Stock/cash is not fungible for the company itself. Using shareholders as an ATM is a surefire way to tank a stock, and companies tend to use it as an absolute last resort.
We aren’t talking in the context of the company though. The gp comment said it’s not an apples to apples comparison to say a CEO makes 100x an employee because CEO’s compensation is stock.
If the CEO’s stock compensation has a monetary value of $100 and the employees salary is $1, it absolutely is fair to say the CEO is compensated 100x the employee, regardless of it is stock or cash. The CEO can borrow against this and use it as effectively cash, if they are unable or do not want to exercise the options. This is such an insanely common practice and absurdly pedantic argument that I wonder why we’re even having it. Does the distinction matter? Of course it does not.
It's not apples to apples because it is in essence two different employers. The CEO does not work for the company (this why you see that $1 CEO salary so often), the CEO works for the shareholders. But the employees work for the company. They are two distinct entities with two distinct finances.
If a company does layoffs and the CEO still gets paid, that is perfectly logical because the company was never paying the CEO in the first place. Whether or not the CEO got his $5 million compensation package has no impact on whether or not the company could have laid people off, as just about everyone portrays it (and thinks how it is).
