Are CEO's overpaid?

Are CEO's overpaid?

Tyler Cowen has a NY Times column supposedly offering a "contrarian" take on the issue (also see his blog post).

Cowen's viewpoint is that CEOs are paid according to their value, and I don't see why that's contrarian because it's the standard line spouted by pro-free market people.

The proper way to understand CEO pay is to look at it as a winner-takes-all market. A small increase in ability, or luck, results in massively greater earnings. So whether or not CEOs are overpaid depends on how you define "overpaid." Winner-takes-all markets happen to be a naturally occurring phenomena, but if you define "overpaid" as meaning someone makes far more money than someone else without actually contributing any additional value to the economy, then yes, CEOs are certainly overpaid.

As I explained in my post about baseball and Atlas Shrugged, the loss of the world's top baseball players would have little effect on the economy, and the same would apply to the loss of the highest paid CEOs. Other people would step into their roles, and it's doubtful that there would be any noticeable ability difference between the two.

We don't even know how good the selection criteria are for CEOs. Maybe the skills and abilities needed to get hired are not the same skills and abilities need to do the job? In fact, it seems likely to me that in order to make the really big bucks as CEO one must focus on self-promotion at the expense of the interests of shareholders. So by the very nature of the selection process, the highest paid CEOs are inevitably not the best people for the job.

Tyler Cowen explains that CEO pay has risen with market capitalization of companies. Some commenters to his blog have asked why the CEO pay should rise based on external factors (such as the increase in the P/E ratios of all publicly traded companies) which the CEO has no contol over? If CEO pay is based on their contribution to the economy, then they shouldn't get any more money for doing the same job they were doing before. But in fact, CEO pay is not based on what they contribute, but rather what's available in the pool. So rising market capitalizations increase the amount of money available for CEOs to take from the pool. In the same manner, increased profits for baseball enable the best baseball players to earn more money even though their batting average hasn't changed. Increased box office revenues enable the most popular actors to make more money even though their acting skills remain constant.

It's certainly understandable for the average worker to feel that winner-takes-all compensation schemes are unfair, because the people at the top are gettinging paid for all the hard work of the people at the bottom who receive little benefit from the increasing fortunes of their employers.