To the Editor:
Reed Hastings defeats his own argument while glossing over a fundamental concern in the controversy over exorbitant executive pay.
He argues that boards must pay an arm and a leg for already proven talent and then states that most of the motivation for executives is the sheer challenge of the job.
In the current economy, the challenge is greater than ever, and there is a ready supply of the recently unemployed in competition for those jobs, so the market alone should dictate lower salaries.
Moreover, Mr. Hastings merely mentions the fact of the rich rewards for corporate failure. With all the talk of teachers’ compensation being tied to student performance, why is there no parallel movement for executive pay to be tied to the performance of the company?!
Ann Summer
Princeton, N.J., Feb. 6, 2009
The writer is a retired social worker in the Princeton public schools.
Note from KBJ: There's a relevant difference between teachers and corporate executives. Teachers are paid by taxpayers.
