@HelloRaptor said:
I didn't suggest any correlation between CEO pay and company performance, only that the influence that CEO has on company performance is significantly greater than that of any single worker or group of workers of the size discussed in most layoff situations, primarily because the scope of action and influence had by either is on a completely different scale.
You're right, that's not the same thing. Glitch is also correct; a really shitty CEO can take a company down no matter how proficient its workforce is.
What matters is that a working classical capitalist model posits that a company's workforce enjoy greater wages based on productivity. When wages increased commensurate with productivity, the United States's economy grew stronger and more robust. When this ceased being the case, in or around the late '70s, the country's began an inexorably debt death-spiral that it isn't coming out of, even now.
It's not about living wage: it's about paying your workers fairly based on their productivity. Unfortunately, no one honestly likes the idea of taking a pay cut when their performance is terrible, so they are willing to accept a consistent paycheck even if their productivity increases over time.