Because your average work makes like, what, 1/1000 of what an executive makes. But those 1000 workers help that executive earn very high compensation, but then I guess managing 1000 workers is 1000 times more valuable than the work those workers do.
But all that sounds like an idea an executive would invent to justify earning 1000x more than what an average worker makes.
When I divide the pay of Boeing's CEO by the number of Boeing workers, I get just $100 per year. I am confident that the typical worker earns far more than that. The CEO pay is insignificant. He could sacrifice his entire pay to give raises for the workers, and they wouldn't gain even 1%.
Clearly, that CEO's work is not considered "1000 times more valuable than the work those workers do".
With a salary of $23M, Boeing's CEO is paid ~1000x what a worker is paid, which is how I read it.
Of course, and the recent absurd ratios of executive pay vs average workers are likely unsustainable. It is all part of the same echo chamber that gave us trickle down economics.
Realistically, most people in charge of money are the ones that decide how to allocate it and, without any other constraints, will allocate themselves as much of it as possible, as there is virtually no one else at the negotiating table to object. There are very few truly independent boards that would interfere in this self-dealing, as most are a self-referential loops of executive relationships.