http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027503446091776.html?mg=reno-wsj

John Bogle's "Restoring Faith in Financial Markets" (op-ed, Jan. 19) does not explicitly mention trust and respect. A CEO viewing his own labor as worth 400 times that of the average American worker is arrogant, and fosters resentment—not respect.

In this regard, Albert Einstein's pay demands are instructive and refreshing. He left Europe in 1933 to join Princeton University's Institute for Advanced Study.

The setting of Einstein's initial salary at Princeton illustrates his humility and attitude toward wealth. According to "Albert Einstein: Creator & Rebel" by Banesh Hoffmann, (1972), the 1932 negotiations went as follows: "[Abraham] Flexner invited [Einstein] to name his own salary. A few days later Einstein wrote to suggest what, in view of his needs and . . . fame, he thought was a reasonable figure. Flexner was dismayed. . . . He could not possibly recruit outstanding American scholars at such a salary. . . . To Flexner, though perhaps not to Einstein, it was unthinkable [that other scholars' salaries would exceed Einstein's.] This being explained, Einstein reluctantly consented to a much higher figure, and he left the detailed negotiations to his wife."

The reasonable figure that Einstein suggested was the modest sum of $3,000 [about $46,800 in today's dollars]. Flexner upped it to $10,000 and offered Einstein an annual pension of $7,500, which he refused as "too generous," so it was reduced to $6,000. When the Institute hired a mathematician at an annual salary of $15,000, with an annual pension of $8,000, Einstein's compensation was increased to those amounts.

That sort of humility earns respect.