Of course, and the ones who gather and analyze the data tend to be well paid too, for the same reason. But turning data into strategic decisions is an important skill, and one a CEO is expected to have.
> And if the CEO was the only person to make that decision then that is only because it is afforded to them by their role, not like a software engineer or...
So, why don't you apply as CEO instead of as a software engineer if you want the big fat pay? If you can show the board that you are the best suited for the job, they will hire you.
> so there is no reason why they should be getting 100x or 1000x what others are making
Tell that to the shareholders. Do you really think shareholders want an overpaid CEO to eat their dividends if it is not for a good reason? If they are paying that much, it is because they think that a lesser paid CEO will not bring as much value to the company. If you can convince them that it is not the case, they will definitely cut the CEO budget so they can make more money for themselves.
Only the top layer is well paid.
People produce, collect, and analyse data throughout the organisation. As the data passes up through the hierarchy, management bureaucrats present it as their own to the next level up, thus using people's work to justify their own higher salaries.
That goes on for O(log n) levels and ends with the CEO doing the same.
I think most good decisions I've ever seen a CEO make have already been made inofficially at the lower ends of the organisation. Or at least would have, had the lower ends had access to the relevant information.
Of course, the CEO wants to keep the relevant information to themselves, because again, that's how they justify their salary.
> So, why don't you apply as CEO instead of as a software engineer if you want the big fat pay? If you can show the board that you are the best suited for the job, they will hire you.
My experience is that these jobs generally go to the well-connected and politically affluent in the right circles. It has little to do with suitability or skill.
No but the work from a CEO may have way more than 100x the economic impact of the work from a worker.
For example, the CEO of a car company may decide whether or not to build a new assembly line, on that decision, the company may lose or earn billions. A single assembly line worker can make the company lose or earn thousands depending on whether he messes things up or is particularly productive. The impact is many orders of magnitude different.
As a result, companies will make sure that their CEOs are the best, because what it a few million in pay when a good CEO can make billions. The rest is just supply and demand.
Personally I have absolutely no problem with my CEO being paid 100x, 1000x or more than what I make, if it is worth it. I want the company that hires me to succeed, that's how it can afford to pay me. Sure, that a company is successful doesn't mean their employees are treated well, but it is simply impossible for an unsuccessful company to treat their employees well.