I guess there’s a certain irony in this story, especially when you remember that Obama lived in Indonesia for a while.
Somewhat amazingly, the New York Times has printed an article in which they oppose limiting CEO pay (with the single exception of the financial services industry):
So why not limit executive pay? The problem is that although every company wants a talented chief executive, there are only so many to go around. Relative salaries guide job choices. If salaries were capped at, say, $2 million annually, the most talented candidates would have less reason to seek the positions that make best use of their talents.
More troubling, if C.E.O. pay were capped and pay for other jobs was not, the most talented potential managers would be more likely to become lawyers or hedge fund operators. Can anyone think that would be a good thing?
Of course, at the end the author does call for higher marginal tax rates on high earners, which is to be expected from the Times. However, the fact that they’d print an article opposing the lefty canard of capping CEO pay is progress of a sort, and they should be applauded for it.