Wally, the CEO's Bonus, and Pointy-Haired Boss

"The Official Dilbert Site by Scott Adams"

Today's Dilbert was "right on"..."right" on a huge issue. An issue that is debatable, that initially escapes most of us, that does not call our attention. It is out of our "focus", maybe because it's usually "out of our locus".
Dilbert and its dialog goes like this:

Wally, to Pointy-Haired Boss: "Our CEO got a $400,000,000 bonus this year. Can I get that too?"
Resp: "Wally, he got that much because he's a million times more important than you."
Comeback: "Fair enough. Can I have the $400 that you say I am worth?"

And I think that in there, a lot is said. What genius: 3 sentences!

Coincidentally, the AJC also had an Editorial today, based on data from the Wall Street Jornal, on Executive's Pensions and their magnitude. David McNaughton, AJC, writes:
"Executive pension plans are different from those of average workers. They generally replace 60 percent to 100 percent of an executive's salary, against 20 percent to 35 percent for other employees, the Journal pointed out. No assets are set aside to pay future executive benefits, so there's no investment income to offset part of the cost, forcing shareholders to bear all the expense. While many ordinary workers have no pensions to look forward to, some individual corporate executives are in line for up to $90 million in payments. That disparity should be retired."

The statement that I am glad to see is the one where McNaughton brings out the 'cover' for this, that is, the 'split tongue' language so widely used and accepted citing 'cost containment': "While companies freeze or terminate the pension plans of ordinary workers, citing pressure to hold down costs, the tab for executive retirement has soared. Dollar-for-dollar, executive pensions drag down corporate earnings more than the pensions of ordinary workers. In fact, when the average worker's pension is cut, the net effect is to subsidize benefits for already lavishly paid executives, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Is there a sting in thinking these things through? Why?, do you think? And how about..."Is there a trap in ascribing worth to 'what we do'?" Yes? No? How soon thereafter does it flow into ..."what we are?" And then...what?