I wouldnt have a problem if a ceo that worked 40% more and was good at leadership earned 10 or even 20 times of what a worker earns. But 360 is just absurd. And isnt that just the average?
In my opinion salary difference should always be a thing, but it should be balanced by the risk of the investment from the CEOs. Nowadays too many companies are bailed out by the government, so basically there's no risk of running the business and huge salary for the top management. That's an issue.
I guess it depends country by country. A company that is not netting anything at the end of the year or if it's loosing money is a direct loss on the entrepreneur's salary. Also if you do this too much, then it's the entrepreneur that should fix the missing money for his employees or for other company with which he is in debt with.
Then again, it's on the government to make sure this guy pays for the debt he left behind.
Oftentimes the story is different and somehow the boss manages somehow to "run away". Then if you speak about appointed CEOs into S&P500 companies, that's another story again because the "risk" there is really minimum for them, and other than "their image" they don't risk anything.
Should pay be related to what percentage of your net worth you risk? $1000 is a very different amount of risk for different people.
The excuse is generally not that they work harder but that their experience and skill makes them somehow difficult to find.
But again even if they have very specific experience and skills these salaries are absolutely bullshit.
It's not like 1 in a million person can handle a CEO job. It's obviously not true.
I really think we should all have laws that set the maximum gap between salaries in a business. That way CEO can still bullshit people about insane salaries but at least they will have to pull up everybody in the business.
Let's instrument the CEO greed so that they are forced to pay everybody below them before they can get a raise.
