Without getting too heated on the issue, my basic point is Bob Iger only makes a lot of money because the company's board of directors has chosen to compensate its top executive through massive bonuses.Barf! Class warfare. Bob Iger makes a lot of money so he should give it away. Guess what? Bob Iger makes a ton more money then I do and I don't mind...he doesn't need to give me a dime.
I think it's debatable that an executive who pulls in a $30 million bonus is actually worth a thousand times more to the company than a park employee making $30,000. He certainly doesn't work a thousand times harder.
If you look at the recent financial crisis, all you needed to do to make a massive bonus at some financial firms was steer your company to the brink of insolvency and wait for the government to bail you out. Is this a sensible method of compensating executives...or is it just the "way things are done?"
All I'm saying is this is a choice the company has made — not an immutable law of nature — so why should it be a sacred cow in discussions like this? We can say the money has to come from somewhere, but it seems like some places the money actually GOES are "no go" areas. Why should they be?