"at the top 350 U.S. firms ranked by sales"

And there's the problem with the chart.  The very top 350 firms out of how many millions of companies?

Now, don't get me wrong.  I think SOME CEOs are way overpaid.  Probably nearly all, if not actually all, of them in that top 350 firms.  And even the top 1000.

But with small companies, with 1 to very few "owners", it is often the CEO who mortgaged his or her home to start the business, put in 15+ hour days for many years to build the business, and neglected everything (including family time) to build the business.  He or she will never get back the opportunity to watch their kid's first step, etc.  Oftentimes barely taking enough out of the company to pay his/her personal bills.  So, assuming everything aligned correctly, 20 years down the road I don't have a problem with these kinds of CEOs making whatever they chooses to pay themselves.  Because it's their company, and a lot of it is recompense for lost years and high risks taken.

That does seem to be the crux of the matter.   

It seems to be a non-trivial thing to answer. I am very honestly asking here, and I have yet to have someone actually answer it without using market forces or an arbitrary assignment of value.

And nothing posted since has attempted to answer Plebian's question - which I also consider valid and "non-trivial".   Pointing to the current system and saying "It broke." is only marginally helpful.  I understand its a difficult question to answer which is why any discussion about it tends to get off in the weeds pretty quickly.  Still, the ability to answer that question is the equivalent of having a compass if you find yourself lost in the woods, no?      "How then shall we live?" has always been the question at the the heart of a society's existence and it still is. 

So it seems to me that this thread has been a bit derailed from the original question.  Forgive me if I push it just a little farther.

My question for those concerned about wage disparity is:  Whose business is it?  Compensation should be between the employer and the employed, not the general electorate.  I submit that the issue isn’t any of your business if you are not the CEO in question, the employer, or the shareholders.

If you are unconvinced by the above, are you suggesting that Congress should “rectify” the situation somehow?  Should CEO salary be limited by law?  If so, please tell me where the Constitution authorizes Congress to interference with contracts.

If you are smart enough to see that such a federal law would be unconstitutional, and still think your state should step in, please tell me how you keep large businesses from fleeing your state and taking their jobs with them.  Please tell me why the talent that can command the higher salary would even bother to come to your state?

The attitude that “There ought to be a law!” is in itself dangerous to liberty.  It is a symptom of a desire to rule over others.  It pushes us closer and closer to that metaphorical line asked about in the original post.

In a free society you are not obligated to like anything anyone does or says.  You don’t have to agree with how anyone lives or works.  No one has to like you, what you do, or what you say, either.  Unless someone is violating another’s rights of life, liberty, or property, I am leery of suggesting any law that might affect them.

This right here. You hit the nail on the head.

We have federal laws governing minimum wage, overtime pay, etc.  It isn't that much of a stretch to include maximum CEO compensation.

This would be your opportunity to explain how those laws regarding min. wage, and overtime pay are constitutional.  Please site the clause in the Constitution granting Congress that power.

You're worried about keeping talent? I'm sick of hearing about CEO's running a company into the ground and walking away with million$$ in golden parachutes.

This would be where you explain how it's any of your business telling the owner of a company what is a wise/foolish business decision.  Why do you get to tell the owner/shareholders what management to hire or what practices, procedures, and strategies to implement?

The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

It's not the business decision, it's the golden parachute. You just fluffed up a multinational company and walked away with $42million, while 40,000 people got laid off.

Can a mod move this part of the thread to a new one?

Once again you fail to answer the questions.  I am detecting a trend here and am suspicious that you know that answering them shoots holes in your argument.

Once again you fail to answer the questions.  I am detecting a trend here and am suspicious that you know that answering them shoots holes in your argument.

Article 1, Section 8, describing the powers of Congress to provide for the general welfare, and to regulate commerce, both international, and between the states.

This is good:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2021/01/13/pelosi-tweet-2017-n2583057?amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

Is it your assertion that the general welfare clause is a grant of power instead of a limit?

Are you saying that the relationship between employer and employee constitutes "commerce?"

If you are saying that labor is commerce, then how may Congress regulate it if it does not happen overseas, across state borders, or amongst the Indian tribes?

Once again you fail to answer the questions.  I am detecting a trend here and am suspicious that you know that answering them shoots holes in your argument.

Is it your assertion that the general welfare clause is a grant of power instead of a limit?

Are you saying that the relationship between employer and employee constitutes "commerce?"

If you are saying that labor is commerce, then how may Congress regulate it if it does not happen overseas, across state borders, or amongst the Indian tribes?

The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

It's not the business decision, it's the golden parachute. You just fluffed up a multinational company and walked away with $42million, while 40,000 people got laid off.

Can a mod move this part of the thread to a new one?

Tying this back to the question in the OP, the point of no return was passed before any of us were born.   That is the reason that no minimum wage law - federal, state or any combination of them will ever have the advertised effect.   Wage controls don't work without price controls and vice versa.  Once you establish a system of fiat currency inflation is baked into the cake - which invariably ( and usually in short order ) results in wrecking the wage/price control model.  The only system that has the inherent flexibility to adapt to all the variables is free market capitalism.  Unfortunately it comes well equipped with its own disadvantages - some of which have been mentioned already. 

