That's a very simplistic way of looking at things, and probably not fair.
What about companies that aren't large enough to issue stock? What about companies that are large and issue stocks, but don't pay dividends? What about CEOs who come into a troubled company, and lay the groundwork to turn it profitable?
I'm not saying that all CEOs should receive 100's of millions of dollars in compensation, nor should they raid other company assets to pay their own salary, but a reasonable compensation is due, regardless of what Occupy Wall Streeters believe.
Such companies are family owned for the most part and the CEO has a great incentive to keep the company profitable. Aunt Myrdal and Uncle George will make his life a living hell if he screws up.
What about companies that are large and issue stocks, but don't pay dividends?
You figure out what dividend they would pay if they did.
What about CEOs who come into a troubled company, and lay the groundwork to turn it profitable?
If it turns profitable, then he gets a very nice payday.
a reasonable compensation is due,
And he would get it. It gives him "skin in the game".