conflating contractually obligated compensation with (what appears to be) the overall strategy behind executive (over)compensation. I reeeally really don't think CEOs are compensated based on some calculus of how deserving they are compared to workers, or how much more qualified, etc. I think it's all about profits.

Like, you're 100% right. Shitty CEOs still get paid for their work. But I think that's moreso in honor of whatever contract was agreed to between the company and the executive, not unlike the way shitty employees are also still paid for their work. Shitty CEOs don't usually end up keeping their job, though (eg. Marissa Mayer getting booted/asked to resign from Yahoo is a recent example that comes to mind. She was still paid handsomely.)

In contrast, I think the crux of the overall strategy behind executive (over)compensation is that those millions that a board hands off to an executive is viewed more as a price to pay for profits. Meaning, if they have somebody with whatever combination of experience, network, strategy, and ruthlessness who can consistently help them meet or exceed desired profit targets, than X% of said profits is a reasonable price to pay to make said profits.


>See, CEO comp has grown exponentially comparative to regular
>wages. CEO's even get paid if the company's strategy sucks
>and they lose market share/stock value.
>
>So where's the rationale to that?