5 ms·

You should start a business and when you need execs you could just pay them what you think is fair, and with the money you save you’ll dominate the competition.

You should start a business and when you need execs you could just pay them what you think is fair, and with the money you save you’ll dominate the competition. Maybe everyone in the world will notice the key to your success and exec pay will be reduced.

thatcat 6y ago
Once it became successful the people at the top would organize together to raise their own salaries then maintain that even when economic times change, against the interests of the rest of the company.
- dhosek 6y ago
  That's how it works now. C-suite compensation is set by compensation committees composed of—you guessed it—C-suite executives.
bscphil 6y ago
You think you're making a point here, but there's a mistake in your reasoning. You're thinking that "fair" pay is whatever allows you to beat the market, and since if Mozilla only paid its c-suite $300k-$500k, it would not (you think) be able to compete with other companies with high paid execs, this proves that whatever they're paying the execs now must be fair. But ... "fair" pay does not mean the same thing as "whatever is financially best for the company to pay its employees". Take the other end of that bargain: is it fair for Mozilla to pay their janitors a reproduction level wage? Most of us (except the hard core right-wing libertarians) say no, that's why we have a minimum wage (which many of us also think is too low). The elision of the distinction between "fair" and "whatever the market rewards you for doing" isn't an argument, it's just crass market-worship. Edit: this post is pretty clearly argued, and downvoting without even a comment is exactly the kind of ideological nonsense that this site simultaneously prides itself on not doing (contra Reddit), and yet hilariously symbolizes.
- eitland 6y ago
  Have my upvote. But be aware that the edit at the end will probably trigger the downvote reflex for a number of people here (it did on me too, I just consciously overruled it ;-)
- Feolkin 6y ago
  I wish the site would just get rid of downvotes. Your post is constructive and well-written, doesn't say anything egregiously offensive and isn't trolling and doesn't lack effort. The only reason why you're being downvoted is because some people don't agree on an ideological level. Which is bullshit. You can still respect people who don't share your views, and I wish the site cared to foster that kind of community, instead of promoting another echo chamber.
  - cabalamat 6y ago
    > The only reason why you're being downvoted is because some people don't agree on an ideological level. That's not true, I downvoted the past because it complained at being downvoted.
    - Feolkin 6y ago
      And you're just as much a part of the problem. You're blindly punishing him for pointing out that the system is unfair und his post is not and was not deserving of downvotes. It has nothing to do with the content of his actual comment. You're not contributing positively in any way. You're just reinforcing that anybody who speaks out or has a different point of view isn't welcome here.
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        Downvoting complaints about downvotes is an attempt not to have to read complaints about downvotes. But here's another: please don't complain about downvotes!
  - bscphil 6y ago
    > The only reason why you're being downvoted is because some people don't agree on an ideological level. It's a very frustrating thing about this site, because, ironically, most people here think of themselves as nearly perfectly rational and open to new ideas, but in fact the opposite is almost always the case. If I think of myself as perfectly rational, that ironically gives me a way to think that anyone who disagrees with me must be trolling or must be saying something obviously wrong, even if I don't take the time to work out what that might be. I admittedly added that just to complain, expecting it to trigger another wave of downvotes - because frankly, I don't care about getting downvoted. What I care about is how often this site turns into an ideological echo chamber for one of two popular worldviews, and on some level I wanted to try to call attention to that.
stu2b50 6y ago
>Airbnb has suspended all of its marketing in an attempt to save $800 million this year. Its founders will also not take any salary for the next six months, and top executives will take a 50 percent pay cut, according to Reuters. It's one thing to pay market rate for execs who do an excellent job on a rising company for a for-profit, another for a non-profit in decline. And it's a different thing entirely when it's in a global pandemic and recession. CEOs of FOR PROFIT companies with far more financial success have cut their pay if nothing else as good symbol for the rest of the company.
manquer 6y ago
Mozilla Corporation is not a typical business and is wholly owned by a Non Profit, it should not be competitive with businesses . Most non profits ( and investment funds) keep an eye on administrative and management overhead. A well run fund or NGO will keep their administrative overhead as low as possible, most donors/ investors look at this metric. Legal Aid lawyers / social workers or any number of other professions do not / cannot expect a market competitive salary. why is open source development any different ? if C-suite is only working at Mozilla because they are getting market competitive salary, perhaps they the wrong hire. 90% of Mozilla Corporation revenue comes from one deal, and this has been the case for 10+ years. All the fancy salaries has not prevented Firefox from losing market share, nothing management has been able to do change this, why should they be paid this much ? If the management has failed to achieve success as is the case , should not also bear the cost ? or also get laid off/ replaced ?
dgb23 6y ago
There are examples of this. Satoru Iwata comes to mind as a famous one. Another one would be an ex exec I know personally (who was also a founder). Worked two years straight w/o pay to keep the company afloat. Oh and there are also worker cooperatives. They are usually very stable and have a much smaller income gap. > dominate the competition The people/companies who operate like this usually don't have this as a goal. Quite the opposite. They are typically collaborative and opt for stability and sustainability over everything else.
schwartzworld 6y ago
ah yes, a foolproof path to change
pantalaimon 6y ago
Usually when you start a business you don’t pay your CEO 2.5 million. I’d net for most medium sized companies it’s not anywhere near that.