I find it ironic that the only objection to "golden parachutes" is directed toward the private sector.  If you seek to find outrageous examples of overcompensated under achievers with unbelievably lucrative retirement/pension plans the largest group of them is found in the federal government and particularly around Washington, D.C..   

I know the free market way of determining value by supply and demand, but how else would we determine this value? Is there anyway to set a 'fair' pay without someone making an arbitrary decision?

When payment is kept commensurate with cost of living increases. If Minimum Wage were kept apace of Cost of Living, then it would be around $24 an hour.

When $7.25 is minimum wage, and a single gallon of milk is around $3.50, a half an hour of heavy lifting, exposure to heat and sparking grease, or utilization of the overly inflated college tuitions and unfairly financed college loans technical knowledge is being paid entirely too much.

But hey, rather than fix artificial price increases for basic necessities, let's just complain that "a burger flipper" shouldn't make as much money as an EMT.

Because as Mike Pence said "they want to make the poor comfortable."

As if it were a BAD thing.

When payment is kept commensurate with cost of living increases. If Minimum Wage were kept apace of Cost of Living, then it would be around $24 an hour.

When $7.25 is minimum wage, and a single gallon of milk is around $3.50, a half an hour of heavy lifting, exposure to heat and sparking grease, or utilization of the overly inflated college tuitions and unfairly financed college loans technical knowledge is being paid entirely too much.

But hey, rather than fix artificial price increases for basic necessities, let's just complain that "a burger flipper" shouldn't make as much money as an EMT.

Because as Mike Pence said "they want to make the poor comfortable."

As if it were a BAD thing.

Okay, so we keep pay at a set level to cost of living increase. How do we determine the ratio of pay to cost of living? We simply use historical example? Is this pay going to be different in different areas because of differences in cost of living in the location?

A poor man who is comfortable in his poverty is a hermit: I've met people who are absolutely fine, living well under the poverty line.
A comfortable poor man who keeps a family poor is lazy.
And no, I don't buy into the systemic barriers bulls___. 
This is America. 
The non-government agencies/charities that exist to help people with their bootstraps is amazing. 
The people simply have to be willing to put in the work.
But the government is too busy trying to make them comfortable in their welfare prisons.
Why? Because people in welfare prisons are just Vote Cattle: raised to ensure the DemSocialist Communist agenda.
The number one health problem of American Poor: OBESITY.


My first job was at age 12: farm work for $3/hour.
When I married, 25 years ago, I made $6.25/hour to raise a family.
Since then, I have paid for 4 people in my family to attain 7 college degrees.
I work a job and I have a personal part-time business.
And yes, I do now make more than minimum wage.

Everyone establishes priorities for their resources.   

Frankly, its hard to find "the poor" in this country.  Unless, of course, you are referring to those who can't "afford" to find a job commensurate with their skills because it would mean taking a pay cut.   Better to stay home and just relax in front of the big screen TV, binge watch a few shows on cable and then maybe play some games or catch up with the latest news on your smart phone.  Or maybe order more stuff off Amazon because you get free shipping with Prime.  Maybe wander down to Walmart and pick up some chips and stuff for catching the game later. 

Before the advent of socialism here "the poor" would have looked at today's version and thought them wealthy.   They might also have considered them stupid and short-sighted for not taking what's given to them and making the most out of it.  Perhaps that point of view is peculiar to those who have experienced actual poverty and actual hardship.   

Its difficult to look at our society today and not arrive at the conclusion we have allowed our success to blind us to our potential and blunt our drive to achieve it.  Much like the those folks mentioned in the second paragraph who see nothing wrong with letting the government take care of them since they are maintained in relative comfort and safety.   

Terry Pratchett is a gifted author and his "Discworld" series is justly famous but there is another I would point you to for a more relevant take on things.  Arthur C. Clark wrote a novel many years ago called "Against the Fall of Night" which was based on an earlier story he wrote called, "The City and the Stars".   Thought provoking material from one of the grand masters of the genre.   

John Adams also had a lot to say that applies particularly to us as a nation.  The following quote seems to encapsulate the idea I've tried to express here; 

"  . . .  I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.  Our sons ought to study mathematics, philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain."   John Adams

Indeed.  The logical progression of that idea has brought us to the current situation where children and adults can receive "diplomas" for graduating from the public education system as functional illiterates unable to speak, read and write their native language and unable to perform basic arithmetic operations and possessed of an appalling ignorance about the world they inhabit.  Yet, somehow, these people are able to live in the relative comfort and safety provided for them all by .  .  .  whom?   

One of the biggest problems with out of control executive pay is that there is not enough oversight.   Executive pay is set by corporate boards.  Corporate boards are often made up of executives from other companies.    So basically you've got a big group of the same people all deciding what to pay each other.   

BINGO!   

And none of them truly looking out for the shareholders' best interests.

And the John Adams quote reminds me of this, whose author I am unsure of:

Hard time create hard men.  Hard men create good times.  Good times create soft men.  Soft men create hard times.