Looking at medians and averages isn't the same thing as looking at extrema, and discarding those extrema is harmful to the data set when you can try and infer things about those extremes and how they impact the data set. Every person working on data eventually has to deal with this.

When it comes to executive compensation the question isn't if it's a market reality or not. It obviously is. The question is if those market realities are beneficial to everyone else impacted by the market, and many would argue otherwise. Yes, golden parachutes and lucrative salaries/equity options are par for the course for fortune 1k companies. But how do those packages influence incentives? Are they encouraging, even creating positive feedback loops for short term incentives that cause inefficiencies in our companies? Are they a symptom or source of greater issues relating to long term health of our labor markets for average workers?

I don't know, but it's worth investigation.

It's generally agreed that more performance-based pay with long-term goals and clawbacks on excessive failures, negligence and unethical acts is the way to go, and most companies are already shifting to this.

I'm not so sure about this. The CEO is selected by the board members, which don't have an interest in debunking the myth that CEOs need to make obscene amounts of money. These guys can often get CEO jobs themselves later in life, and if they propagate ideas that deflate CEO salaries, they're harming their future self.

In other words, the high-end executives (incl. board members) form an aristocracy of sorts and they protect their interests as a class.

I don't see any complaints about all those FAANG developers with extreme salaries that have skewed entire housing markets. Should they be limited from negotiating a rate that the company is willing to pay?