[throwaway09223]

Board retainers aren't significant expense anywhere as far as I'm aware. Often their stipends are less than an employee's pay.

For example, Google's board stipend is $100k, which is about half the median total comp of an average employee (less, counting benefits). Walmart I think pays their board $60k.

You may be thinking of executive comp, but even then it is generally not significant amount. You could completely eliminate and redistribute executive compensation at Wal-Mart and it wouldn't really make a measurable difference in employee hourly salaries.

[vlovich123]

That's not accurate. The board meets maybe 4 times a year. Let's be generous and say they work one full calendar month of the year. That means their pro-rated stipend is actually 1.2 M/year. Google employees who only choose to work one month of the year can do so, but the median salary would be 16k dollars. AFAIK board members don't put in a month's worth of work so that 1.2 M/year is an underestimate. They also can sit on multiple boards simultaneously whereas moonlighting in multiple companies is not generally possible in the same way.

[throwaway09223]

We're discussing whether redistributing the board stipends would change individual salaries and the clear answer is it will not, even in the most extreme situations.

But, to your point regarding prorated comp: I've been a salaried employee at a company like Google. I've also been a board member.

First, like many senior tech employees my total comp market rate is in the seven figures. A pro-rated 1.2M stipend would be appropriate to compensate me for my time. The average board retainer for less profitable companies is closer to $30k/yr. These are not entry level positions and the retainers are shockingly low in the vast majority of cases. (In my case, I'm on the board of a non-profit and I actually pay them)

Second, I think you are underestimating how little some salaried workers actually work. I think if you try you can find more than a few Google employees who only work one month a year ;) Conversely: I work far harder in my role as a board member than I used to in my salaried role. It's different for everyone of course, but I assure you no one is seeking out board seat retainers as a way to get rich. It's just not worth it.

[Thorrez]

>but I assure you no one is seeking out board seat retainers as a way to get rich.

Can they be leveraged for networking to get a CEO job in the future?

[TulliusCicero]

The pro-rated version is irrelevant, since the comment was talking about board salaries going down in order to fund higher salaries elsewhere.

[Epa095]

I did not read it as "in order", but rather "and". So both happen, but I did not see a causation in the post.

[showerst]

Walmart is a bad comparison there; they have an enormous headcount of low-paid staff. Many tech companies are far lower headcount, but with high executive pay.

Looking at some other companies, Activision-Blizzard's CEO alone makes enough to pay every employee a $15,000 bonus. Reed Hastings at Netflix makes enough to pay every employee $3800. And that's not counting any of the rest of the executive staff, or all the other ways money flows out of a company to non-employees, like dividends and stock buybacks.

https://www.equilar.com/reports/83-equilar-associated-press-...

I think there's certainly a lot of room for wages to go up, though i'm skeptical that it will come at the expense of things like executive pay or share buybacks.

[throwaway09223]

Activision-Blizzard's board get 350k. If they earned $0 instead, this would only give each employee an extra $35 per year. That's including their stock compensation.

As you say, most goes to investors. Which makes sense as they actually own the company.

[jeromegv]

OP was talking about executives (CEO, VPs), not board.

[throwaway09223]

I am OP's OP and I was talking about the board.

[TulliusCicero]

> board salary go down a bit

[TulliusCicero]

The comment referred to specifically said "board salaries", not executive pay more broadly.