What made a lot of this possible were changes made to typical and normal executive compensation in the early 1990s - tying pay (and sometimes LARGE amounts of pay) to stock performance in what was described as an attempt to make sure their priorities were aligned with "best value to the business." It tilted the balance a little away from "best for the workers" and toward "best for the business." I had reservations then and have reservations now. It's within the power of Boards of Directors to limit or cap executive pay, but since most Boards are made up of high level executives or former high level executives, there isn't much incentive to change that system. It has had the intended effect of providing a powerful incentive to keep a lot of businesses sharply competitive. A worthwhile question is: should that be the only goal?