3 ms·

Salaries don't come out of profits. Profits are calculated after employee compensations obviously.

Folcon 3y ago
Sure, but there's a sort of nominal expectation that post salaries, especially salaries of that magnitude an entity has some profit. The obvious exception being they had an unprofitable year but have a gigantic pile of money sat in a bank somewhere.
passwordoops 3y ago
So maybe the CEO compensation should be adjusted accordingly?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > maybe the CEO compensation should be adjusted accordingly? This is outside the domain of unpaid moderators’ unless the CEO’s compensation is threatening the company’s survival. It clearly is not.
  - passwordoops 3y ago
    $193M compensation to lead a business to unprofitability is a problem. Period.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > $193M compensation to lead a business to unprofitability is a problem. Period. The compensation did not lead to unprofitability—it contributed to it. And we have no evidence by which to claim it would have been worse under less-paid management. (Well, with Reddit, we might.) I’m not defending the compensation per se. But arguing everyone at any profitable entity should be paid less until the venture is profitable, irrespective of any other facts, is silly. Particularly when it comes to non-cash compensation.
      - pjc50 3y ago
        > But arguing everyone at any [un?]profitable entity should be paid less until the venture is profitable, irrespective of any other facts, is silly. This is the argument usually made for redundancies: reducing the overall payroll.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > the argument usually made for redundancies: reducing the overall payroll It’s for increasing profits. Redundancies are reduces at profitable and unprofitable firms alike.
hgomersall 3y ago
Ok, but when you look at the forecast, and see an expected loss of 90 million, maybe the CEO should say, perhaps if I was paid 90 million less then we will be in profit, and I would still have enough money to retire in excessive luxury.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- giantg2 3y ago
  Clearly there's a group of people of people who are selfish and think so highly of themselves that this sort of logic will never make sense to them. Any company or executive that says they care about the workers, customers, or cause and is making 8+ figures is lying whether they realize it or not. I realize some people will make the argument that the comp needs to be so high to attract top talent. But there's a pool of talented people who would do it for less. Plenty of non-profits or mission-driven companies have lower paided executives.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- roenxi 3y ago
  Doesn't sound like the CEOs problem; he isn't there to make personal sacrifices to make the company profitable and I don't think anyone would pretend he is. If anyone should be making that observation it is whoever signs off on his compensation. Although the compensation package won't cash so the situation isn't quite that simple.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    It can only be viewed as a sacrifice if you believe he legitimately deserves that much money. That money could be used to increase employee comp instead of shareholder value. That's a lot of money for running an unprofitable business. I wish I was so delusional that I thought I deserved 100s of millions for running an unprofitable company.
pjc50 3y ago
Distinction without a difference. If the salary was lower, the profit would be higher. No, the important distinction is "is that coming from cash or stocks". The cash component of salaries goes in the profit&loss account. See https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1713445/000162828024006294/reddits-1q423.htm#i1b9a579e78a34dfa99f7f26daeec195b_40 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1713445/000162828024... Revenue $804m (!), expenses $944m (!). But I'm having trouble working out which of the expenses breakdown entries has the board salary in. And if it's compensation in stock, does that have to be expensed?

Sure, but there's a sort of nominal expectation that post salaries, especially salaries of that magnitude an entity has some profit. The obvious exception being they had an unprofitable year but have a gigantic pile of money sat in a bank somewhere.

passwordoops 3y ago

So maybe the CEO compensation should be adjusted accordingly?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> maybe the CEO compensation should be adjusted accordingly? This is outside the domain of unpaid moderators’ unless the CEO’s compensation is threatening the company’s survival. It clearly is not.
- passwordoops 3y ago
  $193M compensation to lead a business to unprofitability is a problem. Period.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > $193M compensation to lead a business to unprofitability is a problem. Period. The compensation did not lead to unprofitability—it contributed to it. And we have no evidence by which to claim it would have been worse under less-paid management. (Well, with Reddit, we might.) I’m not defending the compensation per se. But arguing everyone at any profitable entity should be paid less until the venture is profitable, irrespective of any other facts, is silly. Particularly when it comes to non-cash compensation.
    - pjc50 3y ago
      > But arguing everyone at any [un?]profitable entity should be paid less until the venture is profitable, irrespective of any other facts, is silly. This is the argument usually made for redundancies: reducing the overall payroll.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > the argument usually made for redundancies: reducing the overall payroll It’s for increasing profits. Redundancies are reduces at profitable and unprofitable firms alike.

hgomersall 3y ago

Ok, but when you look at the forecast, and see an expected loss of 90 million, maybe the CEO should say, perhaps if I was paid 90 million less then we will be in profit, and I would still have enough money to retire in excessive luxury.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
giantg2 3y ago
Clearly there's a group of people of people who are selfish and think so highly of themselves that this sort of logic will never make sense to them. Any company or executive that says they care about the workers, customers, or cause and is making 8+ figures is lying whether they realize it or not. I realize some people will make the argument that the comp needs to be so high to attract top talent. But there's a pool of talented people who would do it for less. Plenty of non-profits or mission-driven companies have lower paided executives.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
roenxi 3y ago
Doesn't sound like the CEOs problem; he isn't there to make personal sacrifices to make the company profitable and I don't think anyone would pretend he is. If anyone should be making that observation it is whoever signs off on his compensation. Although the compensation package won't cash so the situation isn't quite that simple.
- giantg2 3y ago
  It can only be viewed as a sacrifice if you believe he legitimately deserves that much money. That money could be used to increase employee comp instead of shareholder value. That's a lot of money for running an unprofitable business. I wish I was so delusional that I thought I deserved 100s of millions for running an unprofitable company.

pjc50 3y ago

Distinction without a difference. If the salary was lower, the profit would be higher. No, the important distinction is "is that coming from cash or stocks". The cash component of salaries goes in the profit&loss account. See https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1713445/000162828024006294/reddits-1q423.htm#i1b9a579e78a34dfa99f7f26daeec195b_40 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1713445/000162828024... Revenue $804m (!), expenses $944m (!). But I'm having trouble working out which of the expenses breakdown entries has the board salary in. And if it's compensation in stock, does that have to be expensed?