The morality of mega-salaries
A reader wrote to ask the following question:
Recently I’ve learned that the CEO of our company has a salary of 900k,
and received a bonus of 1.8 million! I’m not proposing a communist system would be better, but something about that seems out of whack. I mean, what the heck could the guy be doing each day that merits that reward? Yes, yes, other CEOs make more but…
It seems to me there are two questions at stake here: (1) whether or not such a reward is merited in this case, and (2) whether it is *ever* just for *anyone* to earn that kind of money.
Regarding the first question, we need to remember that in a capitalist society the price of a good is determined by the forces of supply and demand, and not as a measure of their intrinsic worth. Air has more intrinsic worth than champagne, but we pay plenty for the latter and nothing for the former, because while the demand for air is high (and inflexible!) there is plenty of it all around us. The supply is much greater than the demand, with no delivery costs — and so, it is free.
Now a CEO is actually a fairly rare kind of person. There is a combination of leadership qualities in a CEO that is quite unusual. He (or she) must be capable of mastering several business functions (sales, finance, production, etc.), s/he must possess some sort of vision, s/he typically must be capable of intense concentration, be a good communicator and lobbyist, etc. Does these functions *intrinsically* mean s/he should earn oodles and oodles of cash? I’d say no, but that is not how our capitalist system works. Assuming there isn’t some sort of high-level corruption at stake, the CEO earns a crazy salary simply because the demand for good leaders is high and the pool of good leaders is small. So the question about the morality of a CEO salary is not really about CEO salaries, it is about certain fundamental assumptions of capitalism itself and its capacity to properly express, in dollar values, the true worth of goods and services. Discomfort at inflated CEO salaries is, in my opinion, really just a symptom of a malaise regarding less-than-perfect elements of our current economic structure.
Now regarding the second question, as to whether anyone should ever earn that kind of money, I think as Christians we would do better not to protest high salaries so much as insist upon a proper sense of social responsibility. This is, again, one of the weaknesses of the capitalist system, which tends to focus on property rights with too much focus on social responsibilities. The Christian response, it would seem to me, is found in the stewardship concept. The stewardship concept starts from the idea that the world is ultimately governed by divine providence, such that everything we have and receive is actually a gift from God. While our possessions are in our care, they are really more on loan than anything else — God, in a sense, is “investing” in us by placing these goods at our disposal. It is our responsibility, then, to return these goods to God with increase, according to standards of virtue and solidarity. A CEO may earn $2.7 million dollars in a year, but the real question is not so much what he earned but what he did with it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Is he acting as the “sovereign” of his wealth? Or does he see that he is really more of a caretaker of it, on behalf of the One who owns the whole world? So personally, I don’t get too uptight about the question of quantities of possessions, but rather the quality of how they are used — and that is an issue that touches upon every Christian, indeed every human being, no matter what their salary might be.

Fr. Tom,
Excellent post! CEOs bring lots of business to their companies and yes in a capitalist system this is how it goes. True too that with power and wealth comes responsibility. I respect CEOs a lot, especially the good ones.
I might add though that while many of them are good and do bring in the business and do possess qualities that few have, there are those that we hear about in the news that do use their power improperly (WorldCom, Enron), and those who have incompetant CEOs who get huge by-outs just to leave (e.g. Home Depot, Hewlett-Packard). Those do make my stomach turn.
Regards,
Neil
I guess it’s not easy to apply morality in any very direct way to this kind of situation.
I agree with the stewardship concept. The CEO may be using his earnings in a very moral way.
But there are a couple of details in Fr. Tom’s response about which I don’t entirely agree.
That a CEO is a master of several disciplines…maybe in a perfect world.
The law of supply and demand? If it’s the board of directors deciding on the CEO’s salary, then the situation is not subject to the same law as we normally apply it. They are spending others’ money to purchase the product, not their own. Their willingness to pay large salaries is actually to their benefit if you believe in the existence of the “boy’s club”. Heck, if I had to hire somebody to do the similar work as me, I’d say their worth a million too (as long as I don’t have to pay them out of my own pocket).
Add to this that the some companies wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the innovators; those who create innovative products, and methods. Given a workforce of innovators, wouldn’t we just need a normally competent person to run the front office? Pay them more for sure, but why set them so far apart from the rest?
WWJD? Anywone??