Eye of the beholder

With the Forbes CEO confab kicking off here today in Sydney, I'm going to brush aside my admonition (http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/08/dont-mention-executive-pay.html) and ask, what do you think is an "appropriate" multiple of executive pay over production worker pay? That is, if a production worker is making, say, $10.00/hr, what multiple of that is reasonable/moral/appropriate/etc. for the CEO? Five times ($50.00/hr), 10 times ($100/hr), 20 times ($200/hr), 50 times ($500/hr), ONE HUNDRED times ($1,000/hr)...?

Bear in mind, in both cases of production worker and CEO we are talking about employees. We are not talking about the owner of the shop. The owners, to whom is owed the profits of the company, are the shareholders. Moreover, we are talking in both cases about people who are adding value to the bottom line (presumably), and who are part of a team; neither of them can produce a profit alone or without the other.

Some would say “[The level of] executive compensation is in the eye of the beholder.”
(http://www.chiefexecutive.net/depts/compensation/189.htm) This 2003 article, from Chief Executive Magazine, is an interesting and valuable look at the issue.

The folks at CNNMoney have just reported on a more recent look at the issue:
"In 2004, the ratio of average CEO pay to the average pay of a production (i.e., non-management) worker was 431-to-1, up from 301-to-1 in 2003, according to "Executive Excess," an annual report released Tuesday by the liberal research groups United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for Policy Studies." http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/economy/ceo_pay/index.htm

At a multiple of 431 times, compared to a production worker making $10/hr, the CEO's pay would be $4,310/hr. And good on 'em, too, eh? It's the trickle up theory.

I don't know if I can properly define obscenity in terms of executive pay, but I feel pretty darn sure I know it when I see it.