We should establish a maximum wage ratio between CEOs and their lowest-paid employees.

When discussions turn to fairness in the workplace, one of the most striking proposals is setting a maximum wage ratio between CEOs and their lowest-paid employees. This idea suggests that the compensation of executives should not exceed a fixed multiple of the salaries earned by the workers at the bottom of the company’s pay scale. For example, a ratio of 20:1 would mean that if the lowest-paid employee makes $30,000 a year, the CEO could earn no more than $600,000. The debate touches on deep concerns about income inequality and corporate ethics. Proponents argue that enormous pay gaps can undermine morale, widen social divisions, and signal that leadership is disconnected from the workforce. Establishing ratios, they say, would encourage more equitable distribution of profits and strengthen trust between management and employees. Critics worry that strict limits could discourage talent from taking top leadership positions, push executives toward loopholes like stock options, or make companies less competitive in global markets where no such limits exist. Historically, executive pay was modest compared to average workers, but since the late 20th century, CEO salaries in many countries—particularly the United States—have risen dramatically. This has reignited debates about how to measure the value of leadership versus labor, and whether regulation should play a role in shaping compensation structures.