I think this misses one important point though: why would any human being need this amount of money and could these resources be allocated better? If we look more broadly than a single employee or a single business entity fwiw, this feels like a huge waste of resources.

Compensation is not about need, it's about supply and demand. If I as a Google shareholder could pay 225 million to receive billions in profit and thereby drive up the stock price and my stock value, then I'll take that deal, and that's how every other shareholder thinks, too. Because if not, then they could simply vote to not pay for the CEO's compensation.

We want our best decision makers launching and backing companies, not retiring because that's all they're able to do. Musk needs more competition.

JFC, stop putting them on a pedestal.

I've said this before but it bears repeating: CEO's aren't special. Bob Iger came back to Disney to finish it off. Shit, look at Elizabeth Holmes.

No one deserves that much of a multiple over the people actually creating products or value.

When CEO's fail they get golden parachutes. When they get lucky they are praised as some sort of rare superhuman.

The cult of CEO and HR needs to wither and die

I do agree in principle but it’s not that obvious to me if overall it would be much better if all the surplus went to the shareholders instead. At least CEOs generally have to actually work for that money..

> CEO's aren't special

some CEOs are terrible, a lot are mediocre and a few are indeed special and worth every penny they get and much more (from the utilitarian/rational point of the company’s shareholders). The problem is that it’s very hard to tell in advance..

I think that:

Not many people can actually perform this job.

This kind of job requires really solid skillset across various domains.

It feels like you not only need to be great at managing people, doing business, having vision, but also do not be bullshitter, so your employees believe in you.

Meanwhile, CEOs strategies aren't something you can test within a month or two and fire CEO and get a new one.

In some industries you need at least a few years in order to see whether specific "bet" was good, so you aren't going to fire your CEO after half of the year.

Meanwhile CEOs decision can have very very costly impact on the company, so the risk is huge.

Maybe they do but consequences for bad actions are not 1000x average employee. They actually get a golden parachute when they screw up, destroy a company and lives of thousands of people.

So rewards and consequences are not at all proportional like you are trying to imply.