It's an argument against justifying CEO pay (or returns on capital) by appealing to what's owed due to the supposed risk taken. I'm saying that not just wealth is relative, but (relatedly, yes) so is risk. The risk your average worker at a megacorp operates under every day is far more meaningful than the risk the CEO, or the idle investor class, takes in their roles, even if the worker's risk is relatively tiny in dollar terms.

This isn't even an argument against the compensation itself, but an argument against a particular justification for why it's "right" that things are structured this way, or why it's necessary that they are, which argument is fairly common, but, IMO, laughably weak. Yet you see this argument advanced fairly often, in exactly these terms: "well of course megacorp CEOs are paid millions per year, look at all the risk they take that you don't have to, that's why they're paid the big bucks!" or "it's not just necessary but right that we reward capital, look at all the risk capital takes!" Meanwhile, my oh my, please, give me their "failure" state when that risk is realized.

>The risk your average worker at a megacorp operates under every day is far more meaningful than the risk the CEO, or the idle investor class, takes in their roles, even if the worker's risk is relatively tiny in dollar terms.

Okay, and roofers and oil rig workers have far more fatal injuries than software devs, so then the person who works the riskiest job should get paid the most? Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to base an economy that way, but that is a whole another discussion.

>This isn't even an argument against the compensation itself, but an argument against a particular justification for why it's "right" that things are structured this way, or why it's necessary that they are, which argument is fairly common, but, IMO, laughably weak.

Wait, so if your not against the higher compensation, and you do acknowledge that capital takes at-least some risk, what is your real argument here?