I just finished up reading a special report on executive pay in the Jan 20th, 2007 issue of The Economist. These special reports are one of the great reasons I recommend everyone get a subscription to this magazine…reading it makes me want to write about a topic sometimes :-)
As it has been readily reported in several mainstream media pieces, average executive pay was around 40 times that of an average worker for much of the 20th century. Then, starting in the 1980’s and continuing through today, executive pay rose to an average of 140 times that of the average worker. Although there are several reasons for this rise, average workers are beginning to feel increasingly dissatisfied with their own compensation. This is mostly attributed to stagnant wage growth and increasing prices.
However you view the rise in executive pay over the past 20 or so years, I would argue that it is mostly justified. The job of a CEO or other high-ranking executives has increasingly been “under the microscope” during this period, with investors demanding better performance and larger, consolidated companies needed very skilled management. Executives need to be compensated for the riskiness and breadth of their jobs. In fact, the current market for executive compensation is a great example of simple supply-demand economics.
One of the main problems is the media reports extensively on the outlandish pay packages granted to some executives. This drives the perception that executives and corporate boards are colluding to reward poor performance, in addition to fueling a public outcry for government agencies to step in and regulate executive pay. However, regulations or limits on the way companies compensate their executives will not help. Further disclosure of executive pay and more effective shareholder representation on corporate boards are the best methods to establish fair compensation for executives