A commentator observes that the salary disparity between Chief Justice Roberts (roughly $220,000) and Judge Judy (roughly $25 million) is the “result of markets” and asks the following question: “is there any reason to assume that simply because the market has delivered that outcome, that Judge Judy deserves to make 100 times more than Chief Justice Roberts? I would say not.”
Michael Ward (Managerial Econ) responds:
Please define terms. What do you mean by “deserves?” Chief Justice Roberts also receives the prestige of being Chief Justice while Judge Judy gets the disdain of being a TV judge. Is this deserved too? Unless there is an identifiable market failure (perhaps more likely for Roberts than Judy), I assume that each are generating value in excess of their compensation. Regardless of what they deserve, we third parties receive the excess value that they generate (whether we deserve it or not).
Another question. Please define “result of markets” as it relates to Justice Roberts’ salary.
