In my opinion salary difference should always be a thing, but it should be balanced by the risk of the investment from the CEOs. Nowadays too many companies are bailed out by the government, so basically there's no risk of running the business and huge salary for the top management. That's an issue.

[–] ScrewdriverFactoryFactoryProvider@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The risk of running a business? It’s not like owning a company makes you responsible for that company’s loans if the business goes under or something.

[–] AnagrammadiCodeina@feddit.it 2 points 1 year ago

I guess it depends country by country. A company that is not netting anything at the end of the year or if it's loosing money is a direct loss on the entrepreneur's salary. Also if you do this too much, then it's the entrepreneur that should fix the missing money for his employees or for other company with which he is in debt with.

Then again, it's on the government to make sure this guy pays for the debt he left behind.

Oftentimes the story is different and somehow the boss manages somehow to "run away". Then if you speak about appointed CEOs into S&P500 companies, that's another story again because the "risk" there is really minimum for them, and other than "their image" they don't risk anything.

[–] newIdentity@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Actually it depends. It might actually make you responsible.

[–] ZenFriedRice@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Should pay be related to what percentage of your net worth you risk? $1000 is a very different amount of risk for different people.