It's Your Choice

Lou Gerstner, CEO of IBM -- 40.6%
Michael Jordan, retired basketball player -- 59.4%

Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer -- 49.1%
Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Fed -- 50.9%

Jack Smith, CEO of General Motors -- 56.8%
Jeff Gordon, race-car driver -- 43.2%

Jack Welch, CEO of General Electric -- 40.5%
Bill Clinton, president of the United States -- 59.5%

Margaret Whitman, CEO of eBay -- 58.2%
Maya Angelou, poet -- 41.8%

And which of the following CEOs would you least like to sit next to on a cross-country flight?

Michael Eisner, Disney -- 15.8%
Jack Smith, General Motors -- 15.6%
Bill Gates, Microsoft -- 14.6%
Steve Jobs, Apple Computer -- 13.7%
Michael Armstrong, AT&T -- 11.8%
Jack Welch, General Electric -- 8.7%
Margaret Whitman, eBay -- 8.0%
Lou Gerstner, IBM -- 6.3%
Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com -- 5.6%

Don't think that big-time CEOs don't care about these two questions. Big-time CEOs have big-time egos. And deep down, they want to be liked. Admittedly, some of the matchups were lopsided from the start. Michael Jordan can take anyone one-on-one; Gerstner doesn't have that Wheaties-box smile, and he can't dunk. And any investor with money on the line would kill to spend six hours next to Greenspan, the man who -- more than any other living being in the free world -- dictates the movement of stock prices: "Hey, Al, what's up with Eastman Kodak?" That could be why you never see Greenspan flying on commercial airlines.

But who would have figured Gates to beat Oprah, possibly the most popular woman in the nation, so handily? (Again, this is a gender thing. Guys, by more than two to one, pick Gates; women, by almost three to one, want to fly with Oprah.) Or Eisner to squeak past matinee action-hero Bruce Willis? Sure, Willis is slightly past his leering, wisecracking prime, but on that red-eye back from the coast, wouldn't he be more amusing than Eisner? And who would have thought that Jack Smith would beat out Jeff Gordon? Consider this vote a testament to the power of achievement over glitz.

Below we list four pairs of workers, along with their estimated pay. Would you say that each person -- relative to the other person in the pair -- is paid too much, about the right amount, or too little?

Jack Smith, CEO of General Motors: $3 million

Paid too much -- 59.9%
Paid about the right amount -- 35.6%
Paid too little -- 4.6%

General Motors union assembler: $42,000

Paid too much -- 12.6%
Paid about the right amount -- 62.5%
Paid too little -- 24.9%

Sean Puffy Combs, rapper: $54 million

Paid too much -- 91.0%
Paid about the right amount -- 8.7%
Paid too little -- 0.3%

Entry-level Washington, DC schoolteacher: $31,000

Paid too much -- 1.5%
Paid about the right amount -- 21.3%
Paid too little -- 77.3%

Tiger Woods, pro golfer: $26 million

Paid too much -- 76.0%
Paid about the right amount -- 23.2%
Paid too little -- 0.9%

United States senator: $136,700

Paid too much -- 32.1%
Paid about the right amount -- 50.5%
Paid too little -- 17.3%

Margaret Whitman, CEO of eBay: $43 million

Paid too much -- 85.3%
Paid about the right amount -- 14.1%
Paid too little -- 0.6%

Experienced Java programmer: $150,000

Paid too much - 22.8%
Paid about the right amount -- 68.4%
Paid too little -- 8.9%

Okay, this was a blatant setup. We admit it. Multimillionaire CEO-celebrity versus hardworking Joe Average. What did we expect?

The one-sidedness of the response, however, makes a point. When it comes to pay, few respondents believe that the market mechanism is working very well -- especially at the top of the economic food chain. In an efficient market, riches should flow to some and not to others, according to their relative contributions to society. Puffy Combs makes a bundle because he alone can produce a service that others are willing to pay for. Americans generally buy this argument. But they also have a strong sense of equity: At a certain level, they believe, the market pays some people too much.

Respondents have no problem, for example, with a Java programmer making $150,000, even though that's about four times the median U.S. family income. At root, that salary seems fair. That's because in fluid, competitive labor markets -- like the one for programmers -- information about supply, demand, and pricing is well known. There's little dislocation, and hence little room for extreme results to occur. Similarly, automakers, and auto-making jobs, are plentiful enough to create a reasonable market dynamic.