And this idiotic small-minded argument of "I would be perfectly fine if I made X, so I don't know why you can't be" is just such complete nonsense (not quite as bad as everyone bitching that Romney "only" gave 3 million to charity, but close.) There are a wealth of lower- and lower-middle class lotto winners, athletes, and actors who so clearly illustrate human nature for us; every one of them, in addition to bankers, hedge funders, private equity types, and CEOs, is paid an exorbitant amount of money. And every one of them finds a way to justify it to themselves. The idea that you would suddenly come from your personal circumstances, have your earnings boosted multiplefold, and be otherwise unaffected is unfathomably stupid.

The issue here SHOULD be when people are paid exorbitantly, in a fashion that incentivizes moral hazard, without assuming the marginal risk associated with their behavior. No one would complain if I owned 100% of my company, debt-free, and decided to bet the whole thing on a roulette wheel, because it's mine. People are--rightfully--upset that executives, most recently at investment banks, are incentivized to make those roulette spins with other people's shares of their firms. Executive compensation being high isn't the problem; executive compensation being high in the face of abject failure is the problem.