CEO pay is market driven. Not based on their labor as much as on their effect on the stock price, etc. This is why the math that explains their value in terms of labor will never make sense to the poor laborer.
Stock holders hire the board, the board sets the CEO pay. Most stock holders are fine with giving a fraction of their stock value to a single person if that single person can make their stock go up in value even more. Now that math works. So one "employee" in the company has more effect on stock price and such employees are in short supply so their pay is astronomical (but insignificant to the individual share holder's percentage). Similar effect with a movie star. A single star can drive up ticket sales more than any one camera man or lighting guy.
Is it fair? Yes. Because it is consistent with market forces and contract. Does it seem fair? Not if you use the same math for every person in an organization and only look at the amount of perspiration expended.
I used to work for a company that was started by an engineer. It grew, went public and then stagnated. The stockholders brought in a hot CEO that didn't know as much about the product as the founder. But he knew how to be a CEO. He could charm anyone. Knew people. Understood manufacturing. etc. Doubled the sales of the company in 2 years. Got paid more than any person who worked at that company. Was that fair?
Stockholders offer the huge payoffs to hotshot CEOs because bringing in some mba that doesn't have a proven record and entrusting the company to them is a much bigger deal than the fact you saved a lot of money on their pay. If a stock holder is more concerned about the CEO pay than the stock price then the market will teach them a lesson pretty quick.
A lot of rich people would like you to think that CEO pay is the problem and most people are happy to follow along. Don't think the government can actually touch true wealth and therefore have true power. The biggest impediment to short term profits is a government effective in empowering actual democratic capitalism instead of a few powerful companies doing what they please. And saying to a rich person you are going to control them by taking their wealth just makes them laugh. You don't have that power anymore because the populace gave it away while trying to take it. If you can get the population ginned up on wealth redistribution, etc then this plays into their plans. Usually the populist movement drives up taxes on capital, which then drives wealth away, weakening the central government, which then borrows money and needs help from actual wealth and real power, further driving the laborer into serfdom. But the serf had fun doing it.
Notice how there is more cash out of the market now (trillions of dollars at last count) than ever before in history and governments everywhere are in more debt than ever before? People will eventually stop asking their increasingly weaker governments to fix the problem and instead appeal to the real power but these corporations will not operate by the same ideals as a democracy. These vassals will convince the king to grant them territory and "attract" laborers to tend their fields.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of code." -- an anonymous programmer