I've had managers that had little to no technical knowledge.
They were paid for the value they provided -- the ability to manage people.
That skill may not be as in demand as other skills, so they're paid accordingly.
I see no issue with a highly skilled person being paid more than the person they report to.
workplace.stackexchange.com/users/100951/Keith
No, in fact I know people who make more than their managers.
It is important to remember that just because someone is a manager does not make them better or more valuable than the people that report to them.
It's just a different position, with different required skills.
Those skills could be more or less valuable than the skills of the people reporting to them.
Salary is nominally based on the amount of value created by the skills someone has and who hard they would be to replace, not by their position in the organizational structure.
workplace.stackexchange.com/users/60932/Seth R
I manage a technical group.
15 years ago I decided I liked managing people and enabling them to do great things more than I enjoyed doing research.
I’m quite happy to have technical people making more than I do.
It means they are doing great things, and that I’ve done my job well.
workplace.stackexchange.com/users/38373/Jon Custer
To expand on the other good answers here.
It shouldn't be a rule
but... Is there a certain rule that manager should have better salary than all of his subordinates?
Yes.
This rule/myth originates from managers but is believed by a significant number of people in all positions.
Even if it isn't a good rule you should be aware that it exists in parts of the real world.
Adherents to the rule are usually resolute and are not ready to be persuaded that anything else would be fair or even viable.
Therefore, if you meet someone who believes in this rule you should think about how you can work around it rather than trying to change their minds.
Sometimes the rule will be believed by a manager (work around them not against them) but sometimes it will be intrinsic to an organisation.
For example, the NHS has a pay banding structure predicated on the idea that managers are paid more than their employees*.
If you want sizeable long term pay rises and also want to work for the NHS then you should try to obtain a role and responsibilities that can have the word "manager" attached to them.
* with the sole exception of doctors (1% of NHS employees).
Doctors are valued differently but I don't want to get into details too much as the specifics aren't relevant to the question at hand.
workplace.stackexchange.com/users/95494/P. Hopkinson
Salary is usually based on two factors: Position Time at Company
There are engineers at my company who have been here for 20+ years and they make a lot more than engineering managers that have been here for half the time (or less depending on team).
While managers usually make more money than their subordinates because of the simple fact that you need to be at a company for a while to "work your way up"- newer managers will typically make less money than subordinates that have been at the company for longer and have top titles (and more time for those lovely raises/bonuses)
workplace.stackexchange.com/users/88454/chevybow
The question is how much you benefit the company and how replaceable you are.
If you are the only person in the world capable of doing your job, and there is a queue of people who could replace the manager, then there is no reason why you wouldn’t get paid more.
workplace.stackexchange.com/users/16101/gnasher729
Yes, this is possible.
I am line manager in a investment bank.
I joined as a individual contributor.
I was given a responsibility to manage a team based on how i have performed, it was new team setup.
I can fairly say that i am running the show.
i am techno functional guy and a super star perfomer as per stakeholder and my line manger.
Now comes the twist.
I joined at lesser package wherein the thumb rule is you salary is dependent on negotiation skills.
Now since you joined at lesser package and now you need to perform to level things for you.
However when it comes to appraisal you would get to see the crunch in budget.
So effectively chances of salary getting normalise are thin.
Imagine a situation wherein you are getting 30 % lesser then your report.
However i would still suggest not compare and keep it secret.
workplace.stackexchange.com/users/114222/Miraj 2000
I wonder if someone more qualified than his/her manager can be paid more.  Is it customary/expected and/or a rule stating that a manager should have a better salary than all of their subordinates?  Edit : This is excluding contractors, and bonuses and other benefits.
Can an employee salary be more than their manager's
workplace.stackexchange.com
<salary>
workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/133060
workplace.stackexchange.com/users/69952/asmgx
It is possible that a highly skilled person is paid more than their manager. It is generally agreed that there is nothing preventing someone from being paid more than their manager and that, in fact, this does happen. However, some organisations may well be organised to ensure that managers are always paid more than their subordinates.
It is generally agreed that there is nothing preventing someone from being paid more than their manager and that this does in fact happen. Some organisations are set up so that managers are always paid more than their subordinates.