"Some have argued that the salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of their lowest-paid employees. This, they argue, will improve relations between management and workers, reducing costly labor disputes and increasing worker productivity. What these people overlook, however, is that these high salaries are necessary to attract the best managers, the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company." ISSUE

The remunerations given to corporate executives have long been a talking point in financial circles. These high paying jobs have been the envy of many eyes. But the fact is that these corporate executives are the best managers and as the basic rule of supply & demand states their salaries are bound to be the highest. So I agree that the high salaries are necessary to attract the best managers.

In the realms of the industrial world, different jobs require different levels of education and skill-sets. For example, a worker doing a menial job in a production unit might only be required to segregate one type of component from the other, which does not require any basic education and skill set. Whereas a corporate executive may be responsible for the whole unit and would have attained some minimum level of education and skills.

Also their is a certain level of hierarchy in any organization which the employees climb up as they work in an organization and develop experience and knowledge. An incentive of higher pay as the employees move up the hierarchy is necessary to motivate them. Moreover the high salaries are a result of the supply and demand function. If some organization is not willing to give high salaries to executives, they will switch the jobs to where they are paid a better salary.

On the other hand, the workers interests also need to taken into account when giving dividends and other remunerations so that they feel a part of the organization. Moreover the lowest paid salaries should at least be sufficient to support a family