test pad

The Free Press is reporting that new GM boss Dan Akerson’s total compensation package comes to $9,000,000 a year. He’ll receive $1,700,000 in salary, while the rest will come in the form of various stock payments. As I’ve explained many times to my employers, I could live quite comfortably on $1,700,000 and could even get by on a mere $1,500,000, if need be. However, if Akerson wants to live the $9,000,000 lifestyle, he’ll need to do a better job running GM than, say, Rick Wagoner. Otherwise all that new GM stock will be as worthless as old GM stock. Too soon?

Anyway, Akerson’s compensation is likely to reignite discussions about CEO pay. Especially as GM emerges from a government-backed bankruptcy that saw the company shed four divisions and thousands of jobs. Defenders of the current executive compensation system argue that, in a free market, firms must pay big salaries to attract big talent.

That seems fair enough in theory. Although it begs the question: if executive pay isn’t inflated, are executive performance expectations too low for the price? Few object to the money and other fine things Apple bestows upon Steve Jobs. In contrast, the guys running AIG probably weren’t worth the minimum wage. Even if you paid them in gum.

As for Akerson, $9,000,000 a year is slightly below the average compensation for CEOs at S&P 500-listed companies according to the AFL-CIO’s Executive Pay Watch. So Akerson isn’t an outlier. His pay, for running a company that’s still #15 on the Fortune 500, is average for a CEO. As average as $9,000,000 can ever be, at least. And, it's less than the aforementioned Wagoner. He earned nearly $15,000,000 in 2008. None of which is an attempt to justify CEO scales, or even Akerson’s salary, but it does put his pay into context with the current marketplace.