5 ms·

Everyone complains about the CEO pay but it's not that significant compared to the overall budget. The actual $$ historically goes to spending on high end offi

by dralley 1mo ago

Everyone complains about the CEO pay but it's not that significant compared to the overall budget. The actual $$ historically goes to spending on high end office space in San Francisco, Paris, and other expensive cities and paying salaries to match the CoL in those areas. Kind of rich for a nonprofit. But I'm sure people would complain if they moved operations to Brno and Warsaw too.

hn_submit 1mo ago
The head of a non-profit shouldn't be raking in millions. Not even in the Valley! Instead they dreamed up the idea of being a multi-billion corporation next to the non-profit so they could give management commensurate compensation.
- OkayPhysicist 1mo ago
  The fundamental problem with non-profit executive pay is that they earn their keep. Even more directly than CEOs in a for-profit space. The CEO of a non-profit has approximately one job: convince rich people to give the non-profit large amounts of money. It turns out, rich people know other rich people. And rich people who know how to convince other rich people to give them large amounts of money are a scarce resource, that non-profits squabble over. So you've got a scarce labor pool, with expensive lifestyles, and a very directly obvious ROI. That alone is a recipe for high salaries. Combine that with the inflation that comes from the fact that for-profit executives get to hide a huge portion of their compensation as stock, whereas non-profits pretty much exclusively offer salary, and you end up with apparently bloated non-profit executive salaries.
  - pjmlp 1mo ago
    Outside US, many non-profit organisations, the management gets as much money as most other folks that also contribute their free time. There are no goals and bonus to share, quarter earnings and whatever else.
  - dingaling 1mo ago
    > convince rich people to give the non-profit large amounts of money And yet Google's funding remains 85% of Mozilla's income, so that 'convincing' doesn't seem to be worth paying for.

by dralley 1mo ago

hn_submit 1mo ago

The head of a non-profit shouldn't be raking in millions. Not even in the Valley! Instead they dreamed up the idea of being a multi-billion corporation next to the non-profit so they could give management commensurate compensation.

OkayPhysicist 1mo ago
The fundamental problem with non-profit executive pay is that they earn their keep. Even more directly than CEOs in a for-profit space. The CEO of a non-profit has approximately one job: convince rich people to give the non-profit large amounts of money. It turns out, rich people know other rich people. And rich people who know how to convince other rich people to give them large amounts of money are a scarce resource, that non-profits squabble over. So you've got a scarce labor pool, with expensive lifestyles, and a very directly obvious ROI. That alone is a recipe for high salaries. Combine that with the inflation that comes from the fact that for-profit executives get to hide a huge portion of their compensation as stock, whereas non-profits pretty much exclusively offer salary, and you end up with apparently bloated non-profit executive salaries.
- pjmlp 1mo ago
  Outside US, many non-profit organisations, the management gets as much money as most other folks that also contribute their free time. There are no goals and bonus to share, quarter earnings and whatever else.
- dingaling 1mo ago
  > convince rich people to give the non-profit large amounts of money And yet Google's funding remains 85% of Mozilla's income, so that 'convincing' doesn't seem to be worth paying for.