I thought it was well done, but I find it hard to believe. There's gotta be some statistical skewing or omission going on here, so I'd also love to see a serious rebuttal to this.
I don't have time to watch the whole video, but a few months back I read an excellent article on income inequality. Though a quick word of caution: It's a very long read:
https://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=907One of the many issues it covers is that although the salaries of CEOs have risen significantly - far outstripping that of the workers beneath them - the statistics are skewed. In general, CEO paychecks have increased at about the same pace as the rest of the economy, with the exception being the CEOs of financial firms on Walstreet or similar. Their income increase over the past three decades has been so dramatic, that one sector of the economy is responsible for the entire economy's ratio of CEO pay to bottom-rung worker pay going from about 40:1 to over 150:1.
Their jobs basically entail making bets with other people's money, so it's an ideal position for the described situation in the above paragraph if you think about it. If one investor screws up, his client will lose their life savings, and all he loses is his job (maybe). If Walstreet collectively screws up, the government will bail them out so that they can fly around in their gold-plated private jets while the rest of the economy suffers.