I think that's incorrect. It's not like if being a CEO was harder that many technical jobs. In fact, it's usually a whole lot easier.
It is however about the amount, you're right on that.
There is 1 CEO and there are 10 000 employees. It's much easier to pay 1 CEO "a lot" than 10 000 employes "a lot". (and to become CEO you have to look good/smart/etc but you don't have to be or workhard. You can however stab people in the back in the name of capitalism all day long. I don't know many "big" CEOs who haven't done that.)
The only thing that really comes with a CEO title is the responsibility for other people's jobs. Large bonuses in that case make sense, but in general, they're already paid so well, that it's peanuts.
Being peanuts, they can afford the luxury of redistributing to employees. Don't get me wrong, I admire the gesture. But if the CEO wasn't paid so much to begin with, and bonuses weren't out of proportion, he wouldn't have done that.
I'm taking for granted the question of whether there really is a supply/demand imbalance justifying high CEO pay. I didn't want to cloud my post with that aspect. You're right though, you can argue that CEO salaries are not the product of an efficient supply/demand equilibrium, but rather other things.
Being a CEO is way way way way way way way harder than individual contributor technical jobs. The breadth of skill and degree of dedication required to do the job well is just insane.
That may be, but there's actually little evidence that compensation relates to it. There are all sorts of studies attempting to link higher CEO pay with better performance, and the data is thin. There's also some evidence that firms with less diffuse ownership structures (i.e. owners more informed and in control) pay CEOs less, which at least weakly hints that high CEO pay isn't rationally chosen by owners who are paying attention.
Now, even "less well paid" CEOs still get paid a lot, so that's not an argument for paying CEOs $100k. But it may be an argument to pay CEOs towards the lower end of the CEO payscale, rather than towards the higher end.
Sure... 2, 3, maybe 4 times harder, but not hundreds or thousands of times. The fact that we have such huge gaps is cultural, and a testament to how well they've been able to sell themselves. The gap hasn't always been this wide, and it's not the same in every country.
It is however about the amount, you're right on that. There is 1 CEO and there are 10 000 employees. It's much easier to pay 1 CEO "a lot" than 10 000 employes "a lot". (and to become CEO you have to look good/smart/etc but you don't have to be or work hard. You can however stab people in the back in the name of capitalism all day long. I don't know many "big" CEOs who haven't done that.)
The only thing that really comes with a CEO title is the responsibility for other people's jobs. Large bonuses in that case make sense, but in general, they're already paid so well, that it's peanuts.
Being peanuts, they can afford the luxury of redistributing to employees. Don't get me wrong, I admire the gesture. But if the CEO wasn't paid so much to begin with, and bonuses weren't out of proportion, he wouldn't have done that.