zlacker

[parent] [thread] 16 comments
1. mcguir+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-09-14 19:04:29
Sundar Pichai gets ~$250M. Parag Agrawal gets something like $30M.
replies(2): >>zihotk+a4 >>Dma54r+Le
◧
2. zihotk+a4[view] [source] 2022-09-14 19:22:56
>>mcguir+(OP)
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
replies(2): >>kemayo+Bc >>themit+uI
◧◩
3. kemayo+Bc[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-14 19:58:04
>>zihotk+a4
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.
replies(2): >>akolbe+Eu >>LegitS+Rv
◧
4. Dma54r+Le[view] [source] 2022-09-14 20:09:14
>>mcguir+(OP)
People working for them earn 100k+, Wikipedia has volunteers writhing the content for free.
replies(1): >>yupper+qn
◧◩
5. yupper+qn[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-14 20:54:12
>>Dma54r+Le
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.

replies(1): >>akolbe+sv
◧◩◪
6. akolbe+Eu[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-14 21:30:17
>>kemayo+Bc
Why not hire in Europe, or Asia? Almost all of them work remotely.
◧◩◪
7. akolbe+sv[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-14 21:35:27
>>yupper+qn
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.)

replies(1): >>yupper+lz
◧◩◪
8. LegitS+Rv[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-14 21:38:14
>>kemayo+Bc
WMF is not a tech company, and their value is not in their tech. Their value is in their user created and populated content .
replies(2): >>themit+xI >>kemayo+W01
◧◩◪◨
9. yupper+lz[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-14 21:55:24
>>akolbe+sv
$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.)

replies(1): >>akolbe+kI
◧◩◪◨⬒
10. akolbe+kI[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-14 22:48:05
>>yupper+lz
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.)
replies(1): >>yupper+vk3
◧◩
11. themit+uI[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-14 22:49:04
>>zihotk+a4
Compared to other non profit tech companies
◧◩◪◨
12. themit+xI[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-14 22:49:24
>>LegitS+Rv
So youtube isn't a tech company?
replies(1): >>chmod7+dY1
◧◩◪◨
13. kemayo+W01[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-15 01:00:34
>>LegitS+Rv
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.
replies(1): >>chmod7+lW1
◧◩◪◨⬒
14. chmod7+lW1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-15 09:20:39
>>kemayo+W01
> 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.

replies(1): >>mcguir+qf7
◧◩◪◨⬒
15. chmod7+dY1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-15 09:38:07
>>themit+xI
It's not. YouTube is an online video platform.

YouTube however is a subsidiary of Alphabet, which is a tech company.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
16. yupper+vk3[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-15 16:35:49
>>akolbe+kI
Please focus on one thing at a time. I think you're starting to come around to the idea that maybe Wikipedia has an appropriate amount of funding and is spending an appropriate amount of money?

You can just keep moving the goal posts every time you get proven wrong.

Also, you were complaining about Wikipedia being in the US/SF, when the Internet Archive is also in SF.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
17. mcguir+qf7[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-09-16 17:50:26
>>chmod7+lW1
Neither Google nor Meta are tech companies, either. They're advertising companies.
[go to top]