The crucial thing here is the stagnation of the middle class. There is no way 1 CEO can produce the output of 300 employees. Is it socialist to expect that the people who actually make the stuff to share in the gains? Or maybe that's communist.
However a poor CEO can easily waste more money than 300 salaries just by choosing the wrong product direction, or keeping a strategy going long after its not beneficial.
So perhaps pay is so high just to find a CEO whom isn't a bad hire.
There's some theories that posit that high CEO pay isn't to reward the CEO for their work directly but to motivate everyone under the CEO to work their ass off in hopes of one day becoming the CEO. Motivating the workforce in this manner makes the company sufficiently more productive as to make it worth paying those high salaries; even if the CEO doesn't actually produce anything themselves. I believe it's called a tournament-style system or something.
It's pretty bleak-sounding.
Why is that for you to decide? The world has become globally competitive since the 1960s, which means it takes a lot more work for a CEO to run a company successfully.
"but at the same time many people are growing concerned about a wealth gap in the US - that the rich are getting subtantially richer, while the middle class haven't seen meaningful gains in a long time. That absolutely has an impact on society as a whole."
This will continue to happen when we put more and more restrictions on owning and starting a business, which is ironic, because this is what many of the politicians that claim to be helping the middle class, are proposing.
It's for society to decide. I know the libertarian perspective is that society/government have no role in deciding how businesses operate, but that isn't actually the reality today. You might just as well ask what gives anyone the right to make companies pay tax.
This will continue to happen when we put more and more restrictions on owning and starting a business
I'm curious as to why you think economic prosperity can only be reached by starting your own business. What's the ideal end game here - every citizen of the US operates their own one-person business?
If that's the case, then I should decide how my tax money is used, no? If we had universal healthcare, would I get to decide what you do with your body, since I, as a tax payer, would be paying for your risky behavior?
"I'm curious as to why you think economic prosperity can only be reached by starting your own business."
How do you propose economic prosperity if not through a business?
A job? Who pays the wages of the workers?? That's right, a business
The government? Where does the government get the money to pay someone? Taxes. Citizens pay taxes, but they get it through either 1) working for a business or 2) starting a business.
An alternative is that the government essentially runs all businesses, but a centrally planned government monopoly is not very efficient and certainly isn't associated with prosperity.
"What's the ideal end game here - every citizen of the US operates their own one-person business?"
No. But if we change the economic climate which makes it very difficult to start a company, the only things that will be left will be big business and government monopolies.
- Don't the employees also do more work, and spend more money on their own training (college, vocational education, conferences) to remain competitive employees?
- Supply side economics really works! Make the stuff, and people will buy it with the extra money they get from... not sure.
http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/
And yes, you can easily counter saying that private companies are allowed to pay their CEOs whatever they want, which is absolutely true, but at the same time many people are growing concerned about a wealth gap in the US - that the rich are getting subtantially richer, while the middle class haven't seen meaningful gains in a long time. That absolutely has an impact on society as a whole.