CEO compensation

Perhaps the most important economic issue facing our country is the increasing income disparity between rich and poor. While wages for the majority of workers have stagnated or even declined over the last three decades, CEO's of large corporations are pulling in tens of millions of dollars per year. Apologists for the status quo like to argue that the CEO's must be generating at least as much value for the company's stockholders as they are being paid in compensation, or else the company wouldn't be paying them that much. Proof that this argument is nonsense floated across the pages of the New York Times today. It's reported that Phillip Purcell, until recently CEO of Morgan Stanley, having earned $24.7 million in compensation in 2004 and promised $33.7 million for 2005, is now being paid $113.7 million to step down. Here's a guy who, we are to believe, adds at least $33.7 million in value to his company when he's there, but at least $113.7 million when he's not! Tell you what, I'll not be the CEO for Morgan Stanley for half of what they're paying Purcell not to!