I don't think it's outrage bait. You're highlighting a distinction in forms of compensation that's relevant if you're experienced in or care about negotiating

I don't think it's outrage bait. You're highlighting a distinction in forms of compensation that's relevant if you're experienced in or care about negotiating executive compensation packages but fairly irrelevant to the bottom line. Executives get compensated increasingly larger orders of magnitude more than the average workers at their companies. The exact form of this compensation doesn't really matter. Even if it's theoretically tied to performance, the same is arguably true of all workers, except their award mechanism is often whether the company continues to pay them or fires them. And either way the increasingly massive delta between CEO and worker pay is still notable. Are CEOs performing massively better in order to justify this massively increased performance based compensation compared to their average employee?