No, it's not. But the argument being used to justify both positions is the same one. You're arguing based on how hard the persons job appears to be, and not much much value the person provides for those who pay their salaries. Given that the company's board of directors decides how much salary the CEO will be paid, and it's their money on the line, how the hell can you just eyeball that they've decided to pay that CEO 380 times more than the guy cleaning the toilets and assume that there's something unfair going on?
Well there is the small fact that most boards are populated by CEOs of other companies, and guess who sits on their boards? They guy they're determining compensation for. Executive compensation is horribly, horribly, broken in the US. It's not a secret. Most CEOs have little to no positive impact on profits, although, of course, a bad one can destroy a company fairly quickly. Coin flips on big decisions would have far better outcomes for most companies, but of course, coins rarely get CNBC interviews and the like.
____________________________
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.