This is ignoring three factors.
1. A big part of the divorce between production and wages, is women starting to work the same kinds of hours as men. To this day men work for more of their lives and longer hours on average as well, compared to women, but when you increase the effective available number of work hours by ~50%, that has a serious effect on wages for pay.
2. Increasing welfare, regulatory burden, and government interference in general both eating up a company's budget, making less available for wages and profits, as well as making it harder for new companies to both enter markets and grow.
3. Regarding CEO salaries, while I'll agree that megacorp CEOs are often overpaid, which is at least in part a symptom of elite in-group/ivy league shenanigans, it really would not make that much of a difference if you drastically deflated their salaries. Let's take the salary of the CEO of General Electric, $73,192,032, and divide that up among their 205,000 employees. That'd get each employee another 357 dollars a year. Those employees on average make 96,759 dollars a year.
That's a nice number, a moderate bonus, you could say, but it makes it fairly clear that lower CEO pay is not going to result in drastically higher salaries for employees in general.
Now, I'm not doing this to try to say 'oh, there's nothing wrong here,' it's just annoying seeing the leftist canard that 'greedy CEO salaries are why poor people are poor' get repeated.
(As a note, this does not necessarily apply to companies that deal primarily in software. Due to how easily software can be replicated and sent to end users, pay disparities in that industry can have a more perceptible impact. I did some similar math for Activision-Blizzard, where the CEO earns more like 180 million a year, there's just 9500 employees, and average employee salary is more like 78k. There, divvying up the CEO salary would give ~16k a year to each employee, which is more than a 20% pay hike.)