No, everyone
else in the thread was making a bunch of arguements about how CEOs are overpaid. That is the argument that requires justification.
And the only claims that I make, are in response to other claims. I don't need to make any claims, if you aren't going to make any, because I can just stick with the status quo, merely because it is the status quo.
The burden of proof is on the people who claim that the current status quo, of CEO compensation is for some reason, out of line.
Because unless there is some good reason, it probably isn't, for the sole reason that it is the status quo.
Other people are the ones making the claim here, that the current state of the world is for some reason wrong.
It is perfectly fine, and normal, to assume that the status quo, for an arbitrary issue, is ok, in the absence of evidence that it is bad.
The burden of proof is on the people who are claiming that the status quo is wrong, and needs to be changed.
Why? Because in the vast majority of situations, the status quo is the status quo for a reason. Because if the status quo was wrong, then people would probably find a reason to change it, regarding any arbitrary issue.
So I maintain that the burden of proof is on the people who want to change the status quo, not on the people who want to maintain it.
There are a million different ways that we could change the world, and you have to make an argument for why we should make the change.
And I cannot prove a negative here, as for why there are zero bad things about the status quo.