When is enough enough?

NOT CONTENT WITH providing outrageous perks such as free use of the corporate jet fleet for flights to golf or skiing resorts, boards of the largest companies last year gave their chief executives large pay increases, too.

According to a study conducted for The New York Times, the median pay for The top executives at 200 large companies was $10.8 million, an increase of 23% from 2009.

By contrast, the average American worker’s pay increased by just 0.5% last year. Many of those workers saw the company 401(k) contributions halted during the recession and had their pay slashed, or at least frozen.

Some chief executives received extraordinary salaries and salary increases last year.

? Philippe P. Dauman of Viacom Inc. was paid $84.5 million, an increase of 149%.

? Leslie Moonves of CBS Corp. was paid $56.9 million, an increase of 32%.

? Richard C. Adkerson of Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. was paid $35.3 million, an increase of 76%.

Is any chief executive worth $84.5 million a year?

To be sure, many companies had a good year in 2010.

But the solid results posted by the companies in terms of increases in earnings most often were the result of the improvement in the economy starting in 2009 and early last year, as well as the cost cutting forced on the companies by the recession. That cost cutting wasn’t the result of brilliant strategic thinking by the chief executives.

Further, revenue and share prices haven’t risen as fast as CEO salaries.

For boards to grant, and for chief executives to accept, such large increases in already embarrassingly large compensation packages is unseemly, especially when the unemployment rate is 9.1%, 13.9 million workers are unemployed, and many more are underemployed and struggling to make ends meet. No one begrudges chief executives a comfortable lifestyle, given their responsibilities, but who needs $10.8 million a year to live comfortably?

Some will argue that because of their responsibilities — guiding the fortunes of companies for the long-term benefit of thousands of employees and shareholders — chief executives must be well-compensated. But the president of the United States has far greater responsibilities and is paid just $400,000 a year.

Others will argue that CEO salaries are market-driven. Boards compete with other boards for the services of talented chief executives and have to pay the market price.

But the market for chief executives is an inefficient market because information about executive talent for hire isn’t freely available. The list of possible candidates is determined by executive search firms, and even they can’t canvass the entire market.

The inefficiency of the market leads to inefficient pricing, to the chief executives’ benefit.

Some will ask: What about top athletes? Aren’t they paid like chief executives?

Yes, but the worth of an athlete to a team is easy to gauge, and when his or her career is done, it is done. When a chief executive fails, he or she usually retires to a number of well-paid directorships at companies headed by friends.

For the first time, shareholders this year had the opportunity to cast a non-binding vote on corporate executive compensation plans. A high percentage of those plans received shareholder approval, and some will point to that as evidence that CEO compensation isn’t out of line.

But many of those votes were cast by institutional shareholders, who often are themselves highly paid, and many shareholders vote in favor of almost anything that the board proposes. If $10.8 million is the going rate for a chief executive in an inefficient market, they may not want to hamper the board in attracting future management by pressuring it to reduce executive compensation.

The great danger is that excessive CEO compensation, especially during a time of economic hardship for many, will make ordinary Americans more cynical about top corporate management and corporate America in general, ultimately harming the American free-enterprise system.

An embittered public demanding government action isn’t a prospect that many corporate boards or chief executives relish. This is the time for corporate America to show restraint on compensation.