Evidently no. Companies are making hundreds of millions in profit every ear, they're paying their CEOs tens of millions as a "bonus".
They're they're making a lot, LOT more than just "barely above production costs"
The other part of my comment also mentioned that companies do everything they can to avoid being commoditized: that's another source of inefficiency/surplus revenue. The market is in flux; commoditizing takes time.
--
https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20181030/NEWS/18103...
It's not about what percentage of their revenue it is, it's about how that money that should go to adding customer value, not making exceedingly rich people richer.
500 million dollars could change the lives of tens of thousands of people that Aetna calls customers... but instead it goes to ONE person.
It doesn't have to be that way.
Everything can be improved, and we should strive to improve everything. I'm very aware of companies that operate very well without making a profit. They add a lot of value to society, the employees get paid and they're even expanding (MEC in Canada). But no profit. Nobody who doesn't work there gets richer. So why don't Apple work that way. Why doesn't Comcast work that way.
CEO pay represents a huge surplus of money (profit) that wasn't needed. The products and services offered by the company could have just been discounted that much, or the employees could all have been paid more, not just one person.
It's very hard defend the argument "CEO pay represents a huge surplus".
How much value does that CEO being by his skills/decisions? Why would he be hired with the salary he receives (that he does not get to decide) if he didn't create more value than what he costs? It's just like any other employee, except a more competitive space and where decisions have larger profit effects.