Yup, compensation ratio is a false narrative. My CEO makes 100x more than me (roughly $30M). But he is not 100x better at being a CEO than I would be; he may on

Yup, compensation ratio is a false narrative. My CEO makes 100x more than me (roughly $30M). But he is not 100x better at being a CEO than I would be; he may only be 2x better than me. The reason why he is paid 100x is because his decisions have the ability to affect billions of dollars in revenue, so having him as CEO instead of me could mean the company brings in an additional $300M in revenue next year. If you assume that he's bringing in $300M more than I would bring in, paying him $29.7M more than me does not seem unreasonable. Overall, the CEO:worker pay ratio is a pretty meaningless statistic. At most companies, even if you were to entirely redistribute the CEO's salary to the employees, the employees still wouldn't see significant wage increases. For example, dividing Bob Iger's $47M salary amongst Disney's 155k employees would only result in a $300/year pay raise for each employee. People hoping to solve poverty by slashing CEO compensation are going to be sorely disappointed.