It may be lavish, but if an executive paid $350k is 35% less likely to make a mistake that would cost the organisation $1m (which is about 1% of their budget), compared to a volunteer working for free, then maybe, from the organisation's point of view, the expenditure is cheap.
Of course, judging performance like that is very difficult, and predicting it in advance is even harder, so it's possible that the highly paid executive would actually perform worse than a volunteer (or a random number generator), but if the complaint about "lavishness" is really about inequality (i.e. the executive's standard of living being much higher than they need / the median citizen's) then that criticism should probably be directed at the tax policies of the relevant governments.
> from the organisation's point of view, the expenditure is cheap
But from any normal person's perspective, it's expensive.
The difference is who is in control and what are their priorities and influences. Since "the organization" is making the decisions - and, completely incidentally, "the CEO" is the head of "the organization" - it just so happens that "the organization" finds that "the CEO" should be paid lavishly.
> But from any normal person's perspective, it's expensive.
Why does it matter what that hypothetical "normal" person thinks? Does that "normal" person have insight into how much it costs to hire a competent executive?
> if an executive paid $350k is 35% less likely to make a mistake that would cost the organisation $1m (which is about 1% of their budget), compared to a volunteer working for free, then maybe, from the organisation's point of view, the expenditure is cheap.
True, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that's a realistic hypothetical at all.
I don't see any reason for an executive to be less likely to make a mistake. And considering that the core business is rock solid and didn't change much in last many years, I don't even see a potential for such mistake.
> It may be lavish, but if an executive paid $350k is 35% less likely to make a mistake that would cost the organisation $1m (which is about 1% of their budget), compared to a volunteer working for free, then maybe, from the organisation's point of view, the expenditure is cheap.
They're not though. Especially not multiple of them providing the same service.
I suppose they meant relatively speaking. Taking into account how massive of a project Wikipedia is and hence how much responsibility the position has.
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
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.
Yes. OTOH, United states has one of the best free speech protections in the world. It would make sense, to have the key people and data centers in the US. EU, however, has better privacy protection initiatives.
But that's apples and oranges. People who work at those companies are presumably being paid that because they are (or at least believed to be) making more in profit for the company than they are being paid. It's the same reason why professional football players and movie actors make so much. But consider ballet dancers or stage actors -- they may be just as athletic or as good actors as the football players or movie actors are, but they are in a far less profitable field. So they make less. The people in these jobs are just motivated by their passion rather than by salary.
In a sense they are, but comparable to executive salaries at companies with roughly comparable tech/services, those salaries are probably very low.
Probably any tech company of note is paying "executives" far, far more than that, at least in the US.
I don't think it's valid to think extravagant pay rates are not extravagant simply because other executives are also paid extravagant rates.
They are all a bit over-the-top.
Extravagant is a subjective term and for pay it's relative to the location, position, experience, etc.
It may be lavish, but if an executive paid $350k is 35% less likely to make a mistake that would cost the organisation $1m (which is about 1% of their budget), compared to a volunteer working for free, then maybe, from the organisation's point of view, the expenditure is cheap.
Of course, judging performance like that is very difficult, and predicting it in advance is even harder, so it's possible that the highly paid executive would actually perform worse than a volunteer (or a random number generator), but if the complaint about "lavishness" is really about inequality (i.e. the executive's standard of living being much higher than they need / the median citizen's) then that criticism should probably be directed at the tax policies of the relevant governments.
> from the organisation's point of view, the expenditure is cheap
But from any normal person's perspective, it's expensive.
The difference is who is in control and what are their priorities and influences. Since "the organization" is making the decisions - and, completely incidentally, "the CEO" is the head of "the organization" - it just so happens that "the organization" finds that "the CEO" should be paid lavishly.
Rich people gonna prioritize rich people.
> But from any normal person's perspective, it's expensive.
Why does it matter what that hypothetical "normal" person thinks? Does that "normal" person have insight into how much it costs to hire a competent executive?
7 replies →
> if an executive paid $350k is 35% less likely to make a mistake that would cost the organisation $1m (which is about 1% of their budget), compared to a volunteer working for free, then maybe, from the organisation's point of view, the expenditure is cheap.
True, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that's a realistic hypothetical at all.
Some of the most expensive WMF execs have been complete disasters, exiting after a year or two and leaving the entire organisation in disarray.
3 replies →
I don't see any reason for an executive to be less likely to make a mistake. And considering that the core business is rock solid and didn't change much in last many years, I don't even see a potential for such mistake.
> It may be lavish, but if an executive paid $350k is 35% less likely to make a mistake that would cost the organisation $1m (which is about 1% of their budget), compared to a volunteer working for free, then maybe, from the organisation's point of view, the expenditure is cheap.
They're not though. Especially not multiple of them providing the same service.
I suppose they meant relatively speaking. Taking into account how massive of a project Wikipedia is and hence how much responsibility the position has.
I don't understand this. Do you think that an executive's responsibilities scale with the size of the enterprise? I don't think that's true.
In fact, I would argue that an executive at a small operation has more responsibility than one at a large operation.
Sundar Pichai gets ~$250M. Parag Agrawal gets something like $30M.
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
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.
8 replies →
Compared to other non profit tech companies
People working for them earn 100k+, Wikipedia has volunteers writhing the content for free.
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.
4 replies →
Not in SF. Maybe there is a case to be made to move Wikipedia operations outside Bay area.
Maybe there is a case for moving much of it outside the US? Lots of staffers work remotely anyway.
Yes. OTOH, United states has one of the best free speech protections in the world. It would make sense, to have the key people and data centers in the US. EU, however, has better privacy protection initiatives.
1 reply →
Uh, what?
SDEs with a few YOE are getting this no problem at top companies. Why wouldn't the CEO of the fifth biggest website on the internet?
But that's apples and oranges. People who work at those companies are presumably being paid that because they are (or at least believed to be) making more in profit for the company than they are being paid. It's the same reason why professional football players and movie actors make so much. But consider ballet dancers or stage actors -- they may be just as athletic or as good actors as the football players or movie actors are, but they are in a far less profitable field. So they make less. The people in these jobs are just motivated by their passion rather than by salary.
Those SDEs are also paid extravagantly.