I agree that CEO's should get all they can (and not 'can' all they get - that's just a play on words). The question of whether they deserve it or not is not one that can be determined by ratio ceilings without getting into a conflict with free market principles.

However, it is obvious that for most companies that are not blue-chip companies - and which are 1st generation companies, the CEO is usually a major stock holder who prabably built the company from scratch. His total emoluments include end-of-year profit which could be far in excess of what he pays himself annually. He also has access to all the perks of the orgaisation.

For such a CEO who has employed staff at the going rate, you cannot begrudge him for getting all he can. If he is a humane sort of chap, he is likely to share some of his takings with his staff at the end of the year. This is the case in a majority of companies around the globe.

The problem arises when this CEO passes on his role to another who inherits the salary and the perks (and some stock options to keep him loyal). Then the heir appears an 'upstart' who does not deserve what he gets. And that is the case with most blue-chip and latter generation CEO's. And the US having the larger number of such companies will appear to pay CEO's much more than they deserve.

It is a natural course of events - like demand and supply. If these blue chip companies could set remuneration benchmarks for latter generation CEO's, then the perception of fairness could be served.