Leaving aside the actual number for a moment, there are some side benefits to be had in your suggestion Roses1.

The present system of senior executive remuneration is farcical. The Board of the major corporation takes what it calls "independent remuneration advice", and practically dares any of the shareholders (who quite often are other major corporations) to vote down their recommendations.

They look at "the competitive landscape" and the rates of pay for similar positions here and overseas. This created the "race to the top", with the comparisons escalating, as the new remuneration levels are automatically built in to the model. Perfect.

But the more insidious effect is to convince the Board that if they don't pay megabucks, they will somehow be getting an inferior product.

That would explain, for example, the appointment of Sol Trujillo to Telstra. (Mind you, the amount they paid him becomes irrelevant when compared to the destruction of shareholder value that he presided over).

It is difficult to see a way out of the vicious circle, since most of the folk on the merry-go-round already have their noses in the trough (wonderfully evocative mixed metaphor, don't you think? All that swill, sprayed everywhere as the roundabout gathers speed...), and will resist change to the last flatulent grunt.

Problem is, there are many talented - and dedicated - people out there who would do an outstanding job, but who are excluded from the club, simply because they are currently only on half a mill.

Phshaw! Only half a mill? Can't be much chop, then, eh what?

Its an interesting but difficult question, Pericles, but I do see
two sides of the coin.

One of the things which I noticed in Australia years ago, was that
not only were unions a problem, but so was poor management. We'd
inherited the British stiff upper lip, the "them and us" approach
to labour issues.

Sometimes it does indeed pay to bring in somebody completely fresh
from overseas, with new ideas, new ways of doing things etc, to
turn the whole show around quite radically.

When Westpac nearly went broke in the early 90s, they brought in
Bob Joss, who was a breathe of fresh air. BHP did a similar thing
with an American import, can't quite remember his name but he made
a huge difference. Its not much different with Wesfarmers, when
they wanted to turn Coles around. Coles had been a disaster for
years and it needed a whole new team with different thinking.
Goyder scoured the world and brought in the present team. The numbers
clearly show that its been highly effective, with benefits to
consumers and shareholders alike.

Do you really think these blokes would quit their jobs, move
house and families to Australia, for half a mill, when they can
earn far more in the US or elsewhere?

Next why is it ok for a baseball player to earn 10 mill, but not
so for an intrapreneur with talent?

Roses 1,

Removal of the Glass-Stegall Act was only half the cause. The other half was when penalties were legislated in support of The Community Re-investment Act, which forced the banks to lent to the poor, the disadvantaged and minorities ... who couldn't repay once the value of houses dropped.

Both Act's contributed, from opposite ends to an accentuation of the the problem once Fanny May and Freddie Mac, under the direction of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, funded those loans and initiated the bundling and re-sale of them as securities.

The basic problem is the fractional reserve system of the counterfeiting our productivity as debt.Banks create money from nothing,to equal increases in our productivity.Hence,the harder you work,the more debt you incur.We sold off 4 state Govt banks + the Commonwealth that used to create some of our productivity debt free.

In 1976 our total debt was 3% of GDP.In 2008 it is 53% of GDP.We are the debt slaves of the Global Corporate Empire.

...For Capitalism to be successful, the rules must be applied fairly across consumers and suppliers of goods and services. “Laissez Faire” is the problem which must be addressed for Capitalism to maintain credibility.

The key word here Yabby is "earn".

>>Next why is it ok for a baseball player to earn 10 mill, but not
so for an intrapreneur with talent?<<

There is nothing wrong, in my view, with remuneration that is consistent with the achievement. I do have problems though with the prevalence of highly manufactured salary-and-bonus packages that ensure rewards for massive underachievement.

Interesting you mention Bob Joss. A close friend of mine worked for him in a senior capacity, and had nothing but praise for the guy. A true professional, and worth every penny for the turnaround he engineered. He went on, as you probably know, to do ten years as Dean at Stanford, and was a standout there too.

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/jossresigns.html

One of his insights during that time, though, was typically Joss: that executives rarely resigned over pay...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/bob-joss-now-bats-for-other-team/story-e6frg8zx-1111112331056

"... he has come to the conclusion that companies fail to apply basic market principles in paying their CEOs and should be getting the same job done for a lot less."

And don't forget, for every Bob Joss there is a George Trumbull...