To simplify - a company should hire more/pay more until the marginal value of that employee < the marginal employee cost.
If the 2nd best option for CEO would result in increased revenue by 1%, and the best option by 3%, then it makes sense to pay up to 2% of revenue to get that better CEO.
Compare that with the best SWE option (in terms of marginal cost vs marginal gain) vs the 2nd best candidate.
Compared to the CEO, the SWE may be far more intelligent, more hardworking, and directly improve the product more. But pay is unfortunately not based on that or any notion of “fairness”
That’s somewhat the entire purpose of this HN post though.
I understand how we got here, I think it’s stupid and silly. Furthermore I don’t for a second believe that the information exists to actually make the calculations you list. There is literally no way to determine those percentages, it’s all a guess and often a bad guess IMHO.
I full understand that's not the way things are done today, I also think we do things pretty terribly today.
Maybe a better way to phrase it is "I refuse to accept that they (CEO) are somehow worth so much more to the company compared to the people that actually do the work", "Smarter" was a bad word to use originally.