This article is extremely incorrect in looking at inequality as the reason to try and address this. What the ceo is paid has nothing to do with what the average

This article is extremely incorrect in looking at inequality as the reason to try and address this. What the ceo is paid has nothing to do with what the average worker is paid and it is incorrect to look at this as problematic from that perspective. What is important is that both the worker and the ceo get paid what they would get in a competitive market and that competitive market is completely different because it is completely different work. This kind of splitting indicates two potential things here and only one of them is concerning/needs addressing. First of all, the wages could be splitting because the labor market characteristics of the two jobs changed. This is completely reasonable given the increased foreign competition faced by the lower 3/4 or so of the labor force, as well as the increasing immigration pushing labor prices down for that labor cohort. The second thing that could be going on, and is concerning, is ceo board capture being abused to increase compensation beyond a competitive ceo wage. This is also believable because most of these big companies have no single large shareholder to push back on ridiculous wage proposals and the mechanics of how voting the shares works means management suggestion is very likely to be approved so the board is often at the whim of the CEO far more than they should be. Only this second cause needs some action to resolve (although I don't have a good recommendation on what that action would be).