This kind of reporting really annoys me. The news is the aggregate. It's the fact that on average the CEO pay went up by more than worker pay. To bring context

This kind of reporting really annoys me. The news is the aggregate. It's the fact that on average the CEO pay went up by more than worker pay. To bring context to this they get a quote from someone, and the quote literally could have been said any year in the last 50 years. You know, unlike previous years, this year boards really want to retain good CEOS. Ok yeah, because we all remember 2018 when a number of boards fired CEOs they thought were doing a great job. Sure, Broadcom is killing it, but are we really going to justify this average by focusing on the 1 guy that like 20x'd his company over the last 15 years? Note how the article doesn't mention the performance of any CEO at the bottom of the list? Or any CEO whose compensation rose but shareprice fell? Really we want to see 2 things: How much of executive pay increases are accounted for simply by the stock market moving upwards on average (ie, compensation not correlated with individual CEO performance) and how much of the average is impacted by distributional effects (ie, did Broadcom really just move the whole market on its own). Neither question answered by the article.