A much better article was by John Kay in the FT noted that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve gets by on £100,000 a year, and yet there is a never a shortage of brilliant applicants for the position. As to the argument that no-one complains about Tiger Woods or JK Rowling (the author of Harry Potter) being richer, 'Being America's leading golfer or a successful writer is not a post but an achievement. Tiger Woods and J.K. Rowling have unique talents. Objective measures - the scores, the sales of the novels - demonstrate that they are not just good, but better than anyone else.
That is not true of Mr Garnier. His talents and achievements, while no doubt considerable, are not markedly different from those of a thousand other people. Tiger Woods and J.K. Rowling won their positions themselves and their earnings genuinely result from a market process. The chief executive of GSK is identified by a search committee and his earnings set by a remuneration committee. Committees are the hallmark of hierarchy, not markets.'
Thanks to Peter Cuthbertson for the Observer link, who notes that the article has nothing to say about whether or not the CEO is a success, and that **Stephen Pollard believes not complaining about CEO salaries makes you a neo-Conservative.
posted by Matthew @ 5/26/2003 12:05:00 PM
Comments: 0
