Corporate CEOs in America Should Be Paid Less

. http://www.youtube.com...Kumbaya song! ! (video)First of all, I want to thank CON for the opportunity to debate this topic. His determined and tenacious approach has certainly contributed to making this debate interesting, I hope audiences can agree. I also want to make public two things:1) PRO and CON have agreed to a 4,000 character limit for our closing statements,2) We welcome discussion of this topic, both via public (comments) or private (PM) means. And now that this kumbaya moment has passed, I will return to our scheduled program of annihilating each other's cases. My 4,000 characters begin:CON HAS UNDERHANDEDLY BROUGHT SOME SEMBLANCE OF A CASE IN ROUND #4, AND BY DOING SO HAS DODGED THE DEBATE. HE HAD THREE FULL ROUNDS TO BRING FORTH AN ACTUAL CASE, AND FAILED TO DO SO UNTIL I COULD NOT RESPOND. SINCE ROUND #5 IS FOR CLOSING ONLY, I CANNOT ARGUE AGAINST HIS ALLEGATIONS NO MATTER HOW MUCH I QUESTION THE INTEGRITY OF HIS PRIMARY SOURCE. HE KNEW HOW WEAK HIS CASE WAS, AND SAVED ITS FLIMSY BASIS FROM ANY REAL CRITICISM. DO NOT TAKE ANY OF HIS ROUND #4 ARGUMENTS AS UNCONTESTED. CON HAS NOT MET ANY BURDEN OF PROOF. MY ARGUMENTS HAVE WITHSTOOD THREE ROUNDS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. IT IS UNFAIR THAT CON'S MAIN ARGUMENT WITHSTAND NONE. Furthermore, CON has left uncontested that CEOs are determining their own pay. It does not take a Harvard MBA to conclude that CEOs are thus overpaid, and should be paid less. ANY instance of this, TO SAY NOTHING ABOUT IT BEING SYSTEMIC, is enough to affirm the resolution. BY THIS ALONE I HAVE WON THE DEBATE. ---The Wolves are Shepherding the Sheep. I have gone to great lengths to describe HOW and WHY corporate CEOs are paid their lavish compensation. 1) I have demonstrated that the best CEOs are typically shepherds that embody Autonomy - usually a givenMastery - they know the company and product - there is no real "market for CEOs", except from within the companyPurpose - MY PROPOSAL ALIGNS CEO PURPOSE TO THAT OF THE SHAREHOLDER2) I have posed two questions to audiences:- Why is this issue important? Performance in corporate America is of paramount importance. One CEO is responsible for his/her company, ALL CEOs are responsible for the American economy. If they perform well, America does well. If they do not, we will ALL suffer. Incentivizing performance properly is thus a paramount concern. - Why is a CEO paid so much? The typical answer is that top talent is expensive, and that in an environment where performance is everything, you must pay for that performance. Therefore, what the market will bear for CEOs is very high. 3) CEOs are currently PAID TO FAIL, NOT TO PERFORM. S&P 500 Total Shareholder Return (TSR) was a paltry 2.5% annually from 2000-2012, while CEO pay MORE THAN DOUBLED in the same period IRREGARDLESS, OR EVEN CONSIDERING CON'S FAULTY ALLEGATIONS OF RAMPANT CEO FIRINGS. Therefore, Pay for Performance is Broken. 4) CEOs SET THEIR OWN SALARIES. CEOs sit on boards, boards determine CEO pay. Self explanatory. Therefore, What the Market Will Bear for CEOs is broken. 5) I have floated a REAL-WORLD, FREE MARKET, and LEGAL proposal to provide an example of these wrongs, and how to fix them. This proposal aligns CEO interests to that of the shareholder. It emulates best practices from successful stewards like Goizueta, and the shepherds themselves, like Buffett and Jobs. Such a proposal would attract only the best CEOs for the company. The initial stock package is substantial, yet amortized over time in order to minimize the cost to the company, and to give the CEO LONG TERM INCENTIVE to perform at the company. If the CEO performs well, NO OTHER COMPANY would be able to match the offer. If the CEO performs poorly, then he/she should be let go, NOT PAID FOR RETENTION AS CON ADVOCATES. This proposal gives CEOs a greater PURPOSE beyond their otherwise myopic focus on the next paycheck. It would align initial pay to reflect the past 12 years of the wolves devouring the sheep, and would thus represent a substantial pay cut. It is up to the shareholders whether or not they like the plan -regardless, I have given compelling reasons for its enactment.6) I have contrasted the Chief Executive Officer of America to highlight atrocious CEO behavior. The POTUS does not set his own pay, does not think about jumping ship for a "competitor", and has a long history of performance -- and is not overpaid.7) I have cited some of the best thinkers in the field - from HBS, MIT, USC. I have cited 100 years of behavioral psychology. My case is substantial:CEOS ARE OVERPAID. THEREFORE THEY SHOULD BE PAID LESS.