People are not paid based off difficulty.

I did not make the claim that it was. I was only responding to:

> The only time I see arguments against high CEO pay (speaking generally), it's from people that know absolutely nothing about what a CEO does or how exceptionally difficult it is to operate a very big company.

Which links ceo pay via complaints to "how exceptionally difficult" it is to do the job of a ceo. The implication is if people understood how hard the ceo job is that they would not complain about the pay. That implication does not make sense if there is no link between difficulty and pay.

> I doubt being a ceo has become that much more difficult over the same time period though.

So what? The fact that you think this is an argument and not a meaningless talking point further supports the idea that you cannot even comprehend what a CEO does.

The comment I am responding to implied a link between difficulty to pay. What I quoted does not make sense otherwise. If you take that implication to be true and the difficulty of being a ceo has not change in portion to the wage change, which is my claim, then there has to be some other mechanism at play.(this is similar to what I said in my other comment[1]).

The best response I can hope for to my comment is one that tries to explain the mechanism and whether or not it makes society more productive or not and maybe other associated costs if there are any.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37565350