the CEO's performance?

 

[Monique]

Sure it's ridiculous, but if you don't like it, discontinue use of that companies products. Otherwise it's none of your business. But no one will, because no one REALLY cares, they just like to complain and are jealous.

I remember you posting a video about wealth inequality in the United States, so you must care? Aren't the CEOs the persons who are in the top 1% of US wealth and they own more than half of the pie? It's the business of people working for the CEO, they get paid less. I don't understand the jealousy argument, maybe the CEO needs to be ashamed. They can get a lot of money, but at some point having more isn't better.

 

[Bacle2]

Moreover, whether people are jealous or not has no bearing on whether it is right or not for the CEO's to take such a large portion of the pie.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

I remember you posting a video about wealth inequality in the United States, so you must care? Aren't the CEOs the persons who are in the top 1% of US wealth and they own more than half of the pie? It's the business of people working for the CEO, they get paid less. I don't understand the jealousy argument, maybe the CEO needs to be ashamed. They can get a lot of money, but at some point having more isn't better.

While I agree with this post, I wouldn't press Greg too hard about his previous posts, because, as I have found as much with myself as with others, our outlook tends to change in certain scenarios after having been exposed to new information or opinions. But of course, if someone has an issue with the dominance of the 1%, then that person must also have an issue with CEO's.

 

[Nikitin]

Do you have proof of that?

There is a line of thinking in organizational psychology which says that motivation of an employee is mostly dependant on the level of justice & impartiality inside the organization. Do you think most workers would appreciate a bland CEO making 10 mill a year for doing nothing but maintaining status quo? Not to mention the huge amount of people who are in the Occupy WS movement.

You are assuming that the rich must be corrupt! Yikes.

I'm not assuming, I know many are. It's a well established fact that psychopathy, manipulation, greed etc. are useful traits for rising fast in the corporate structure. The countless books written on Wall-Street culture, for instance, aren't just made-up nonsense.

Since when does supply and demand care about justification? Heck, it would make more sense to look at it the other way: people should explain why European CEOs are worth 20 times less. After all, it is Europe that endeavors to artificially hold down those pay rates. The US just let's market forces have more say.

You are clinging to the belief that unregulated market-forces are king, which is nonsense. There can be many reasons why the CEO-market is so hot in the US, with profitability not necessarily being one of them.

In Norway, the CEOs of the biggest companies (Statoil, Telenor, DNB, Yara etc. - all major international players) only earn ~1-1.5 mill USD a year. At the same time the Norwegian economy is known around the world for its efficiency and fairness, which is partially why Norway's GDP per capita is almost twice that of the US.

 

[russ_watters]

CEO's can range in quality from the guys who drove Hostess into the ground to people like Steve Jobs.

In my opinion, Hostess was killed at least partly by a national union that decided to use it as a sacrificial lamb. But there is a lot of blame to go around:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/19390/hostess-bankruptcy-the-hidden-menace-that-killed-the-twinkie

 

[russ_watters]

But if the increase in salary results from an increase in productivity. Why would the market reward only, or at least mostly, the CEO's for that increase in productivity?

I don't see what an increase in productivity has to do with this. I'm talking about supply and demand for CEOs. If there aren't many available CEOs and/or the quality isn't very good (and people here apparently think the quality is poor), then you have to pay more to attract the good ones.

Conversely, if any idiot can run a company (as many here apparently believe), then you can just hire any idiot to do it - and pay them an idiot's salary.

Again: the "supply" part of supply and demand for workers doesn't have much to do with their productivity or quality. It has to do with their quantity.

Is there reason to believe that the increase in productivity and output is due mostly to the CEO's performance?

Every case is different.

 

[russ_watters]

I remember you posting a video about wealth inequality in the United States, so you must care? Aren't the CEOs the persons who are in the top 1% of US wealth and they own more than half of the pie? It's the business of people working for the CEO, they get paid less. I don't understand the jealousy argument, maybe the CEO needs to be ashamed. They can get a lot of money, but at some point having more isn't better.

Why should the CEO be ashamed? Who are you to tell someone that having more money isn't better? Wow.

Yes, jealousy isn't quite right. It looks more resentment to me.

 

[russ_watters]

Moreover, whether people are jealous or not has no bearing on whether it is right or not for the CEO's to take such a large portion of the pie.

Agreed, but that appears to me to be the motivation behind the opinions here. People are just stating that it isn't right without applying much in the way of facts or logic. People think CEOs make too much money because of their feelings, not because logic tells them it is true.

With the one exception being an attempt to tie CEO pay to productivity. It's logical, so that's good, but it doesn't strictly apply anywhere else up and down the pay scale either, so it shouldn't be the only measure here either.

When I was in high school, I worked food service at at nursing home. I did basically the same job that my friends did at McDonalds, but I made a lot more money. WHY? I made more money because it isn't fun serving food to old people, so they had a smaller pool of available workers to draw from. Lower worker supply caused higher pay. That's how supply and demand works in a job market.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Dwight Howard of the Los Angeles Lakers made $20 million last season and he absolutely stunk and his team went no where. WHERE IS THE OUT RAGE!? After all he's a bad person for taking that money!

 

[russ_watters]

Dwight Howard of the Los Angeles Lakers made $20 million last season and he absolutely stunk and his team went no where. WHERE IS THE OUT RAGE!? After all he's a bad person for taking that money!

Oh, I can do you one better than that: The 76ers paid Andrew Bynum $16 million last year and he never set foot on the court.

Now if he lied about being hurt, that would make him a bad person, but if he was legitimately hurt, it wouldn't.

Hopefully, the team had insurance...

Supply and demand causes teams to overpay for high-end talent, particularly at the end of careers when the inevitable downturn is unpredictable.

 

[Monique]

Who are you to tell someone that having more money isn't better? Wow.

It's not me saying it, it's published research. I'll try to find the source. The idea is that having a larger sum in the bank account does not increase happiness when one can comfortably live with less money. One can live comfortably off 4000 euros a month, is the life of a CEO so much better because the sum is earned every hour?

*edit* It's the Easterlin paradox, http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/22463

About the supply/demand, there are other professions where the supply of quality people is rare, but they don't make exorbitant amounts of money.

 

[russ_watters]

It's not me saying it, it's published research.

It is you (and others) suggesting something should be done about it.

I'll try to find the source.

*edit* It's the Easterlin paradox, http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/22463

Why does that matter to the person making the money? Doesn't he get a choice? Or should we have governments make all of the decisions for everyone?

Research says soda is bad for you: Ban it.
Research says black cars radiate heat better than other colors: Ban all colors but black.
Research say you can't watch more than two TVs at once: Ban the ownership of more than two TVs.

About the supply/demand, there are other professions where the supply of quality people is rare, but they don't make exorbitant amounts of money.

Sure, it isn't the only factor but it is a major factor. Still, "exorbitant" is a matter of perspective. If I'm working at a nursing home for $9 an hour and my friends are working at McDonalds for $7, they might consider my pay to be exorbitant.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The idea is that having a larger sum in the bank account does not increase happiness when one can comfortably live with less money. One can live comfortably off 4000 euros a month, is the life of a CEO so much better because the sum is earned every hour?

Are you asking us whether traveling to tropical islands on a mega yacht drinking top shelf Mai Tais is better than comfortably living in a 1 bed room flat in an average town drinking Stella in a local pub?