For one, CEOs are not necessarily paid that much.
The numbers listed are an average of pay. That would imply that some are paid more and some are paid less. That's how averages work.
Two, the ones that are are not that significant in number.
They're significant enough to take many millions of dollars out of the pockets of average Americans.
Three, equity compensation doesn't affect operating costs the same way wages and benefits do.
Please expand on this, because your statement is entirely counter intuitive.
Four, the people who would decide to cut CEO pay are the owners, and they would only do so if the success of the business depended on it (meaning consumers would have to demand goods and services based upon that).
Everyone does better or worse depending on how the business does. Workers are laid off if the business does poorly. Workers get overtime if the business does well. Why should one minority portion of the company be given a significant wealth advantage if all contribute to the success and all suffer from the failure of the company?
Not every business in America does what unions do, in fact I would contend there are few that do. Businesses compete with one another. Those that rig the system by installing politicians that will cater to their corrupt tactics are indefensible.
Every business in America trademarks their name if nothing else as a means of preventing competition, for one.
Missed nothing, know that, union members pay for those huge union salaries and all union wages are an increase in cost to the company. What exactly do the union employees get from that union management for their dues and any increased costs to business are deducted from the dividends paid to your parents. CEO salaries are authorized by shareholders so tell your parents to stop authorizing higher pay.
I'm going to ask you to reread your post again, this time with a higher grasp of irony.
If executive compensation was so out of hand that it was bad for the company, the ones that compensated their executives that outrageously would suffer. Let them. If it's a bad business strategy, let them reap what they sow.
It's bad for the business because it's unsustainable. It's a bubble. It's long overdue to pop and if we (meaning you) as Americans weren't artificially supporting it, it'd decrease.
It would be one thing if you were focusing in on financial markets and investment banks and their dealings with the federal government. But to generalize your opinion onto all companies and their leaders is careless and lazy. If you are not a shareholder in a corporation, do not work for it, and do not spend a particular amount of your money purchasing its products/services, then your opinion about what the company decides to buy or sell from whom and at what price holds no influence.
Unless you can clearly cite illegal behavior or the failure of government to enforce laws against fraud and related crimes, then businesses that choose a successful business strategy will succeed and those that choose a flawed business strategy will not. If its personnel policies are bad, people won't work there. If their products are bad, people won't buy them. If they engage in activities consumers despise, they won't or shouldn't buy from the company.
The actions of corporations impact me. They determine the economic climate, the wages, the workers' rights, the products available, the environmental protections, the lobbying in Washington, the costs I'll pay, etc. etc. etc.
Those all affect
all of us. It's unrealistic to suggest that a nation isn't impacted by the actions of major actors within it. We're interconnected, and we rise or sink depending on how we've addressed things as a society. No one is isolated.