Yes, he certainly is, because it's his vision that hires that engineer. The CEO will always make more money because they hold the weight of the entire company; everyone else is just a part of the machine.
That's like saying "Is the HC of a football worth 10x more than the offensive coordinate who developed the play?" The answer is an absolute yes. The HC is the one who hired the coach, and gave him a direction, and is the one the blame will fall on ultimately if the play doesn't go the right way. He's the one who deals with the NFL, and deals with the owner, and the other teams. He's the one who has the final say on all the players and all the plays. The OC just develops offensive plays.
Cook is the man that goes to Washington and deals with the United States Senate, he's the man that deals directly with all the other major partnership companies, manufacturers, and the governments of the other nations they sell in. He is the man that deals with all major hiring decisions. He decides the direction of the company. He tells all of the engineers what to do. He is the life of the company as a whole. I don't know what world you live in where that doesn't deserve a special level of compensation.
They don't "simply exploit the tremendous effort", what the hell does that even mean? They hire people to do jobs and the people do them for compensation. It's called working, not exploitation. I think you might have a fundamental problem with what having a job means.
Have you ever taken a business class? There is a reason the board pays CEO's so well. Firstly, most of their income is not raw salary, it's from stock options. The thought process here is if you pay the leader well in options, the person that makes all the final decisions and takes all the blame when things go wrong, they'll work harder to increase their personal gain, and the company as a whole profits from this hard work. No other person in the company has that potential impact, so they are not rewarded as such (in most major companies, some usually smaller companies, do pay all employees with stock options because of this principle). That's why CEO's make so much when we're talking about major companies, and why major companies have such great CEO's that perform so well.
Your last point isn't "similarly" to any of your other points either. You don't need to "align the wage" of the CEO or executive to fairly compensate the typical worker. They can still make millions and not have their workers on welfare, they just need to budget more into the operating costs, taking it out of the net income to do so.
Why do you think it needs to be aligned? Do you think it's more likely that a CEO will take money out of their own pocket to pay employees, or out of the companies income? What you're saying is unrealistic. You don't need to take money from the rich to give it to the poor, you just need to raise the minimum wage and all companies will have to add that into their operating costs. And that's simply a question of U.S Public Policy, not "wage alignment". If the United States passed a national minimum wage increase, the CEO's would make the same, and the typical worker would just make more.