thatcat 6y ago

Once it became successful the people at the top would organize together to raise their own salaries then maintain that even when economic times change, against the interests of the rest of the company.

dhosek 6y ago
That's how it works now. C-suite compensation is set by compensation committees composed of—you guessed it—C-suite executives.

bscphil 6y ago

You think you're making a point here, but there's a mistake in your reasoning. You're thinking that "fair" pay is whatever allows you to beat the market, and since if Mozilla only paid its c-suite $300k-$500k, it would not (you think) be able to compete with other companies with high paid execs, this proves that whatever they're paying the execs now must be fair. But ... "fair" pay does not mean the same thing as "whatever is financially best for the company to pay its employees". Take the other end of that bargain: is it fair for Mozilla to pay their janitors a reproduction level wage? Most of us (except the hard core right-wing libertarians) say no, that's why we have a minimum wage (which many of us also think is too low). The elision of the distinction between "fair" and "whatever the market rewards you for doing" isn't an argument, it's just crass market-worship. Edit: this post is pretty clearly argued, and downvoting without even a comment is exactly the kind of ideological nonsense that this site simultaneously prides itself on not doing (contra Reddit), and yet hilariously symbolizes.

eitland 6y ago
Have my upvote. But be aware that the edit at the end will probably trigger the downvote reflex for a number of people here (it did on me too, I just consciously overruled it ;-)
Feolkin 6y ago
I wish the site would just get rid of downvotes. Your post is constructive and well-written, doesn't say anything egregiously offensive and isn't trolling and doesn't lack effort. The only reason why you're being downvoted is because some people don't agree on an ideological level. Which is bullshit. You can still respect people who don't share your views, and I wish the site cared to foster that kind of community, instead of promoting another echo chamber.
- cabalamat 6y ago
  > The only reason why you're being downvoted is because some people don't agree on an ideological level. That's not true, I downvoted the past because it complained at being downvoted.
  - Feolkin 6y ago
    And you're just as much a part of the problem. You're blindly punishing him for pointing out that the system is unfair und his post is not and was not deserving of downvotes. It has nothing to do with the content of his actual comment. You're not contributing positively in any way. You're just reinforcing that anybody who speaks out or has a different point of view isn't welcome here.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Downvoting complaints about downvotes is an attempt not to have to read complaints about downvotes. But here's another: please don't complain about downvotes!
- bscphil 6y ago
  > The only reason why you're being downvoted is because some people don't agree on an ideological level. It's a very frustrating thing about this site, because, ironically, most people here think of themselves as nearly perfectly rational and open to new ideas, but in fact the opposite is almost always the case. If I think of myself as perfectly rational, that ironically gives me a way to think that anyone who disagrees with me must be trolling or must be saying something obviously wrong, even if I don't take the time to work out what that might be. I admittedly added that just to complain, expecting it to trigger another wave of downvotes - because frankly, I don't care about getting downvoted. What I care about is how often this site turns into an ideological echo chamber for one of two popular worldviews, and on some level I wanted to try to call attention to that.

stu2b50 6y ago

>Airbnb has suspended all of its marketing in an attempt to save $800 million this year. Its founders will also not take any salary for the next six months, and top executives will take a 50 percent pay cut, according to Reuters. It's one thing to pay market rate for execs who do an excellent job on a rising company for a for-profit, another for a non-profit in decline. And it's a different thing entirely when it's in a global pandemic and recession. CEOs of FOR PROFIT companies with far more financial success have cut their pay if nothing else as good symbol for the rest of the company.

manquer 6y ago

Mozilla Corporation is not a typical business and is wholly owned by a Non Profit, it should not be competitive with businesses . Most non profits ( and investment funds) keep an eye on administrative and management overhead. A well run fund or NGO will keep their administrative overhead as low as possible, most donors/ investors look at this metric. Legal Aid lawyers / social workers or any number of other professions do not / cannot expect a market competitive salary. why is open source development any different ? if C-suite is only working at Mozilla because they are getting market competitive salary, perhaps they the wrong hire. 90% of Mozilla Corporation revenue comes from one deal, and this has been the case for 10+ years. All the fancy salaries has not prevented Firefox from losing market share, nothing management has been able to do change this, why should they be paid this much ? If the management has failed to achieve success as is the case , should not also bear the cost ? or also get laid off/ replaced ?

dgb23 6y ago

There are examples of this. Satoru Iwata comes to mind as a famous one. Another one would be an ex exec I know personally (who was also a founder). Worked two years straight w/o pay to keep the company afloat. Oh and there are also worker cooperatives. They are usually very stable and have a much smaller income gap. > dominate the competition The people/companies who operate like this usually don't have this as a goal. Quite the opposite. They are typically collaborative and opt for stability and sustainability over everything else.

schwartzworld 6y ago

ah yes, a foolproof path to change

pantalaimon 6y ago

Usually when you start a business you don’t pay your CEO 2.5 million. I’d net for most medium sized companies it’s not anywhere near that.