4 ms·

Sundar Pichai gets ~$250M. Parag Agrawal gets something like $30M.

zihotki 4y ago
Apples and oranges, you should instead compare it with other non-profits. According to top links in search for 'non profit ceo salary' give me average salary numbers about $150k
- kemayo 4y ago
  I'd say it's still a tricky comparison because the WMF is (reductively) a tech company, and tech sector salaries remain pretty high. For a lot of roles they need to fill, they're competing with other tech companies for those employees, not just other nonprofits. A salary that's fantastic by average-nonprofit standards might be vastly underpaying someone who's deciding between a job at the WMF or Google.
  - akolbe 4y ago
    Why not hire in Europe, or Asia? Almost all of them work remotely.
  - LegitShady 4y ago
    WMF is not a tech company, and their value is not in their tech. Their value is in their user created and populated content .
    - themitigating 4y ago
      So youtube isn't a tech company?
      - chmod775 4y ago
        It's not. YouTube is an online video platform. YouTube however is a subsidiary of Alphabet, which is a tech company.
    - kemayo 4y ago
      WMF is a company that's mostly engaged in maintaining a tech product, and much of its hiring needs are for people who'd otherwise be working in tech. If it's not in the tech sector then there's not any meaning to that category.
      - chmod775 4y ago
        > If it's not in the tech sector then there's not any meaning to that category. They're not in the business of selling/providing tech and there's nothing technologically novel about what they do. What they do is providing and managing an encyclopedia. Their value proposition isn't some tech, it's their content. In fact you've got it the wrong way around, because if the bar to being a "tech company" was using or maintaining some sort of technology, then pretty much every company would be a tech company nowadays. In that scenario the category would be truly meaningless. The easiest way to spot a tech company is looking at their R&D spending: a tech company is constantly exploring instead of just maintaining.
        mcguire 4y ago
        Neither Google nor Meta are tech companies, either. They're advertising companies.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- themitigating 4y ago
  Compared to other non profit tech companies
Dma54rhs 4y ago
People working for them earn 100k+, Wikipedia has volunteers writhing the content for free.
- yupper32 4y ago
  If you want to compare it based on the people working for each company: Parag has around 3900 employees. Wikipedia has around 550. Around 7x multiplier. $30m / 7 = ~$4.3mil Sundar has around 135k employees. 245x multiplier. $250m / 245 = ~$1mil. $350k seems like a steal no matter how you put it.
  - akolbe 4y ago
    How about comparing it to the Internet Archive (2019)? 169 employees, $11M salary costs: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943242767/202013219349323056/full https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943... Wikimedia Foundation (2019): 291 employees, $56M salary costs. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200049703/202101319349300105/full https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200... Less than twice the US employees, more than five times the salary costs. (Both orgs also have some non-US employees included in the salary costs total, but they are a small minority of the staff.)
    - yupper32 4y ago
      $11mil / 169 = ~$65k / employee. So average pay at Internet Archive is barely over the median salary in the US? That's not good. Salary costs don't need to be looked at as something to aggressively push down. You can treat your employees well while still being a non-profit. (Though I'm not claiming wikipedia treats their employees well, I have no idea.)
      - akolbe 4y ago
        Well, ask yourself which org needs donations more urgently. (Last I looked the Internet Archive were being sued for lending scans of books – books they had physically bought – to one user at a time online.)

Apples and oranges, you should instead compare it with other non-profits. According to top links in search for 'non profit ceo salary' give me average salary numbers about $150k

kemayo 4y ago
I'd say it's still a tricky comparison because the WMF is (reductively) a tech company, and tech sector salaries remain pretty high. For a lot of roles they need to fill, they're competing with other tech companies for those employees, not just other nonprofits. A salary that's fantastic by average-nonprofit standards might be vastly underpaying someone who's deciding between a job at the WMF or Google.
- akolbe 4y ago
  Why not hire in Europe, or Asia? Almost all of them work remotely.
- LegitShady 4y ago
  WMF is not a tech company, and their value is not in their tech. Their value is in their user created and populated content .
  - themitigating 4y ago
    So youtube isn't a tech company?
    - chmod775 4y ago
      It's not. YouTube is an online video platform. YouTube however is a subsidiary of Alphabet, which is a tech company.
  - kemayo 4y ago
    WMF is a company that's mostly engaged in maintaining a tech product, and much of its hiring needs are for people who'd otherwise be working in tech. If it's not in the tech sector then there's not any meaning to that category.
    - chmod775 4y ago
      > If it's not in the tech sector then there's not any meaning to that category. They're not in the business of selling/providing tech and there's nothing technologically novel about what they do. What they do is providing and managing an encyclopedia. Their value proposition isn't some tech, it's their content. In fact you've got it the wrong way around, because if the bar to being a "tech company" was using or maintaining some sort of technology, then pretty much every company would be a tech company nowadays. In that scenario the category would be truly meaningless. The easiest way to spot a tech company is looking at their R&D spending: a tech company is constantly exploring instead of just maintaining.
      - mcguire 4y ago
        Neither Google nor Meta are tech companies, either. They're advertising companies.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
themitigating 4y ago
Compared to other non profit tech companies

Dma54rhs 4y ago

People working for them earn 100k+, Wikipedia has volunteers writhing the content for free.

yupper32 4y ago
If you want to compare it based on the people working for each company: Parag has around 3900 employees. Wikipedia has around 550. Around 7x multiplier. $30m / 7 = ~$4.3mil Sundar has around 135k employees. 245x multiplier. $250m / 245 = ~$1mil. $350k seems like a steal no matter how you put it.
- akolbe 4y ago
  How about comparing it to the Internet Archive (2019)? 169 employees, $11M salary costs: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943242767/202013219349323056/full https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943... Wikimedia Foundation (2019): 291 employees, $56M salary costs. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200049703/202101319349300105/full https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200... Less than twice the US employees, more than five times the salary costs. (Both orgs also have some non-US employees included in the salary costs total, but they are a small minority of the staff.)
  - yupper32 4y ago
    $11mil / 169 = ~$65k / employee. So average pay at Internet Archive is barely over the median salary in the US? That's not good. Salary costs don't need to be looked at as something to aggressively push down. You can treat your employees well while still being a non-profit. (Though I'm not claiming wikipedia treats their employees well, I have no idea.)
    - akolbe 4y ago
      Well, ask yourself which org needs donations more urgently. (Last I looked the Internet Archive were being sued for lending scans of books – books they had physically bought – to one user at a time online.)