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

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

>>Dma54r+BF
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.

>>yupper+gO
How about comparing it to the Internet Archive (2019)? 169 employees, $11M salary costs:

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943...

Wikimedia Foundation (2019): 291 employees, $56M salary costs.

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.)

>>akolbe+iW
$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.)