zlacker

>>akolbe+(OP)
Sure but pointing out $350k executive salaries as somehow lavish is strange. That seems low for an executive at one of the most important (or at least, most viewed) websites on the planet.

>>yupper+5b
$350k salaries _are_ lavish, though. It seems strange to me that people would argue otherwise.

>>JohnFe+Uf
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.

>>dane-p+8k
> 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.

>>0xbadc+ip
> 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?

>>yupper+hJ
It matters because "normal" people are the ones paying those extravagant salaries in the end.

>>JohnFe+WL
Those normal people should know that $350k is a steal.

>>yupper+fN
Indeed.