>If the company is doomed to fail regardless of leadership, then it should fail the quality of the CEO is irrelevant.

But you won't know which companies are doomed to fail until you try, and without compensation they wont try.

>If only shitty CEOs are going to run the bad companies, where do the good CEOs go once there are no longer good companies with CEO slots open? Either they’ll have to swallow their egos and take a lesser position or they’ll have to try to right a sinking ship in the hopes of a future payday.

They work a lower level executive position. Much better than trying to rescue a sinking ship with an uncertain chance of success and minimal pay until you succeed.

>The only way to get a companies as a whole to raise the pay of their works to something commensurate with the work being done by their employees is to tie the wages of the companies leadership to the workers wages and their bonuses to the companies success.
>
>We already have CEOs today making thousands of times the average workers pay running a company into the ground while getting huge bonuses because the stock is going up then getting massive golden parachutes when they leave. That needs to stop, and the only way to do that is to legislate it.
>
>I’m not saying that the CEO should get a pittance. Something in the 500-1000% the average wage should be plenty, and if you have a sliding scale for bonuses where the more workers your company has the higher percentage of the gross profits you’re allowed to receive as bonus, CEOs of top-tier companies will still be able to get massive paydays. There will always be people willing to take the job, and if it weeds out some shitty CEOs that are only doing it for the money, so be it. Those guys probably shouldn’t be CEOs anyway.

Like which companies?

Also, tying to gross profit is another hammer solution that doesn't work for a lot of companies. Growth companies for example rarely bring much of a profit during their growth phase, and yet leadership is extremely crucial during this period.