4 ms·

I don't think this has anything to do with arrogance, this is simply the market value speaking. Ginni Rometty did something similar with IBM; while being a terr

I don't think this has anything to do with arrogance, this is simply the market value speaking. Ginni Rometty did something similar with IBM; while being a terrible CEO ("IBM was the worst-performing large-cap tech stock during Rometty's tenure, dropping 24%" [1]), she got a whopping $20M per year [2] during her first 7 years of being a CEO, and she got $20M golden parachute [3] upon leaving the shell of an IBM. This is not arrogance. This is simply the pay of a CEO, regardless of their performance. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/31/ibm-was-worst-performing-large-cap-tech-stock-during-romettys-tenure.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/31/ibm-was-worst-performing-lar... [2] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-01-31/ginni-romettys-tarnished-record-ibm https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-01-31/ginni-rome... [3] https://www.silicon.co.uk/workspace/ibm-ginni-rometty-20m-335402 https://www.silicon.co.uk/workspace/ibm-ginni-rometty-20m-33...

II2II 5y ago
Mozilla is not IBM. They may compete against the likes of Google, Microsoft, and Apple, yet they are not those companies either. The scope of their business interests are minuscule in comparison. Heck, their share of the markets that they do compete with those companies in pales in comparison. So yes, there is an element of arrogance in her claim.
- BossingAround 5y ago
  Mozilla is not IBM; Rometti got 20 mil while the Mozilla CEO got 2 mil. CEO to CEO, different markets, different rates, the same principle applies.
  - lenkite 5y ago
    IBM revenue was $54.1 billion in 2021. Mozilla around ~0.5 billion - a ratio of ~100. Thus, Mozilla CEO should get only 0.2 million not 2 million.
    - BossingAround 5y ago
      Well, I'd say not everything is linear. All I'm saying is, this is nowhere near as arrogant as the OP made it sound. The difference between 0.2 million and 2 million for a board of directors is literally a rounding error.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
tfehring 5y ago
IBM is more than two orders of magnitude bigger than Mozilla in terms of both spending and headcount. On a log scale, Mozilla's scale is about halfway between IBM and your local McDonald's franchise. CEOs of smaller companies typically don't command that level of compensation, and when they do, it's generally because the company performed well and their pay was heavily perforamnce-based.
krageon 5y ago
> This is not arrogance. This is simply the pay of a CEO You have a social responsibility to take care of the people working below you, which as a CEO is everyone. If you fire them and give yourself a raise, perhaps it is not arrogance but it definitely is gross negligence. No amount of "this is simply the market value" corporate doublespeak is going to change the fact that doing so takes you further and further from being an actual human being. Perhaps this is okay with you, but I think it should be questioned and mocked.
mcv 5y ago
> I don't think this has anything to do with arrogance, this is simply the market value speaking. What market value? Firefox's market share is down 85%. It's hard to believe there's not someone cheaper and more capable available. This sort of extravagant CEO pay might be excusable if the company is actually booming, but in this case, it really looks like it's just plain greed: loot the company while running it into the ground.
hoseja 5y ago
What "CEO"? Does every mom-and-pop shop get a "CEO" with $3M compensation? Does every startup? I don't think Mozilla leadership deserves to be placed among big tech executives with standardized pay.
chucksta 5y ago
An industry standard of arrogance is still arrogance.
mitchdoogle 5y ago
If that's what the market rate is, then let them go work somewhere else. There are hundreds of thousands of individuals capable of doing these jobs making nowhere near as much - plenty of them would do it better.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Look no further than Japan and compare CEO pay vs American companies.
birdyrooster 5y ago
Where is the board in all of this?!
- BossingAround 5y ago
  Saying "yes" to a powerpoint presentation about why a poor CEO should be given a $20M bonus due to staggering bonuses of other CEOs (such as in Facebook or Google) while underperforming as fuck.

II2II 5y ago

Mozilla is not IBM. They may compete against the likes of Google, Microsoft, and Apple, yet they are not those companies either. The scope of their business interests are minuscule in comparison. Heck, their share of the markets that they do compete with those companies in pales in comparison. So yes, there is an element of arrogance in her claim.

BossingAround 5y ago
Mozilla is not IBM; Rometti got 20 mil while the Mozilla CEO got 2 mil. CEO to CEO, different markets, different rates, the same principle applies.
- lenkite 5y ago
  IBM revenue was $54.1 billion in 2021. Mozilla around ~0.5 billion - a ratio of ~100. Thus, Mozilla CEO should get only 0.2 million not 2 million.
  - BossingAround 5y ago
    Well, I'd say not everything is linear. All I'm saying is, this is nowhere near as arrogant as the OP made it sound. The difference between 0.2 million and 2 million for a board of directors is literally a rounding error.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

tfehring 5y ago

IBM is more than two orders of magnitude bigger than Mozilla in terms of both spending and headcount. On a log scale, Mozilla's scale is about halfway between IBM and your local McDonald's franchise. CEOs of smaller companies typically don't command that level of compensation, and when they do, it's generally because the company performed well and their pay was heavily perforamnce-based.

krageon 5y ago

> This is not arrogance. This is simply the pay of a CEO You have a social responsibility to take care of the people working below you, which as a CEO is everyone. If you fire them and give yourself a raise, perhaps it is not arrogance but it definitely is gross negligence. No amount of "this is simply the market value" corporate doublespeak is going to change the fact that doing so takes you further and further from being an actual human being. Perhaps this is okay with you, but I think it should be questioned and mocked.

mcv 5y ago

> I don't think this has anything to do with arrogance, this is simply the market value speaking. What market value? Firefox's market share is down 85%. It's hard to believe there's not someone cheaper and more capable available. This sort of extravagant CEO pay might be excusable if the company is actually booming, but in this case, it really looks like it's just plain greed: loot the company while running it into the ground.

hoseja 5y ago

What "CEO"? Does every mom-and-pop shop get a "CEO" with $3M compensation? Does every startup? I don't think Mozilla leadership deserves to be placed among big tech executives with standardized pay.

chucksta 5y ago

An industry standard of arrogance is still arrogance.

mitchdoogle 5y ago

If that's what the market rate is, then let them go work somewhere else. There are hundreds of thousands of individuals capable of doing these jobs making nowhere near as much - plenty of them would do it better.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
Look no further than Japan and compare CEO pay vs American companies.

birdyrooster 5y ago

Where is the board in all of this?!

BossingAround 5y ago
Saying "yes" to a powerpoint presentation about why a poor CEO should be given a $20M bonus due to staggering bonuses of other CEOs (such as in Facebook or Google) while underperforming as fuck.