If you wish to reduce income disparity, you will necessarily have to reduce production disparity - for the former is generally the consequence of the latter in a market economy. Competition for productive resources will drive the price paid for those resources ever higher (encouraging production and ensuring that such production falls upon the most efficient utilizer of such production).
Interesting point. The problem is that even leveraging automation, it is impossible for the blue-collar worker to out-produce the CEO because the CEO is deemed to be responsible for all of the production of the workers under him or her. Sometimes CEO bonuses don't even seem to rely or performance measurements.
You say the CEO is "deemed" to be in charge as if it's an arbitrary, random assignment? In general, he or she is deemed so because of their proven track record as the best producers.
If CEO pay doesn't correspond to performance, then don't invest in that company - for clearly it manages its own funds poorly. In a capitalist marketplace, those companies which pay excessive amounts for sub-par performance will be out-competed long-term. So it's a self-correcting problem.
Of course, when the government bails out the failures, all bets are off, and the foolishness of unproductive CEO's becomes the unfortunate expense of society.