I don’t have any links to evidence to back this up, just trying to pick something out of today’s play worth discussing.
It would seem logical to me that if a nation had (and effectively enforced) a cap on CEO pay multiplier, then it would make sense that CEOs might start raising wages to raise the amount they are allowed to pay themselves.
The idea makes perfect sense, but it doesn’t work as you say. The company always has the same earnings both in one case and the other, it simply changes the redistribution. In fact, CEOs usually have pharaonic salaries while workers are entitled to crumbs.
Do they? Real question here, because we must not mix their personal fortune and what they are technically worth if they sold their assets tomorrow. I assume that they are not paying themselves the minimum wage, but do they really pay themselves so much that it would affect the wages of their (supposedly) hundreds of employees if they redistributed it?