I disagree. The CEO may not have a terribly important job, but say you take away one CEO, that's a much bigger deal than taking away any one worker. While the workers are collectively far more important than the boss, the boss is more difficult to replace and more important than one worker in most cases.
I'm not objecting to a higher salary for CEOs (compared to their employees), but between 250 and 1000 times their average employee's salary seems really excessive to me. But of course, that is all a question of opinion.
And in my hypothetical suggestion, I didn't say one by one, I said all at once. Of course each of them, taken individually, are replaceable and it's normal that the CEO makes more than all of them. But I'm talking about proportions, here.
I disagree. The CEO may not have a terribly important job, but say you take away one CEO, that's a much bigger deal than taking away any one worker. While the workers are collectively far more important than the boss, the boss is more difficult to replace and more important than one worker in most cases.
I'm not objecting to a higher salary for CEOs (compared to their employees), but between 250 and 1000 times their average employee's salary seems really excessive to me. But of course, that is all a question of opinion.
And in my hypothetical suggestion, I didn't say one by one, I said all at once. Of course each of them, taken individually, are replaceable and it's normal that the CEO makes more than all of them. But I'm talking about proportions, here.
Is the boss 300 times more important than the average worker in their employ?