First, as long as he's spending it in volume, no one should care.
That's true if your only concern is the size of the economy. However, there is a finite amount of resources and if cash goes to Ellison, materials, energy and man hours could be spent on a yacht, while if his employees would get more cash it could be spent on 10 smaller boats. So it does matter who does the spending.
Second, we're not talking about taking his compensation and giving it to employees.
I agree that the share holders are most likely not arguing for higher wages for regular employees, but for higher dividends instead. And if the cash is paid to share holders, it is more likely to get reinvested than spent.
Thirdly, if people like him do not exist, then no one will try.
It is fine if he is well compensated for his efforts. But what is reasonable compensation for the head of a large company? Ten times what a regular employee makes? A hundred times? A thousand times? Because a thousand is the order of magnitude we're talking about here.
Executive compensations have gotten to a level where they have a significant impact on company finances. Some projects which are canceled because they were not profitable might have been profitable without the high overhead. I think it is hard to justify layoffs while at the same time paying millions to executives (talking in general here, not about Oracle).