The issue isn't the absolute height. The top manager (CEO) is going to make more more than the top IC, that's just obvious.

The real issue is that management is a pyramid but IC is ziggurat with, if you're lucky, an obelisk sitting on top of it.

People like to point to the principal staff engineer or whatever, but there's one of them for every twenty upper-mid level managers making the same money. And all those managers can take their skills to another company, but if an IC guru leaves the company where he made his bones he's probably destined for consulting (at best). Consulting has its upsides, but that's no more for everyone than management.

Many companies have separate tracks for independent contributors and managers. You can stay an IC and level up to Distinguished Engineer or Fellow or Staff Engineer or whatever, without needing to go into management.

I guess that would just not be realistic. There was a comment from a while ago that I think makes total sense: The organization has to evaluate the value that you bring and create. If your position moves and directs dozens of people, it will be hard for an individual contributor to match the importance no matter what. Of course, it's fine if you prefer to remain a more individual, engineering-oriented position. But there is little reason to expect you'd reach the same level of importance to the organization as some top managers/executives.

In my company it’s also much slower to move up the technical track compared to the manager track. If you want to make money it’s much better to be manager.

GitLab (I work there) does allow you to become Staff-Level which is the same multiplier as a manager.