Let me help you out, here. Your basic point is in defense of the CEO salary that has exploded over the last ≈50 years while the "assembler or machinist" pay has basically remained unchanged, is it not?
I will continue on as if this is, in fact, the gist of your point.
First, let's assume your argument in defense of the CEO salary explosion is correct — that no assembler nor machinist can affect the market cap as your example quantifies. While this may be true, there are a couple flaws as I see things.
1) This argument may have been EVEN MORE TRUE 50 years ago. Given the increased complexity of widgets (in many cases), the training to make widgets may also have become more complex.
2) This argument assumes a 1:1 ratio. Which is weird when you give it a little thought. Who, truly, adds more value to an entity? Is it the one person at the top? Or even the 10 people at the top? Or is it all the people below? Sure, one assembler or machinist may not add value commensurate to a CEO, but, it's worth arguing, 500 or 5000 (or whatever number is meaningful to you) assemblers and machinists may have a value-add worth measuring against that of a particular CEO. It's also ABSOLUTELY ARGUABLE that it is EASIER to find a replacement CEO than it is to replace 500 or 5000 well-trained assemblers and machinists.
Look at me, a silly "lib", arguing in favor of the worker over the "elite"!