If you look at the cost of living in SF and what you get, it starts to make sense. What is the equivalent argument for hundreds of millions?
SF engineer salaries are still insane to these people. And they need to deal with the cost of living in SF.
Strangely, why aren't we doing the same for actors and sports stars?
How many movies do people attend solely based on the actors in the movie? Or sporting events due to a player on a team? Many
A lot bought it because of some decisions made by the CEO. They likely wouldn’t have bought it if he hadn’t made them (of course it varies a lot between industries).
By how much would you say a famous actor/athlete increases the revenue 10/20/50/100/1000%? A CEO can do that too.
The sporting events can't take place soley due to the star. Do you think the star built the stadium or did all the background work for a movie? By this logic, movies with novice actors should always do bad.
> How many people bought or used a tech product solely based on the CEO of the company?
Not explicitly.
What about founder CEOs who built v1 on their own?
Founder CEOs are founders of the company and of course they will receive large payouts. The gripe is with non-founder executive vp sliding into CEO jobs and going from making $1 million a year to tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year practically guaranteed with all sorts of golden parachutes attached.