In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker - the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there is data.

A CEO earned more in one workday in 2005 (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks.

That information comes from an annual survey by the labor-backed Economic Policy Institute, which said that CEO pay has "exploded," especially over the last three years. In 2005 the average CEO was paid $10.9 million a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861).

In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker. This ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. The ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options) causing CEO pay to moderate to 143 times that of an average worker in 2002. Then the rate nearly doubled over the next three years.

U.S. executives' pay is also higher than salaries in other countries. In 2003, for example, the EPI said U.S. executives earned 1.6 times more than their counterparts in Britain. The same year, U.S. CEOs' incentive payments, such as options, were 5.2 times what they were for Britain.

Next year, according to the New York Times, the total compensation numbers may go even higher. New Securities Exchange Commission rules that are expected to take effect call for high ranking corporate officers to disclose all types of compensation, including deferred, retirement benefits, severance pay and cars and chauffeurs - so-called "stealth wealth."

Paul Hodgson, a compensation expert at the consultancy Corporate Library, told the UK paper The Guardian that the pay increases have two points of origin: stock options riding the bull market, and what he calls the "ratchet" effect. "A chief executive will look around at peers and say 'I want what he is getting.' "

Forbes Magazine said last year that "some chief executives really earn their pay. Some don't. Some are so bad they should be paying their shareholders."

According to a report last year by faireconomy.org, "if you had invested in the stock of the company led by the year's single highest paid CEO since 1990, you actually would have lost money. You would have done nearly six times better by investing in the S&P 500 index. A $10,000 investment in the Greedy CEO portfolio in 1991 would have decreased in value to $8,079 by the end of 2004, while a similar investment in the S&P 500 would have increased to $48,350."

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney pointed out that executives and workers aren't sharing in the pain of reduced retirement benefits.

"Executives," he said, "have received extraordinary retirement benefits at the same time workers are being asked to bear increased risk for their retirement security. By contrast, many executive retirement plans promise a lifetime of income far exceeding what the recipients would be entitled to under the retirement plans of their rank-and-file workers. These preferential retirement benefits undermine the goal of linking pay to performance: CEOs who have been guaranteed million-dollar retirement benefits are inherently less concerned if their stock options are under water."