4 ms·

compared to what? in this world, there are lots of executives who get paid literally millions of dollars to do nothing at best, or actively destroy value at wo

compared to what? in this world, there are lots of executives who get paid literally millions of dollars to do nothing at best, or actively destroy value at worst.

vonmoltke 11y ago
These people are a tiny minority at the tail of the income distribution. Using them as a metric is the statistical definition of the warped perspective. Having a six-figure household income at all puts you in the top 15% in the US. Having a $400k salary puts you very close to the top 1%. I would say anyone making enough to put them, by themselves, in the top 15% is arguably making a "big salary". The Valley has really warped the perception within this industry in particular and the US in general as to what "normal" money is.
- beachstartup 11y ago
  we're talking executive salaries here, not individual contributors or 'normal' i.e. median income for people at the lowest pay scales of an organization. 400k is a good executive salary. i guess you could call it 'big' but it doesn't strike me as something 'too high' or as an indicator of something nefarious going on. it's in line with very senior executive pay at the c-level or a very senior VP/MD. someone like that probably oversees up to 8 or 9 figures of business.
- thenewwazoo 11y ago
  Right, but we're not talking about whether a median employee's salary is big in a median market. We're talking about executive comp in the SFBA. I'd estimate the CEO of PLoS is making ~2.5x what the average employee makes, which is a completely reasonable multiple for executives that are reliably hitting their goals and doing good work. You may think comp in the SFBA is warped, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss context out of hand.
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    No, we're talking about total executive comp at a non-profit. If compensation in the SFBA is warped relative to the rest of the US it is fair to ask why a non-profit is based there and whether the salaries they have to pay to stay are justified.

compared to what? in this world, there are lots of executives who get paid literally millions of dollars to do nothing at best, or actively destroy value at worst.

vonmoltke 11y ago

These people are a tiny minority at the tail of the income distribution. Using them as a metric is the statistical definition of the warped perspective. Having a six-figure household income at all puts you in the top 15% in the US. Having a $400k salary puts you very close to the top 1%. I would say anyone making enough to put them, by themselves, in the top 15% is arguably making a "big salary". The Valley has really warped the perception within this industry in particular and the US in general as to what "normal" money is.

beachstartup 11y ago
we're talking executive salaries here, not individual contributors or 'normal' i.e. median income for people at the lowest pay scales of an organization. 400k is a good executive salary. i guess you could call it 'big' but it doesn't strike me as something 'too high' or as an indicator of something nefarious going on. it's in line with very senior executive pay at the c-level or a very senior VP/MD. someone like that probably oversees up to 8 or 9 figures of business.
thenewwazoo 11y ago
Right, but we're not talking about whether a median employee's salary is big in a median market. We're talking about executive comp in the SFBA. I'd estimate the CEO of PLoS is making ~2.5x what the average employee makes, which is a completely reasonable multiple for executives that are reliably hitting their goals and doing good work. You may think comp in the SFBA is warped, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss context out of hand.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  No, we're talking about total executive comp at a non-profit. If compensation in the SFBA is warped relative to the rest of the US it is fair to ask why a non-profit is based there and whether the salaries they have to pay to stay are justified.