That isn't how it works out. Normally the executive gets far less than his workers get. Remember, there are many workers.
When I divide the pay of Boeing's CEO by the number of Boeing workers, I get just $100 per year. I am confident that the typical worker earns far more than that. The CEO pay is insignificant. He could sacrifice his entire pay to give raises for the workers, and they wouldn't gain even 1%.
Clearly, that CEO's work is not considered "1000 times more valuable than the work those workers do".
"managing 1000 workers is 1000 times more valuable than the work those workers do"
sounds like it's referring to the total work. At least it's ambiguous and ill-phrased if it means one worker.
That's the thing. If a top executive even makes the tiniest productivity impact across his organization compared to the next best candidate, he has enriched shareholders significantly compared to his comp. This is what makes competition for top executives intense, and fuels the crazy pay.
When I divide the pay of Boeing's CEO by the number of Boeing workers, I get just $100 per year. I am confident that the typical worker earns far more than that. The CEO pay is insignificant. He could sacrifice his entire pay to give raises for the workers, and they wouldn't gain even 1%.
Clearly, that CEO's work is not considered "1000 times more valuable than the work those workers do".