Correlations aren't catered for, as far as I can see.<p>But I think it's still a worthwhile point he's making, one that people can see quite plainly at work: the boss makes a lot of money because he's the boss, not because being boss is hard or requires special skills.<p>People are social animals, and societies need leaders. Everyone appreciates that, but maybe we overvalue it a bit:<p>- Think about it, when have you ever lacked a leader of some sort? Someone always wants to do it, just so they can be leader. Whether it's running your local kids' sports club, the parish council, or a multinational, when was it ever the case that nobody signed up?<p>- There's always someone who is competent. This is a bit different but related. When a CEO is replaced, there's a song and dance about how hard it is to do his job, but any competent boss surrounds himself with competent lieutenants. When he goes there's always more than one that can do a reasonable job, save for one issue...<p>- Credibility. This is the political tool we use to create artificial scarcity, so that we can justify giving the chosen one his lion's share of the spoils. Live long enough in a hierarchical organization and you'll see this: X isn't old enough, Y doesn't have enough tenure, Z bungled this project. We narrow the choices arbitrarily, and if the wrong person is brought in, BS is made up to remove them.<p>- The boss always makes the most, except in special circumstances where it's very obvious and contracted that some lower level person should make more. Portfolio managers at hedge funds for instance might make more than the CEO, because they're promised some % of a number. Why does the boss make the most? Hierarchy says so.<p>- A boss might make 100x the average employee. If you had the choice, who would you make ill for a day? The boss or 100 employees? The boss, because his work is actually worth 100x but doesn't suffer from taking the day off? Ok so why don't you give him those days off and pay him less? If he makes the wrong decision, we'll lose 100 salaries? Ok so how are we going to know what would have happened in the alternative universe where he does the right thing? More arbitrary decision making coming. There's just no way to justify by productivity why there's this huge gap.<p>- There's also no way to justify it by incentive. Paying the boss 100x is not going to allow you to train-by-ambition someone who wants to be the future boss. Yes, people will want the job and the money. But they don't become 100x just because there's a carrot. What about the whole "if we don't pay him he'll go elsewhere" argument? Certainly if he has the choice he will, but often you don't want to win the auction.