For my two cents, I'd say that this discussion raises some important issues. A central theme is a moral critique of capitalism and its inequities. Its common for people, esp. after examining the significant levels of inequality in society, to question the morality either of wealthy individuals or of the system as a whole. I think this is an important discussion, since our economic system is often justified by its defenders as the most moral system, or the one that offers the greatest benefits to society (an argument, that in part at least, is a moral one). Discussions about what wealthy people should do, or about how they achieved their wealth, etc are a good step in assessing the morality of the economic system.

On the other hand, many critics of our economic system, including most "conflict theorists" (most of whom are really "neo-Marxists", of course) argue that the problem is NOT that capitalists or CEOs are greedy, or that charity or even very high taxes on the wealthy would solve the problem.
Instead, they argue that the problem is an economic system where owners of corporations exploit workers (meaning simply that workers are paid less than the value of the work they do), creating two classes, one barely getting by (or not), and the other getting wealthier and wealthier on the labor of others. They also argue that it doesn't matter whether capitalists are greedy or not; due to the competition with each other, they are forced to try to maximize profits, which, of course, forces them to try to exploit their workers as much as possible (some will do so more nakedly, others with more of a "human face"; either way, its still exploitation). That's what explains the growing inequality in society, not the greed of the CEOs, nor even of the owners. "Its the system", we used to say. The only solution is thus to CHANGE that system, one where the vast majority of the population isn't required to sell their labor power to a small class of "owners" who use their monopolization of the means of production to exploit workers' labor to fatten their own bank accounts.

Thus Tom's argument that the focus shouldn't be on CEOs but rather on corporations, and thus on the OWNERS (i.e., "capitalists"), is very well taken. Examining CEO and worker's growing pay differentials may lead some people to question current economic practices, but a comparison of the wealth of the owners (again, the "capitalists") and the workers is far more important and, actually, even more angering, both because of the even greater differential, and because its clear that the owners of the big corporations performed no work (at least as owners) to earn the appropriation of the value produced by the company.

Finally, to end this on a more positive note, Sen and So do a good job of showing that workers don't just take the exploitation, alienating work conditions, and oppression lying down; rather, they do resist in various ways. "Class struggle" occurs at many levels, including in the workplace, over government policies and laws. Of course, it will take a lot more than that to really address the issue, but it does point things in a direction that focuses on the root of the issue.

Jim