Your point is well taken. I agree, in reality, "the market" thinks the CEO ought to be rewarded more, (I agree with the principle but not with the current leve

Your point is well taken. I agree, in reality, "the market" thinks the CEO ought to be rewarded more, (I agree with the principle but not with the current levels). However if a CEO destroys billions of dollars of value, he gets a golden parachute or a new title. The employees get a pink slip. If the CEO creates billions of dollars of value, the employees sometimes get a (tiny) bonus (medium bonus for bankers). But what really is the value of Twinky to society compared to the life of a human being? (millions of $ vs $0?) And that is the fundamental place where I think we disagree. I have a strong disagreement with the main tenet of this line of reasoning (this might become a strawman argument): that maximizing profit and financial success (or jobs) is the desirable goal for society. If you look at it in the sense that society should be organized such that "all men are created equal" with the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", maximizing profit (or jobs) is perpendicular if not antithetical to the pursuit of happiness, at least for the many. The CEO's happiness might be perfectly served by the current system, but what about the worker's? Also, what was the cost of the failure of the (previous) management teams to the CEOs vs the employees? I confess that I've only read about "working" alternatives to the current system in fiction. As the article points out, we are running out of jobs. Maybe now would be a good time for a rethink before we hit the crunch?