I'm not trying to argue that it would mean anything to not pay him. I just wanted to express my frustration that CEOs are actively rewarded and lauded for making decisions like stock buybacks when the actual backbone of the industry are looked at as drains on society because they require things like SNAP or rent assistance just to survive.
I agree that taking away the cash compensation of the CEO means very little in terms of increases for the average worker mathematically, but these executives are the ones making the decisions to do things like stock buybacks when their lowest level employees are likely seeking government assistance to make ends meet.
The cash take-home pay is only a part of their total compensation. It seems like they average about $15 million in equity each year. The disparity between the compensation between the CEO and the common workers is what is troubling.
The CEO has performance intensives that literally double their base salary based on metrics that are completely dependent on the increased performance of the lower level employees, who could only see that kind of increase in their wildest dreams.
The Shining
Shelley Duvall