Yeah, except he didn't say compensation was flat. He said wages were flat. The fact that we have a higher percentage of our compensation tied up in the skyrocketing cost of health care only underscores his point.
You can try to claim that's simply the market value of getting a CEO, but this doesn't hold up: CEO salary-to-revenue has decreased. We're paying more and getting worse performance. Further, your argument depends on efficient markets which don't pass the common sense test and has been shown to be an N!=NP problem.