Reading some of these replies in here are cringe as fuck. Not because I don't agree with the overall sentiment, but rather in the fact that you guys don't know what language to use. In essence, you don't know your audience. Speak in the language that your audience can relate to.
When she says that her pay is dependent on the company performance, the reply isn't to talk about worker this and worker that. The correct reply to that is to point out that GM stock has been essentially flat for the last 4 years. Her job as CEO is to increase value for stockholders. Stockholders haven't seen a 40% increase in 4 years. So if shareholders haven't seen a 40% increase in that time, then how is she justifying her pay increase.
And ultimately, her pay isn't determined by her. It's determined by the board of directors. And there lies the problem with all these out of control CEO salaries.... it doesn't cost anything for a director to increase some CEO's pay. It's not taken out of their pocket. It doesn't affect them directly in any way, so to them it's like monopoly money. You get a raise, and you get a raise and you get a raise. Every CEO gets a raise because the director that approves one CEO's pay might be the CEO of another company who's director is the other CEO who just got a raise. You scratch my back, and you scratch mine.