Spence, that's true, that gap between CEO and average worker is increasing. Here is my follow-up question.
So what?
If you cap CEO pay at some arbitrary number, and redistribute that money to the rest of the employees, what does that amount to?
Here, your fellow world travelers at the Huffington Post looked at Walmart, where the ratio of CEO to average pay was the highest of any company they could find...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2978180.html
The CEO made $23 million in 2012. Walmart has 1.5 million employees worldwide, according to this link...,
http://www.ask.com/question/How-Many...-Wal-mart-Have
So if your fellow Bolsheviks require the CEO to work for free, and we give every cent of his $23 million to the worker bees, each would see an increase of $15.33. How much help does that provide? How many people does that lift out of poverty? Is my math right here? I knew it would be insignificant, but not that insignificant. My point being, executive compensation isn't causing large numbers of people to live in poverty.
CEO salary makes for a great liberal talking point, and it does a good job at making the rich seem evil, which is the whole point. In reality however, it's not a significant line item on the balance sheet, in most cases.
You need another soapbox to holler from. The math doesn't support your cause here, not by a long shot. Somehow, that the math shows you how demonstrably wrong your point is, won't stop you from believing that point. And that's what I don't understand.