I'd rather see a system where a CEOs pay could be capped as a multiple of the lowest pay full time worker. ie. CEO payrises must coincide with base pay rates also increasing.
This is done at the Mondragon Corporation in Spain. Workers at different businesses/components of the firm vote to determine the ratio between the highest/lowest-paid workers. Last time I was looking at them (about eight years ago), 5:1 was the closest spread and 11:1 the widest. Most working class people recognize the importance of executives' contributions, but they were pretty confounded by the idea that anyone was sufficiently talented to merit 300:1 pay differential. So, the workers accept they may not have the most talented CEOs, but that they are also getting CEOs committed to the ideals of the firm.
I'd love to see that too, but instead every department of a company would become an "independent contractor" and the highest-level management would end up a tiny, 100 person company with salaries starting at 300k.
Or perhaps a large company of low wage workers overseen by 100 highly paid independent contractors hired by the board of directors.
Or you'll end up making the CEO more of a honorary or figurehead position where your only responsibility is to show up for board meetings once a month, and vesting the real decision making power (and big salary) with for example the COO/CFO/CTO or whatever.
Just make the lowest pay workers part time or contractors, then you'll be yielded a higher margin
Then just base the hourly CEO wage a multiple of the lowest hourly wage a sub sub sub contractor makes when working for the company. Including developping countries workers.
And suddenly every company would stop having full time workers, just a lot more contractors
that happens now already, so we need to fight with it anyway
Maybe government should tell companies that they need to treat "full time" workers differently from contractors and companies would gladly employ their workers full time.