$1.75 x 9,000 x 2,000 hours cancels out that 30million bump.
It matches closely, but doesn't cancel. So Gap Inc spent more than $60 million on its payroll. ~50% went to one person, and the rest to its hourly laborers (not that it's safe to assume that was the case throughout the year). Also: considering that the $30M CEO raise went into place in 2012 and surely was matched if not exceeded in 2013, that doubles the "extra" cost of bumping their minimum to $9/hour. With that in mind, it's still overly simplistic to will away the CEO's compensation as a non-contributory factor.
(Related: it bothers you that worker salaries were raised $1.75/hour, or <20%, but doesn't seem to bother you at all that one person's salary went up more than 150% - a seven-and-a-half fold factor, not taking the wealth gap into account?)
The CEO can spend that money, sure. But they can't dine out like thousands of GAP employees can (unless it's Mr. Creosote, I suppose), they won't buy items in the same amounts that thousands of employees can, they can't vacation like thousands of employees...okay, that they certainly can do ().
My point is that the wage bump, circulated into the hands of hourly employees, is more likely to do FAR more to improve the sluggish side of the economy - demand. Demand is weak because people are afraid to spend the money they have (or, more likely, they don't have money left after paying bills). When they use their extra money to buy an Xbox, or dine out, or go to a movie, that increases the sales figures and operating income of those businesses. The economic benefit of giving a large berth of people more money is more immediately felt, and more widespread, than giving that same amount of money to one person.
Gap has clearly done something wrong in recent years in order to have to close so many stores. Maybe they're not in style anymore; maybe discretionary spending is so low that consumers are opting for $20 jeans at Wal-Mart instead of $60 jeans at the Gap. I'm not certain. Their overhead increases may have contributed to that - however, the additional $30 million that they *might* have spent on all their hourly labor in one year is, at best, half as powerful a factor in closing stores at the $60 million in additional salary they *did* spend on one employee over the last two years.